Was "THE SHINING" Stanley Kubrick's Confession to having faked the moon landing?

www.youtube.com...

will probably start a separate thread thanks for the information, want more people to see this documentary.

I found another source that really goes in-depth in analyzing Kubrick's changes and while I'm posting this I've realy only the beginning, I don't know if this blog includes anything the moon. One thing, though, the scene with the kid in the hallway wearing a sweater with the name Apollo who stands up giving the impression of a rising Apollo 11, the blogger says that what is considered a 11 is, in his view, the exhaust of the Apollo rocket. Beats me. But I'm gonna have to get the movie to watch while I read all of the clues this guy has uncovered but, once again, not necessarily connected with the moon or a hoax. Just mysterious stuff.
jonnys53.blogspot.com...

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!

I saw this on Discovery.com today. Was going to make a thread, but this one already exists...

Here is the link:

news.discovery.com...

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 fanthorpe

Here is a link to a website with a really in depth look at some of the symbolism in The Shining.

jonnys53.blogspot.com...

Interesting to note that he believes that the sweater doesn't say Apollo 11, I strongly disagree with that notion.

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.

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.

reply to post by Box of Rain


It's a light bulb moment. Stanley is flipping the switch.

Something that is absolutely amazing is the part early in the movie, on the car ride to the hotel, the conversation turns to a tale of snow-bound cannibalism, Wendy isn't sure little Danny should be hearing such things, Danny says it is alright because he saw a show about it on television, and Jack says with extreme sarcasm "See, it's okay. He saw it on the television".

The whole world believes in the Moon landing simply because they saw it on the television. Later in the movie Danny is actually wearing an Apollo 11 sweater for crying out loud! Well of course it must be true. He saw it on the television!

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.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


Man, that is odd. Can you explain that a bit more. How did you and your 5th grade friends come to this conclusion that the Earth was being used as a Moon setting?

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.

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
reply to post by mike_trivisonno

 

Man, that is odd. Can you explain that a bit more. How did you and your 5th grade friends come to this conclusion that the Earth was being used as a Moon setting?

We did not come to that conclusion. We were trying to understand the plot.

We thought that in the past that man evolved on the Moon and somehow came to Earth. That was why the monolith was found on the Moon. We thought it was part of the plot: that somehow, early Man left the Moon (and their beloved monolith) and came to Earth. Then the ape-men evolved and now re-discover the monolith. Silly and totally wrong, yes, but we were just kids and none of us read the book at that age. It was the only way we could explain how the monolith was on the Earth and the Moon.

Of course, once old enough to read and understand the book, our playground musings were rendered quite wrong indeed.

Only now, after reading the articles suggested by the OP, 30 years later, do I realize how this notion may have been purposely crafted into the movie by the director and sat dormant until now.

I always thought Kubrick was the most talented Director ever to walk to earth, but now I know he is magnitudes more talented.

I don't buy the confession thing but just to be clear the movie the Shining is not the same as the book -- Kubrick didn't really like the book so much and the author didn't like the movie so much. That's my understanding at least.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

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.