Has anyone heard of this person - Jay Weidner?

[Andromeda]

Does that mean you think it possible Kubrick was admitting to faking the colonisation of the USA with all the Native American imagery in The Shining?

http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html

"Hidden meanings" in films are very much open to interpretation and as such cannot be taken as proof of anything.

[ka9q]

advancedboy, you do understand, don't you, that the 2002 French "documentary" Dark Side of the Moon, directed by William Karel, was satire? What they now call a "mockumentary"?

[Jason Thompson]

Some interesting aspects are- NASA specialists consulting him on Space Odyssey.

Were they consulting him or was he consulting them? And is there any evidence of what those consultations actually included?

And front projection screen sounds very reasonable for faking moonlanding scenes, had it been necessary to be done.

Irrelevant. The question is not what was reasonable but what was done.

What bothers me in `The Shining `is room 237(K), which was a common knowledge in textbooks of that era to be median distance to the moon. The mural reminiscent of rockets, Apollo sweater, carpet pattern similar to launchpad 39a, bears and winter,.It all could be just a silly coincidence, the problem is not coincidences, the problem is that it is in Stanley Kubrick`s film, and Stanley is famous for subliminal messages, symbols and attention to tiniest details.

Or maybe he just liked space and decided to stick some references to it into his film. That is a common thing for directors to do.

He knew that it would lead  the audience to Apollo connections, why would he  want to mislead the public, if his message was different? If his message was different, why put non-essential ,misleading hints?

They are only leading somewhere by some very slight reasoning on the part of people who like to read things into every little detail.

Remember in 2002 Boeing revealed a classified airplane Bird of prey. Could you get any information about it prior to unveiling? How much information can you get about concept vehicles that companies reveal in car shows? How many pictures can you get of their clay mockups? The only information you get is what company allows to be leaked.

Irrelevant. Something on the scale of Apollo is not remotely comparable to anything you just listed.

There is a known group of people who know about the project and have access to it. If any information is leaked, everyone`s paycheck is sliced in half without any investigation. Works fine.

No. Apollo cannot have worked like that. The number of people who have to know it is fake is simply too large.

Do you actually have anything in the way of evidence to discuss, or is it all to be irrelevancies like this?

[Jason Thompson]

Even the iconic 'man on the Moon' image is badly framed and comes close to clipping Aldrin's head off.

Very true, and I believe the next picture on the roll showed someone's sleeve.
[/quote]

Indeed. It was a blurry closeup of the side of one of their spacesuits, taken accidentally as Armstrong passed the camera to Aldrin so they could continue with the next stage of their work.

[Glom]

Jay Weidner does bring up interesting topics about Apollo missions and coincidences regarding his connections with NASA. I don`t think he is a shill or cheap  attention seeker. If you denounce him of selling books or having sellout radio interviews, then ask yourself  what is Aldrin doing ?
There are some issues that I don`t agree with Weidner, especially when he deals with occcultism and symbolism. That is a thinly woven fabric. Some interesting aspects are- NASA specialists consulting him on Space Odyssey. And front projection screen sounds very reasonable for faking moonlanding scenes, had it been necessary to be done. What bothers me in `The Shining `is room 237(K), which was a common knowledge in textbooks of that era to be median distance to the moon. The mural reminiscent of rockets, Apollo sweater, carpet pattern similar to launchpad 39a, bears and winter,.It all could be just a silly coincidence, the problem is not coincidences, the problem is that it is in Stanley Kubrick`s film, and Stanley is famous for subliminal messages, symbols and attention to tiniest details. He knew that it would lead  the audience to Apollo connections, why would he  want to mislead the public, if his message was different? If his message was different, why put non-essential ,misleading hints?
And you are naive that it would be hard to silence Kubrick. Their usual strategy is to cause accidents for your friends as a warning sign, if that doesn`t work, they get to you. In case of Kubrick they most likely didn`t resort to threats, but offered equipment and finance for shooting his next movies. Paycheck silnces everybody. Proof? How many people have been publicly complaining that their government department is too big and bloated and wastes taxpayers` money? people are afraid to lose their comfortable jobs, and will stay silent, especially when threatened.More proof? Remember in 2002 Boeing revealed a classified airplane Bird of prey. Could you get any information about it prior to unveiling? How much information can you get about concept vehicles that companies reveal in car shows? How many pictures can you get of their clay mockups? The only information you get is what company allows to be leaked. So how do they silence people? it is absurdly simple. There is a known group of people who know about the project and have access to it. If any information is leaked, everyone`s paycheck is sliced in half without any investigation. Works fine.

