Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[Jrrarglblarg]

so, was buzz aldrin the man on hte grassy knoll, or was lee harvey the mysterious "left behind" cameraman who did the tilt-up?

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Meanwhile, try the moon stuff. It is as interesting as the JFK assassination.

The real achievements of Apollo are a lot more interesting to me, definitely. If you'd actually like to talk about the program, rather than waving your hands about meaningless "clues" you read into movie snippets, I'll be happy to oblige.

[Hans Peper]

Originally Posted by sts60

.....waving your hands about meaningless "clues" you read into movie snippets....

Kubrick takes the scene about 80 times until he was satisfied.
Wendy took 16 pages out of the box and and it needs only 54 seconds in the movie. His production manager wanted to copy the pages, but Kubrick let all the 300 pages type by students. I think he typed minimum 4 pages by himself.

So in this 54 seconds showing the 16 pages Kubrick burried : Apollo 12

I cannot help you more, otherwise a child can find it out.

I make you an offer :

If you find it, I move. This must be no problem for you, because you know nearly everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

it begins at 1:03 and finished at 1:57

regards Hans

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Kubrick takes the scene about 80 times until he was satisfied.
Wendy took 16 pages out of the box and and it needs only 45 seconds in the movie. His production manager wanted to copy the pages, but Kubrick let all the 300 pages type by students. I think he typed minimum 4 pages by himself.

So in this 45 seconds showing the 16 pages Kubrick burried : Apollo 12

I cannot help you more, otherwise a child can find it out.

I make you an offer :

If you find it, I move. This must be no problem for you, because you know nearly everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

it begins at 1:03

regards Hans

Hans, this is utter ********.

You are making up clues where there are none.

[Jrrarglblarg]

Quote:

So in this 54 seconds showing the 16 pages Kubrick burried : Apollo 12

The cake is a lie.

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

so, was buzz aldrin the man on hte grassy knoll, or was lee harvey the mysterious "left behind" cameraman who did the tilt-up?

Jack Ruby was on that crappy b&w camera used on Apollo 11 to shoot Neil's first steps on the moon. Or maybe it was Sirhan Sirhan, I always get those two mixed up.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Kubrick takes the scene about 80 times until he was satisfied.

He took the scene once. There are no marks on the pages.

Quote:

Wendy took 16 pages out of the box and and it needs only 54 seconds in the movie.

She took 17 pages in 31 seconds.

Quote:

So in this 54 seconds showing the 16 pages Kubrick burried : Apollo 12

Nope, that is 31 seconds and 17 pages : Vostok 6

Quote:

I cannot help you more, otherwise a child can find it out.

Thanks. I got my little one to count the pages with me - 17.

Quote:

I make you an offer :

If you find it, I move. This must be no problem for you, because you know nearly everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

it begins at 1:03 and finished at 1:57

regards Hans

Amazing, I'm totally convinced. Will pass this on to everyone I know - rock solid proof that Vostok 6 was filmed by Kubrick.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Kubrick takes the scene about 80 times until he was satisfied... I cannot help you more, otherwise a child can find it out.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I wasn't interested in handwaving about "clues" (of dubious quality) that mean nothing to anyone but you. Responding with more handwaving won't help you any.

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

I make you an offer :h

If you find it, I move. This must be no problem for you, because you know nearly everything.

Ham-fisted attempt at sarcasm noted.

Although, as already reiterated above, I'm not interested in sloppily forcing subjective interpretations onto movie clips and calling them "clues", I do know a fair amount about spaceflight - it's how I make a living. So we can talk about clues like flight plans, lunar samples, telemetry, thousand of tons of test and flight hardware, engineering processes, or many other kinds of real evidence that support the reality of Apollo. I'll be happy to stack those up against your alleged hints buried in movies.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Kubrick takes the scene about 80 times until he was satisfied.
Wendy took 16 pages out of the box and and it needs only 54 seconds in the movie. His production manager wanted to copy the pages, but Kubrick let all the 300 pages type by students. I think he typed minimum 4 pages by himself.

