Yeah I already linked to that and mentioned the very same thing on the previous page!

Glad to know you've seen it too though!

Thanks to the OP for the thread; its this sort of thing for which I come to ATS.

Are there any other signs in, say, Full Mental Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut? Or did he give up on telling the true Apollo 11 story by then.

There is an old claim that the moonshots were faked, not because the earth is flat, but because humans would be killed by radiation as they passed through the van allen belts; that this is why the international space station and the US space shuttles operate at comparatively low altitudes. In this view, the US landed robot cameras on the moon, and faked the human presence. In this view, humans will always be limited to living solely on planet earth, like a rare species of frog that only lives at one watering hole in a vast sandy desert.

NASA has certainly been successful in branding anyone who believes the Apollo missions were faked as a "flat-earther," even though the missions could have been faked for a wide variety of reasons, from biological impossibility, to budget limitations.

Certainly, so many millions were poured into NASA, that if the Apollos were faked, the saved money could have been passed to the CIA and the defense department with no need to account for the money...

Is there anyone who assisted Kubrik on the fakeshoot, that went on to direct movies of their own? if so, there'd be other telltale signs perhaps...

the shining was Steven King.

Kubrick adapted it and put his own twist on it. Its not a movie about faking the moon landing.

Its about how the native's of america were thrown off their own land.
look it up.
im sure kubrick even talks about it.

To the Op, thanks for the thread. Your thread is based on a theory. Your theory is as legitimate as many others and more legitimate than some i see in the Aliens board.

This begs a couple of questions, one you have already asked.

The first question as you so rightly asked is why was this moved to skunkworks? You show evidence to support your theory in many of the stills from the film. Some more applicable than others, but they are there.

The second question, of which Im sure you are now aware, is, why are so many people eager to shoot down this theory off the cuff?.

I can understand debunkers hitting through lack of evidence, but camon! It is a theory, the ops theory which he has backed up. I dont see many debunking his theory with evidence. And not many with pictures like the stills promoted to back up the theory.

Respects

[edit on 21-1-2010 by captiva]

To the people jumping immediately at the 237,000 miles, and saying this is wrong.... just Google this phrase ''237,000 miles moon earth'' and see that the figure is a very commonly used figure for the distance to the Moon. You have to think about this as if you are in elementary school and this is the figure your teacher tells you because it is in your elementary text book. What did you want? Did you want Kubrick to make the room number 238.857 super scientificalistically? Come on. Your type of thought process is exactly what keeps you from seeing reality.

Originally posted by groingrinder
What are the chances that anyone knows the exact orbit of the moon to derive the exact average distance from? So Kubrik's source got the mileage wrong by a small amount comparatively speaking...

or maybe (and more likely, in my opinion) "Room 237" had nothing whatsoever to do with the Moon. I suppose using your logic, he could have used anywhere from, say, Room 236 to Room 240 and still be "close enough" to 238,000 miles.

I think the correlation between "Room 237" and 238,000 miles from the earth to the Moon is an extremely shaky one at best.



[edit on 1/22/2010 by Box of Rain]

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
...Great link to a great blog. The thing about the light switches appearing and disappearing was good. Stuff like this lets you know that Kubrick is putting a lot of thought into his movies. There are no mistakes. He is putting serious clues in there...

What is the correlation between disappearing light switches and the Moon Hoax?

I admit that Kubrick intentionally changed some things relative to the novel, and there were inconsistencies with the sets, but how are these secret messages relating to a Moon hoax?

OK, I have read both articles, and while some of the examples cited from "The Shining" are intriguing (room 217 = 237 - see note below)and some compelling (Danny with the Apollo 11 sweatshirt) I think that alot of the symbolism cited is yet another form of Pareidolia. Alot can be inferred symbolically, in fact, can mean whatever the observer wants it to mean.

I think the room number change could indeed be code for moon / earth distance = 237, 000miles. But why not 236, where 2+3+6 = 11 as in Apollo 11? or seeing as it is a lower value than 365, why not a certain date of the year? the 237th day of the year in 69 was August 25, while July 16th (launch date) was the 197th day by my count.

the evidence shows that the pics from the moon may be faked, I know many altered, but I don't believe the entire landing was faked, I think we have been lied to about what is up there.

I think Kubrick created a subtle meme in 2001. Something for the kids.

I remember watching this movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" when it was released on television. I was in 5th grade. The next day, it was talked about on the playground. The only thing we could think of that the film was telling our little mind was this.

We came to the conclusion that day on the playground that the movie was telling us that the Moon was the Earth. Thinking about it now, makes my skin crawl! Now I see that Kubrick (didn't know who he was in 5th grade!) was trying to tell us that the Earth was literally used as the Moon.

I am still creeped out that Kubrick penetrated our young minds like that.

Here is a quick question for everybody. Has anybody checked the number switches with the history of the real hotel that inspired the story?

Stephen King wrote this story while staying in a hotel that was suppoed haunted. Some of the history informed parts of the story. Maybe the director was delving more in to the history of the location. Just an idea for somebody with the time or desire to chase.

IMHO I enjoyed it!! and have an opened mind about things of this nature when presented in htis fashion - Just like the Wizard of OZ and how Pink Floyds album The Dark Side of the Moon roll almost hand in hand when you turn the movies volumn down witht eh sound of Pink Floyd turned up it is amazingly mind blowing....None the less this is a nice find!!!

In the theory's favour, Kubrick was obsessive about every aspect of his film making - I would venture that there is nothing in his films that was not intended to be there. I always take note of any books I see in Kubrick's films, the titles usually have some bearing on the film's message.

However, is it about the moon landings being faked? I don't think so. Personally I am convinced enough by the scientific evidence that we did go there. I'd also want to see some more evidence such as proof that Kubrick's whereabouts were unknown during the time he was supposed to be filming the hoax before I put any more credence in this theory.

That said, it's stuff like this that makes me love Kubrick films so much. It doesn't matter how many times you watch them, there is always something new that you've not spotted before or a new interpretation that makes you see the film in a different light. He truly was a genius and I guess if anyone could have pulled off a hoaxed moon landing it would have been him.