You seem to struggle with the concept of proving something.  So far, all you've offered is contorted speculation in order to try (and fail) to suggest that maybe it was possible it was a hoax, without providing a shred of evidence it actually was.

[Luke Pemberton]

Jay Weidner does bring up interesting topics about Apollo missions and coincidences regarding his connections with NASA. I don`t think he is a shill or cheap  attention seeker. If you denounce him of selling books or having sellout radio interviews, then ask yourself  what is Aldrin doing ?

Aldrin was the second man on the moon, man's greatest technical achievement. He is clearly making money from his success. Aldrin is also passionate about the legacy of Apollo, and works hard in educational outreach. I don't consider that selling out. ALdrin has a product to sell, and he's doing that.

There are some issues that I don`t agree with Weidner, especially when he deals with occcultism and symbolism. That is a thinly woven fabric. Some interesting aspects are- NASA specialists consulting him on Space Odyssey. And front projection screen sounds very reasonable for faking moonlanding scenes, had it been necessary to be done.

Had it been necessary? So we're done here.

What bothers me in `The Shining `is room 237(K), which was a common knowledge in textbooks of that era to be median distance to the moon. The mural reminiscent of rockets, Apollo sweater, carpet pattern similar to launchpad 39a, bears and winter,.It all could be just a silly coincidence, the problem is not coincidences, the problem is that it is in Stanley Kubrick`s film, and Stanley is famous for subliminal messages, symbols and attention to tiniest details. He knew that it would lead  the audience to Apollo connections, why would he  want to mislead the public, if his message was different? If his message was different, why put non-essential ,misleading hints?

How does this prove a hoax. Speculation.

And you are naive that it would be hard to silence Kubrick. Their usual strategy is to cause accidents for your friends as a warning sign, if that doesn`t work, they get to you. In case of Kubrick they most likely didn`t resort to threats, but offered equipment and finance for shooting his next movies.

Speculation. How does speculation offer proof of the hoax?

Paycheck silnces everybody. Proof? How many people have been publicly complaining that their government department is too big and bloated and wastes taxpayers` money? people are afraid to lose their comfortable jobs, and will stay silent, especially when threatened.

Proof of the way public finance operates.

More proof? Remember in 2002 Boeing revealed a classified airplane Bird of prey. Could you get any information about it prior to unveiling? How much information can you get about concept vehicles that companies reveal in car shows? How many pictures can you get of their clay mockups? The only information you get is what company allows to be leaked. So how do they silence people? it is absurdly simple. There is a known group of people who know about the project and have access to it. If any information is leaked, everyone`s paycheck is sliced in half without any investigation. Works fine.

No, people leak inforamtion all the time. People that leak information get fired, any can also spend time in prison for breaking official secrets. Two reasons for protecting secrets are for national security and protecting capital investment in research. But it is great that you have destroyed your own argument with such a wonderful example of crash and burn. You acknowledge that individuals leak information from small projects, yet a project that involved 400 000 - no one has come forward and spoken. Seems ironic doesn't it?

[DataCable]

And you are naive that it would be hard to silence Kubrick.

Are you claiming that Stanley Kubrick, and only Stanley Kubrick, produced fraudulent Apollo footage?