So in this 54 seconds showing the 16 pages Kubrick burried : Apollo 12

I cannot help you more, otherwise a child can find it out.

I make you an offer :

If you find it, I move. This must be no problem for you, because you know nearly everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

it begins at 1:03 and finished at 1:57

regards Hans

Mods excuse me, but I thought only an idiot didn't know this is one of Kubrick's trademarks.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19099...se-murder.html

Quote:

So, for example, in Eyes Wide Shut, there was a totally inconsequential scene where Sydney Pollack had to get up from his chair, walk and open a door. That's all. There was no dialogue. Kubrick forced the actor to perform the same scene, walking from chair to door, over and over and over and over, for two straight days.

Honestly, why would you make this is major point of your argument when it's widely know he did this in almost every film he ever made. That's why almost no one (or is it no one) has ever appeared in a Kubrick film more than once.

Amateurs trying to sound like they know something. Go find a girl...if you know what one looks like.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Kubrick takes the scene about 80 times until he was satisfied.

Yes, that's typical of Kubrick's style of filmmaking.

Unfortunately you don't seem have any idea how dramatic feature films are made. A certain number of "takes" applies to a particular setup. In this scene we have the long shots, the close-ups of Shelley Duvall's reactions, and the cutaway close-ups of the hands turning the pages. These are all shot at different times, and arguably not even with the real actors. For example, that may not even be Duvall's hands turning the pages.

First you shoot the wide shots. That's because these require the most elaborate setups. In this room Kubrick had a huge wall of small lights diffused with shower curtains built outside the windows of the set, which was actually in a soundstage. The lights were ganged so they could be swiveled for different angles and shots. Those wide shots need a certain number of takes. Then you break that setup and move the cameras, lights, etc. to shoot closer, more intimate "cutaways." One of those, naturally, is Shelley Duvall's reactions. After sufficient takes of that shot, you might even dismiss the principal actress and finish shooting the other cutaways such as page-flipping with a stand-in.

So when you say it took "80 takes," which shot are you talking about?

Quote:

Wendy took 16 pages out of the box and and it needs only 54 seconds in the movie. His production manager wanted to copy the pages, but Kubrick let all the 300 pages type by students.

Yes, Kubrick didn't want the pages all to look alike.

Quote:

I think he typed minimum 4 pages by himself.

"You think" is not proof of authorship. What is your source for that belief?

Quote:

I cannot help you more, otherwise a child can find it out.

Don't be patronizing. I presume your argument is that if we freeze-frame and closely examine each of the close-up pages in the cutaway, somewhere we'll find the words "Apollo 12".

So instead of playing games, how about you freeze-frame the image and show us where it is? We might be inclined to hear your argument, but when it starts it with making your critics jump through hoops to attempt to find your evidence, you've lost most of your audience right there.

Then after finding the "Apollo 12" that's allegedly there, you can start making your argument that it was inserted there by Kubrick himself, and not one of the typing students he had produce the pages. Then if you're able to do that, you can start on a line of reasoning designed to show that Kubrick intended the insertion to have some specific hidden meaning, and that the meaning he intended is exactly the meaning you seem to have discovered.

Quote:

I make you an offer :

If you find it, I move. This must be no problem for you...

No, don't play games. If you are unwilling to identify where your evidence is in all that page-flipping, then you probably won't be taken seriously.

Quote:

...because you know nearly everything.

Don't be patronizing. As with Sts60, I know an awful lot about space travel and how rockets and spacecraft are designed and built. It happens to be my profession.

I can't vouch for Sts60 on this, but I can say that I am very familiar with how Stanley Kubrick made movies. And I have further corresponded with Kubrick's personal assistant (to whom I owe a drink, when and if he can make it to the Sundance Film Festival) and with other members of the Kubrick estate and they assure me of two (among many) things: Kubrick had absolutely no involvement in fake moon landings, and that the "researchers" who run around hunting for Easter eggs and other hidden meanings in Kubrick's films are almost entirely misguided.

