“The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”
“did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.”
“Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?”
“he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film. Or Kubrick”
“Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.”
“with all this control the Powers That Be have to ensure no one spills the beans, and Kubrick goes off happily planting clues that to you are "obviously" about a hoax?”
“I've spoken at length with Tony Frewin, Kubrick's assistant, and he can attest that Kubrick had nothing to do with anything that you're talking about”
“The jumper on its own could be just coincidence.”
“And was, since the costume designer arranged for it on her own and Kubrick didn't know anything about it until he saw Danny Lloyd wearing it on set”
“"A11" is not any sort of abbreviation used in the industry or in government to refer to the Apollo 11 mission”
“once you've convinced yourself that a film is full of Easter eggs, you'll keep lowering your critical standards until you see them”
Ok, I’m a little annoyed that I got the bit with the “Eagle” typewriter wrong, but his intension was the same. I think we are nearly all agreed that Kubrick had a meticulous eye for detail, and with that in mind, if you haven’t seen the video below, then please watch it and come back with your “HONEST” thoughts. I was so taken aback by this video, that I had to go and find the scene, being analysed in the video, to make sure the poster hadn’t manipulated the images I was seeing. This is the sixth lecture, as the poster calls them out of seventeen in total, covering The Shining from start to finish. After seeing this one, I watched the rest of the series in order, which was no easy task, as this man is by far the worst narrator I have ever come across.
The number of discontinuities in this movie are mind boggling, as objects move, disappear and reappear between consecutive scenes. The total lack of logic in some scenes were so obvious when pointed out, that it had to be deliberate, considering who made the film. One example is when the family arrive at the hotel and we see the luggage they brought with them. They drove there in a VW Beetle and it would’ve required three of those vehicles to carry that much luggage, or should I say equipment?
Having said all this, the poster points to a few instances that are too subtle and obscure to be taken seriously and if we add to this, the way the narrator stumbles over his words and dwells on some minor instances for too long, it can make for painful viewing at times,. As the poster points out in his description, the second half of the eleventh lecture is worth a view also.
There have been several alternative suggestions as to the hidden messages Kubrick was actually trying to convey in The Shining, but one thing’s for certain, he was definitely having a dig at America, for instance, the American flag being hung the wrong way, and the native American atrocities and Apollo were without doubt, part of it. The bears are definitely referring to Russia, although they could also have other meanings, and it’s so obvious, when Danny stands up, wearing that jumper that he is referring to the launch of Apollo 11 and its alleged journey to the moon. I toyed with the idea that maybe he was merely going along with the hoax theory, but that message on the typewriter, confirms to me that he was definitely heavily involved.
When I first saw the film, I remember being not all that impressed with it, but now that I realise that this film was in part, Kubrick’s confession and not an adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, which he confirms near the end of the film, when we see a crushed, red VW Beetle, the film becomes a masterpiece in my eyes.
Please try and stick with it without skipping through, at least until Wendy and the Doctor leave Danny’s room, as it builds to a point that I’m sure will raise a few eyebrows among you, and if it doesn’t, then to me, you are beyond saving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalismScene from the film.
One thing that becomes obvious straight away in the above scene, after watching the video is when Danny is being asked about tony, he looks toward the window area several times, waiting for permission to answer.
Second half of lecture 11.
“A transparency with current weather that shows signs of rotation? Amazing!”
“How would your transparency manage to reproduce signs of rotation when it is filmed for extended periods?”
The camera was pointed at the alleged earth for around nine minutes, from when the camera was first fully zoomed in, until the point where they were asked to show the inside of the set. A substantial movement occurs in the first ninety seconds, with around the same amount of movement occurring in the following three minutes, which takes us to the halfway point in the scene. For the last half of the scene, the earth stops moving and in fact moves a tiny fraction in the opposite direction, so sadly, this is more proof that the video was faked.
Movement from 00:00 to 01:30
Movement from 01:30 to 04:30
Movement from 00:00 to 04:30
Movement from 04:30 to 09:00
“Looks like glare on the window IIRC caused by the coating on the windows and seen in other footage including some from the shuttle.”
“It isn't showing bright blue sky, it's showing glare through the window with the camera set to interior exposure.”
“No, the "bright blue sky" you see is scatter that is blooming on the pickup tube whose aperture is set too open.”
We won’t get anywhere if you all persist in lying, as the white areas are glare from whatever the light source is being shone through the window, whereas the blue area is neither glare or scatter on the pickup tube, as the blue area meets up precisely with the outer edge of the window frame, which confirms that this is the view outside of the window.
This is what glare looks like.
Have not one of you got the balls to admit there is something wrong here? Remember, you would only be admitting that this particular video is fake and not the entire Apollo programme. Most of you are highly educated individuals, who must surely know the difference between right and wrong, which is why I find it hard to understand why you persist in this childish behaviour. At least try and come up with a believable explanation as to why you see nothing wrong with that window image.
“Physics is physics. A rocket works the same everywhere. It makes no odds what the spacecraft looks like, the principle of operation is the same.”
Launching a rocket with a small satellite on-board may have been possible, but to launch a rocket of Apollo’s alleged weight and expect it to reach orbit is a very contentious issue in some people’s eyes.
“Firstly, landing on the moon had been done before”
Whether we believe a successful soft landing had already been achieved or not, it wasn’t achieved with the Apollo craft, which would make it lunacy to put people’s lives at risk before testing with an unmanned craft first.
“What was so unique about landing the LM that made it impossible to believe a couple of professional test pilots would voluntarily pilot it to a risky landing?”
No ejector seats for obvious reasons and no emergency services to rescue them, and the only thing they volunteered for was being part of the fraud.
“Why? What was so impossible about simulating something using the known laws of physics?”
A flight simulator is modelled from the working plane it is simulating. In the landers case they would only be able to simulate how they assumed it would work in a real environment. They had the tech to do it remotely, so why put lives at risk when it wasn’t necessary? If they had applied a bit of logic to the story they were telling, then it may have been slightly more plausible, but it wouldn’t have mattered either way to Mr Kubrick, as he was only in it for the money and the fame, he knew he would eventually receive.
“I haven't dismissed everything you can possibly provide as fake before you even provide it. Not that hard to understand, is it?”
Now that’s a lie, as it’s likely that you all have debunking sheets at the ready, which cover every possible scenario, that a HB could throw at you, plus a few more that we haven’t thought of yet.
“The difference is my conclusion was arrived at with a sound understanding of science and physics whereas yours is based on incredulity and a strange conviction that because you don't get something it cant be real.”
You come to your conclusions because you say you understand science, whereas I come to my conclusions because of the evidence I see before me. How does science prove that we went to the moon? Give me some examples of scientific facts which prove this to be the case. You are the one exhibiting incredulity here, as you find the idea that a government would tell such a huge lie, so incredible that you will wave away all evidence, no matter how credible, as being nonsense.
“Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?
But in any case, the Apollo spacecraft were tested unmanned. Your failure to understand that testing does not mean flying the entire mission is your probem, not ours.”
Your complete lack of logic makes you and your fellow NASA followers a difficult bunch to argue with, as only a child would compare an aircraft to a spacecraft, as they are two completely different concepts. Why would they choose military pilots to man these crafts, when it would be logical to employ the very people who designed the craft, as they would know them inside out and would understand the principles of space flight. Who flew the first plane? Who drove the first car? The reason they chose those men is obvious, as it was to instil a sense of bravery, pride and patriotism into a nation that had very little to be proud of at that time.
