nonhocapito wrote: pdgalles wrote:
Why not imagine that Kubrick has been linked with the faked Moon landings as a way of distracting from ALL news media being faked, ie. it required a top-notch director to pull off such a stunt. So, tell me, which director did 9/11?
When it comes to hollywood, it might not be so simple to put aside such connections as "distractions".
If it is true that 2001: A space Odyssey
came out in 1968 as a preparation for and as comparison to the upcoming Apollo 11 mission, to support the credibility of Apollo by making fiction relatable yet more far fetched than the proposed reality, then the two things go hand in hand giving a special role to Hollywood in general and Kubrick in particular in relation to the moon landings
Then there is the question of the techniques used, that in many cases seem very similar; not only regarding the scenery on the moon but also with the images from the orbiter.
All the other "coincidences" and "clues" that can or cannot be found in Kubrick movies acquire meaning and relevance from these observations.
I think Simon is on the right track by wanting to investigate more of this relation. Not as much to put the blame on Kubrick (heck, "Kubrick" might even be a faked identity covering up the work of someone else), but because the connections might help to better expose the relation between the entertainment industry and media fakery. I don't see how it can damage the research on media fakery the notion that certain faked events require a helping hand from Hollywood's talents.
It doesn't have to be the focus of our whole research, but also not be left out for fear that it can be a distraction. It is whatever we find out it is.
To lay out a scenario, in order to explain my point in more detail:
i. 1968: Kubrick makes 2001
, a technically advanced sci-fi film.
ii. 1969: The Moon landings are faked, probably by a group of random technicians.
We pause here to note that 2001
does not contain explicit hints as to the Moon landings being faked, just as DeLillo's work does not contain explicit hints to fake terror. The two are just muddying the water between "fact" and fiction, seeming to hint at something but never just coming out and saying what we want them to: "Hey guys, it's all fake."
...11 years pass...
iii. 1980: Kubrick makes The Shining
, based on a novel by Stephen King, which, as the Weidner documentary notes, differs from the film in significant ways
Now we are meant to believe, based on the ideas contained in the Weidner documentary, that Kubrick embedded more or less explicit hints in The Shining
that reveal his part in directing the Moon landings. But we have seen many times that "conspiracy theories" are written in to fake events, e.g. Bush being told of the 9/11 attacks and remaining in the school; the "stand down" of the airforce on 9/11. These are deliberate traps to lead you into a conspiracy theory black hole.
Therefore, why shouldn't we view Kubrick's changes to the King novel as being deliberate traps as a way of distracting from ALL news media being faked? ie. We are meant to believe that it required a top-notch director to pull off such a stunt as the Apollo 11 mission and here he is revealing his part in the plot
How about Kubrick had nothing to do with the Moon landings but lots to do with Holywood fakery? He had an aura about him, was considered a great director, his films were always pseudo-intellectual - just the candidate for conspiracy theorists to fall in love with.
Edit: just to add, that my theory isn't harmed by the "random technicians" using the same techniques that Kubrick pioneered. Government steals from private innovation all the time. See: Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut Pro.