[Erock]

I'm guessing the claim that Apollo 12 was directed by Kubrick belies the fact that they smoked the vidicon tube on the camera minutes into the EVA!

[Jrrarglblarg]

As a cameraman, Alan Bean rather failed to meet Kubrick's standards, then, as he only got the one take.

[Hans Peper]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Yes, that's typical of Kubrick's style of filmmaking.....

You are the only one, who try to check what I am talking about and luckywise you know a lot about the movie genre.

My problem is my poor English, I try without Google.

You certainly heard about the "Sublingual messages" in movies. These are messages, which you get no notice about when you "read" them, but your subconspicious still get notice about and it "runs around" in your brain.

Kubrick must have known this, because he used it like a master.

When Wendy starts to read the page in the Adler(German for Eagle) typewriter you can see some mistakes. Words are wrong, but there is no system in it, which gives a hint to Apollo 12 and wrong written words are not used for sublingual messages. The first look shows, that the words are written in a symmetric system one row under the other. So the view goes fronm the single words to the whole set up of the page, which is symmetric.

So this is just the opening where our visual systems become adjusted from reading words into recognizing the form of the text.

After that we see the first page in the box and we see that the same text is written, but the form of the text has changed. The symmetric form has gone and specific pattern can be identified. First we see a vertical "white" line cutting the text in two parts. This white line is the paper without letters.
From that moment, our brain is looking for white surfaces in the pages and we see different letters like "F" and "L" in the upper part of the text.

That was the opening, the calibration of our visual perception systems. We get calibrated to look for "white" surfaces, build by the text.

Now she took the first page away and the message begins.

So try by youself, If you can't see it, I will post screenshots if requested.

regards Hans

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

My problem is my poor English, I try without Google.

Your principal problem is not poor English. Your principal problem is poor logic and a lack of evidence.

Quote:

Kubrick must have known this, because he used it like a master.

No. This is what the Kubrick critic-wannabes believe, because it's a necessary premise to their activity. They want to believe Kubrick intended all of the stuff they contrive about his work. You clearly have very little if any idea how feature films are made, and specifically how Kubrick made films. I do not accept you as an expert on Kubrick's filmmaking technique.

Further your argument here is circular, and therefore rejected.

Quote:

When Wendy starts

<speculative nonsense snipped>

Now she took the first page away and the message begins.

How is this not simply an exercise in reading into the work of others what you desperately want to be there? You're begging the question.

Quote:

So try by youself, If you can't see it, I will post screenshots if requested.

I requested them before. Instead of providing them, you simply speculated and drew a circle around three paragraphs of the typewritten page, whose text is illegible in the video you provide and in the screen shots.

You have said that "Apollo 12" appears in the typewritten text. Please stop playing games and show your evidence.

[thedopefishlives]

Jay, here is a link to (the beginning of) Hans's body of work as concerns Kubrick and 9/11. I think you'll find that he is an expert in "reading into the work of others what you desperately want to be there."

[Jrrarglblarg]

Quote:

You certainly heard about the "Sublingual messages" in movies. These are messages, which you get no notice about when you "read" them, but your subconspicious still get notice about and it "runs around" in your brain.

Kubrick must have known this, because he used it like a master.

So you're saying that a well-known highly symbolist film director used subtle symbology in his films. No mystery there.

What you have not done is connect these "symbols" you purport to have found with actual factual textual material evidence of something. Really, you're just making up your own language for a set of symbols created by another.

He was a master, and you have it very wrong.

Also, you are following a rabbit down a hole while ignoring the forest of facts around you. The Apollo program generated an enormous volume of data and material evidence which is neither contradicted or discredited in the least by your pseudosemiotic pseudoananalysis of small pieces of only one film in Kubrick's long career.