In case of Kubrick they most likely didn`t resort to threats, but offered equipment and finance for shooting his next movies.

Present evidence of financial remuneration to Stanley Kubrick from the alleged government conspirators.

[raven]

advancedkid, I respect you as a fellow human being, and you raise a good point about weak arguments. What you don't seem to realize is that, in the experience of the good people of this board, they are all weak arguments, some just require more knowledge to discredit than others.
Front projection could not fake the Apollo scenes as seen. For example, if you know how front projection works, you should know  you need to keep the foreground objects and actors pretty dark, otherwise the projection will be visible on them.
 Yet the astronauts were wearing *white* suits, with mirrored visors!
 That's pretty much the opposite of dark.
Furthermore, you can't move the camera much or the shadows of the forground items will be seen the backdrop.
Yet Apollo did 360 degree panorama's, in both video and photos , as well as pans and long Rover rides captured by the 16mm DAC movie camera.
Now, I ask any better students of cinematography to please correct me, but it seems clear to me that front projection could not be used to fake Apollo as shown.

[Donnie B.]

... If any information is leaked, everyone`s paycheck is sliced in half without any investigation. Works fine.

I can't speak for the people who worked on Apollo, but I can say that having my paycheck cut in half would be a sure way to send me running to the press with every bit of information I had about my participation in a (purported) hoax.

In other words, threatening to cut off my bribe would be totally counterproductive.  You should read up on a little thing called Watergate that happened here in the USA a while back.

[frenat]

What bothers me in `The Shining `is room 237(K), which was a common knowledge in textbooks of that era to be median distance to the moon.

No it wasn't.  They knew the distance to the Moon then almost as well as we know it today.  237 thousand was NEVER the median distance to the Moon.  You've been told this multiple times and IGNORED it.  Why?

[Echnaton]

Jay Weidner does bring up interesting topics about Apollo missions and coincidences regarding his connections with NASA.

Care to tell us what they are, so we can have a discussion?

I don`t think he is a shill or cheap  attention seeker. If you denounce him of selling books or having sellout radio interviews, then ask yourself  what is Aldrin doing ?

We have made an effort to respond to your posts, yet you choose to respond to objections that don't exist.  Do you care to address my criticisms that your writing is so vague that it is actually meaningless?

[VincentMcConnell]

I don`t think he is a shill or cheap  attention seeker. If you denounce him of selling books or having sellout radio interviews, then ask yourself  what is Aldrin doing?

Here's the difference:
Aldrin is an American hero that helped land the first LM on the moon and was the second human to walk on another world (first to urinate on one).
He was the nation's first perfectly successful spacewalker and a GENIUS at orbital rendezvous at the time. Aldrin is allowed to be as much of a me-
dia seeking public figure as he wants...
Weidner is just a jackass who discounts other people's achievements to make a name for himself...

[Echnaton]

Aldrin is allowed to be as much of a me-
dia seeking public figure as he wants...

Both Aldrin and Weidner may of course may seek as much media attention as desired, without restriction.  It is difference between the value of there contributions rather than the skill of their PR that advancedboy doesn't seem to understand. 

[gillianren]

Now, I ask any better students of cinematography to please correct me, but it seems clear to me that front projection could not be used to fake Apollo as shown.

I'd have to confer with my cousin in film school to be sure, but I'm reasonably sure it would be impossible, yes.  I'm reasonably sure it would be impossible with any technology from the era.  People do tend to go on about 2001, but it's on a list of movies where I have to say that it's revolutionary for its time.  Without that caveat?  The effects are in many places quite crude.  (The spinning room thing was done in a Fred Astaire movie once; it's cool, but there is only one way it was revolutionary.)  Cable miniseries are capable of producing better special effects these days, and they still can't accurately simulate Moon landings.

[Echnaton]

(The spinning room thing was done in a Fred Astaire movie once; it's cool, but there is only one way it was revolutionary.)

My nomination for groaner of the day.