From my analysis, Kubrick's cinematic interpretation of King's book is about the horrors of long term isolation of humans from others, such as during a long space flight. The book is about an off-season caretaker of a hotel, and he took that story and filmed it, but Kubrick's visuals and symbols clearly put the story into space. Duvall, probably the strangest looking successful mainstream actress in American cinema, is presented as a defacto non-human (alien), Nicholson is an archetypical American Male and their son is the mutant/crossbreed offspring. The characters in Kubrick's film are not overwintering in a hotel but traveling to a distant star. Try watching the film again with that in mind (assuming you've actually watched the film once as opposed to simply reading webcrap and watching youchump videos).

Your analysis of the film is naive and simplistic, and takes individual shots and scenes out of the larger context of the film and his total body of production at large. A thoroughly educated view of Kubrick's body of work presents a much deeper and much more disturbing view of humanity, with layer upon layer of subtle symbolism that requires multiple watchings in order to even document without comprehension; fully comprehending his work requires viewing the entire body (in any order, although in the order of "time-the-story-took-place" seems best to me) as a whole and viewing it as a journey of the human soul from Animal to God. Taking an individual scene out of context of the originating film and out of his entire body of work is like trying to analyze a single sentence of the Bible while ignoring the entire history, culture and religious progression of the middle east from paleolithic times on.

[Hans Peper]

Thanks to god, that you american guys are standing with both feet on the ground.

Hans

[Jrrarglblarg]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Thanks to god, that you american guys are standing with both feet on the ground.

Hans

What in the world do you mean by this? Is this one-liner an attempt to discount my long and detailed post? Is that the depth of your capability to respond to such comments?

[Peter May]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

So you're saying that a well-known highly symbolist film director used subtle symbology in his films. No mystery there.

What you have not done is connect these "symbols" you purport to have found with actual factual textual material evidence of something. Really, you're just making up your own language for a set of symbols created by another.

He was a master, and you have it very wrong.

Also, you are following a rabbit down a hole while ignoring the forest of facts around you. The Apollo program generated an enormous volume of data and material evidence which is neither contradicted or discredited in the least by your pseudosemiotic pseudoananalysis of small pieces of only one film in Kubrick's long career.

From my analysis, Kubrick's cinematic interpretation of King's book is about the horrors of long term isolation of humans from others, such as during a long space flight. The book is about an off-season caretaker of a hotel, and he took that story and filmed it, but Kubrick's visuals and symbols clearly put the story into space. Duvall, probably the strangest looking successful mainstream actress in American cinema, is presented as a defacto non-human (alien), Nicholson is an archetypical American Male and their son is the mutant/crossbreed offspring. The characters in Kubrick's film are not overwintering in a hotel but traveling to a distant star. Try watching the film again with that in mind (assuming you've actually watched the film once as opposed to simply reading webcrap and watching youchump videos).

Your analysis of the film is naive and simplistic, and takes individual shots and scenes out of the larger context of the film and his total body of production at large. A thoroughly educated view of Kubrick's body of work presents a much deeper and much more disturbing view of humanity, with layer upon layer of subtle symbolism that requires multiple watchings in order to even document without comprehension; fully comprehending his work requires viewing the entire body (in any order, although in the order of "time-the-story-took-place" seems best to me) as a whole and viewing it as a journey of the human soul from Animal to God. Taking an individual scene out of context of the originating film and out of his entire body of work is like trying to analyze a single sentence of the Bible while ignoring the entire history, culture and religious progression of the middle east from paleolithic times on.

The Shining is a horror film about supernatural events at the Overlook Hotel, no symbolism, or analysis, required.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Peter May

The Shining is a horror film about supernatural events at the Overlook Hotel, no symbolism, or analysis, required.

Hello Peter May, long time no see.

I will disagree to an extent. Filmmakers do use symbolism. It's de riguer. The problem here is that some people will take that symbolism and apply it to their CT du jour.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

Thanks to god, that you american guys are standing with both feet on the ground.

Hans

How does a nationalist argument apply to your line of reasoning?
Why have you failed to provide the evidence I asked for?
What steps have you taken to insure your interpretation of Kubrick symbology is the one he intended?

[jaydeehess]

delete double post

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

How does a nationalist argument apply to your line of reasoning?
Why have you failed to provide the evidence I asked for?
What steps have you taken to insure your interpretation of Kubrick symbology is the one he intended?

What! If a cloud looks like a bunny then that is what God intended. If Hans sees symbology in Kubrick's work then obviously that's what Kubrick intended.
QED

Better include this

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

My problem is my poor English, I try without Google.

No, your English is serviceable. Your problem is that you make certain factual claims about movies which are largely wrong, unsupported, or irrelevant, and then try to ascribe motives to the filmmaker which are supported by nothing more than your imagination. Then you try to claim that they are somehow evidence for a hoax. Meanwhile, you have come nowhere close to addressing the overwhelming body of evidence for Apollo. So you actually have several problems, but your English isn't one of them...

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

"Sublingual messages"

"Subliminal". "Sublingual" is something that goes under your tongue, like a nitroglycerin pill or cold lozenge.

[Peter May]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Hello Peter May, long time no see.

I will disagree to an extent. Filmmakers do use symbolism. It's de riguer. The problem here is that some people will take that symbolism and apply it to their CT du jour.

Hello Abaddon.

Yes, I have been posting at the David Icke forum until a few weeks ago when I was banned for life, the reason, asking for proof. So it goes…..
I prefer to call it, analysis Ad nauseam. Symbolism, sure, Shelley Duvall is just another abused housewife, but I suppose that’s too simplistic for some intellects.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

What! If a cloud looks like a bunny then that is what God intended. If Hans sees symbology in Kubrick's work then obviously that's what Kubrick intended.
QED

Better include this

Ha ha, yes, that's probably a good example of the essence of circular reasoning. People simply cannot realize that their idea just might be wrong.

[Loss Leader]

So Kubrick knows something about Apollo 12, now? And encoded it into a movie about a hotel? Like he put 9/11 into a movie about Vietnam?

What event was he signalling during Lolita? The success of the Fudrucker's franchise?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Peter May

Hello Abaddon.

Yes, I have been posting at the David Icke forum until a few weeks ago when I was banned for life, the reason, asking for proof. So it goes…..
I prefer to call it, analysis Ad nauseam. Symbolism, sure, Shelley Duvall is just another abused housewife, but I suppose that’s too simplistic for some intellects.

Well, there's a certain logic to this. To read or view is to interpret, so the only way to avoid a possibly wrong interpretation is to stick with the literal depiction in print or on the screen.

But that's absurdly reductionist, especially since we know Kubrick did intend his films to have symbolic meaning. Most filmmakers do. And films can have an added symbolic meaning as the viewer subjectively applies it to his life experience. But the latter doesn't apply to the filmmaker. If I take something a certain way, it may not be what the filmmaker intended. Yet the filmmaker may intend a certain symbolism, and it would be equally wrong to deny that.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

So Kubrick knows something about Apollo 12, now? And encoded it into a movie about a hotel? Like he put 9/11 into a movie about Vietnam?

That's what I can't stomach about the armchair Kubrick critics. It's one thing to propose a connection between Apollo and Kubrick, given that he made a space epic that inspired and galvanized the generation that implemented Apollo. And that The Shining was made after all the Apollo missions.

But to propose some kind of prescience? Kubrick knew enough about future world events to incorporate the details into his war epic? This is just Nostradamus all over again. Kubrick was an eccentric and much admired filmmaker. He wasn't some kind of prophet, or secret agent, or superhuman.

Quote:

What event was he signalling during Lolita? The success of the Fudrucker's franchise?

I wouldn't call it successful. Fuddruckers, that is. But in Lolita I think the most you can say is that Kubrick wanted to capture the novel's inherent dichotomy between the etiquette and the immoral sexual relationship. It's like a string quartet playing on the deck of the sinking Titanic -- droll juxtaposition. But nothing more than that. No additional social commentary needed. No allusions to history or future. No Easter Eggs about world events, the economy, or the price of hamburgers.

[Jrrarglblarg]

Originally Posted by Peter May

The Shining is a horror film about supernatural events at the Overlook Hotel, no symbolism, or analysis, required.

And I suppose 2001 is just a movie about software debugging?

The book was "just" a horror story about supernatural events; that story is only one layer of the total content of the film. Kubrick was a brilliant film maker who was able to weave multiple elements together to tell both the superficial story that the producers payed for as well as a deeper story of his own.

Unlike people who studied useful and marketable things in college, I wasted 50k learning things like how to watch films and see the literary and cultural messages embedded in them by the director with variable levels of accident and intentionality. I spent one entire semester just on Ingmar Bergman. So shut up and let me pretend my education had some kind of value, okay?

In all seriousness, this is only one of many possible reads of The Shining, but Kubrick's work has to be taken as a whole. A deep symbolic analysis shouldn't take individual films on their own, and you CERTAINLY can't take individual scenes (or costumes, or scenery, or camera angles) out of context and assign meaning to them in the abstract. Well, one can, but it would be less accurate and certainly not in keeping with the director's intent.

[Jrrarglblarg]

Originally Posted by Peter May

I have been posting at the David Icke forum until a few weeks ago when I was banned for life, the reason, asking for proof. So it goes….

Welcome to the club. They've run off most of the intelligent posters and are left with the "it's all teh fake" club and the anally-probed UFO abductees.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Peter May

Hello Abaddon.

Yes, I have been posting at the David Icke forum until a few weeks ago when I was banned for life, the reason, asking for proof. So it goes…..
I prefer to call it, analysis Ad nauseam. Symbolism, sure, Shelley Duvall is just another abused housewife, but I suppose that’s too simplistic for some intellects.

LOL, Welcome to the club with your DI ban,

[Hans Peper]

Hi, Leader of the lost,

you like Lolita ?

I came to the 9/11 topic in Kubricks FMJ movie just by chance. We discussed it a longer time, and we also talk about the moon landing fake.
So I thought it was a good idea to check the moon topic, because I thought that if he faked the moon landing, the possibility that he also talk about the 9/11 topic could be true. Some member of this forum told me about "room 237" and so I came to "shining".
I was surprised to see what the people found out and checked the movie by myself. So I found two new hints, which are very interesting.
I call it sublingual messages, because they are lower than the linguistic mode of speaking with words - "messages without words".
The first was the key of room 237. In S. Kings book the room has a different number and Kubrick changed it into 237 (237.000 miles to the moon). A lot of hints have to do with mirrowing. I.e. the word "murder" is written by Danny as "redrum" on the door.
The label on the roomkey 237 is written : ROOM N. 237.
If you mirror ROOM you get "MOOR". Danny wrote the "R" in redrum wrong. So if we take the "R" in "MOOR" away and set the N on its place we get :

Moon 237 = Moon 237.000 miles

This is a hint where the journey goes to.

Regards Hans (I come back soon to Wendys pages)


..

[Erock]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

So I thought it was a good idea to check the moon topic, because I thought that if he faked the moon landing, the possibility that he also talk about the 9/11 topic could be true.

Circular reasoning of epic proportions.

Quote:

Some member of this forum told me about "room 237" and so I came to "shining". I was surprised to see what the people found out and checked the movie by myself. So I found two new hints, which are very interesting.
I call it sublingual messages, because they are lower than the linguistic mode of speaking with words - "messages without words".
The first was the key of room 237. In S. Kings book the room has a different number and Kubrick changed it into 237 (237.000 miles to the moon).

How do you know Kubrick changed it? Didn't he co write this script?

Quote:

A lot of hints have to do with mirrowing. I.e. the word "murder" is written by Danny as "redrum" on the door.
The label on the roomkey 237 is written : ROOM N. 237.
If you mirror ROOM you get "MOOR". Danny wrote the "R" in redrum wrong. So if we take the "R" in "MOOR" away and set the N on its place we get :

Moon 237 = Moon 237.000 miles

This is a hint where the journey goes to.

That is the most awesome piece of contrived bogwater I've seen for a while.

The Moon is on average 238,900 miles, it has an elliptical orbit ranging from 221,457 to 252,712 miles - Room backwards is Moor, if you remove the 'r' and add an 'o' you get the noise a Cow makes. That is kind of what I think of this claim.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

The first was the key of room 237. In S. Kings book the room has a different number and Kubrick changed it into 237 (237.000 miles to the moon). A lot of hints have to do with mirrowing. I.e. the word "murder" is written by Danny as "redrum" on the door.
The label on the roomkey 237 is written : ROOM N. 237.
If you mirror ROOM you get "MOOR". Danny wrote the "R" in redrum wrong. So if we take the "R" in "MOOR" away and set the N on its place we get :

Moon 237 = Moon 237.000 miles

This is a hint where the journey goes to.

Regards Hans (I come back soon to Wendys pages)


..

The often-repeated story is that the owners of the real hotel where the movie was shot requested that a fictitious room number be used so they would not have problems with guests refusing to stay in room 217. This is unsubstantiated, but makes more sense than the Moon explanation, especially since the average distance is almost 239,000 miles.

[Hans Peper]

Originally Posted by Erock

....

<SNIP>

Edited by LashL:

Edited for civility.

We have "MOOR N 237" which is written on the lable. If you cut away the R, you get "MOON 237"

That is very simple. But it is sadly out of the range of the most people.

So it fits to the Apollo 11 sweater of Danny and to the colours and forms in the carpet, where Danny is standing and playing and it fits to the carpet with 4 Saturn rockets hanging on the wall over the fire place and it fits to the message in the pages of "All work and no play.." and a lot more.

So this is the reason, why I came to the thread "When did the moon landing fake nonsens begin?"
because I wanted to know when it began.
Why?
These sublingual messages are not noticed by us, but they are noticed by our subconscious. If you get this Coke messages, you will drink a Coke. What happens after recieving the moon fake messages from shining ?
Is there a connection between the launch of the movie and the finding of following facts by the moon fake theorists ?

When do they found out that in case of Apollo 12 :

1.) Something is wrong in the set. Things changed position .
2.) Something is wrong in the mirrowings of the astronauts visors.
3.) There are too much pictures for that short time on the moon.

Could it be, that the finding of these fails are a result of our triggered subconscious
after whatching Kubricks movie ? Is it that what he wanted ?

regards Hans

[Hans Peper]

Originally Posted by Erock

...The Moon is on average 238,900 miles, it has an elliptical orbit ranging from 221,457 to 252,712 miles

After the rules of mathematic is :

(221457 + 252712) / 2 = 237084,5 = exactly 237 in thousand miles parts.

237000 is the middle between the maximum and minimum distance.

regards Hans

[Hans Peper]

Originally Posted by BrianH

The often-repeated story is that the owners of the real hotel where the movie was shot requested that a fictitious room number be used so they would not have problems with guests refusing to stay in room 217. This is unsubstantiated, but makes more sense than the Moon explanation, especially since the average distance is almost 239,000 miles.

I saw the "making of..." and there it looks like, that the movie was made in Kubicks halls.
Even the hedges were artificially.

Regards Hans

[Dcdrac]

Could it be even simpler than just accepting the proved reality that the Apollo Missions were an astounding feat and it is a pity politcians have not had the guts to back follow up missions?

[Hans Peper]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Could it be even simpler than just accepting the proved reality that the Apollo Missions were an astounding feat and it is a pity politcians have not had the guts to back follow up missions?

I cant say about what is true or what not.

I read some messages from Kubrick, that he said he faked it, and we shall have a look at special things in the Apollo 12 mission. A lot of people had a look, and found amazing things. My question is : Is this a result of Kubricks sublingual messages ? I am afraid that it is.

Now I am interested in this topic.

Regards Hans