[Merged] Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread - Page 12

Border Reiver · 15th August 2013, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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

Just because I'm sure this is a language issue: sublingual means "under the tongue", I believe you mean "subliminal", or "below the level of conscious perception".

Second, if it was faked, the sheer number of people involved in the fakery (on the order of several thousand) would preclude it having remained a secret. Especially with people leaving clues that it was faked in other media.

Dcdrac · 15th August 2013, 05:56 AM

And I suppsoe Arthur C Clarke worked as a technical advisor on this mythical fake moon landing film Kubrick is supposed to have made?

TjW · 15th August 2013, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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

Of course, if you just try to pronounce it as is, you get "MORON".

SpitfireIX · 15th August 2013, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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

You can't just take the average of the minimum and maximum. The Moon's orbit is an (approximate) ellipse, with the Earth at one of the ellipse's foci. Further, the Moon is moving faster with respect to the Earth when it is closer to the Earth, because it has less potential energy (and thus more kinetic energy) with respect to the Earth in that situation, so it spends less time close to the Earth. See here.

AtomicDog · 15th August 2013, 06:43 AM

Douglas Trumbull was the special effects chief on 2001. How come the conspiracy theorists never zero in on him as the one responsible for the moon hoax?

Could it be because he's still around to defend himself?

Dcdrac · 15th August 2013, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by AtomicDog

Douglas Trumbull was the special effects chief on 2001. How come the conspiracy theorists never zero in on him as the one responsible for the moon hoax?

Could it be because he's still around to defend himself?

And Silent Running is stiill a great film

Loss Leader · 15th August 2013, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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. 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.

So, you went looking for a message and, in a two hour movie, you found a couple of seconds that, with a great deal of work, you were able to twist into something that had meaning to you.

Let me illustrate what I mean. I contend that God was speaking directly to me in the Bible.

My birthday is the third day of October 1970. The third book of the Bible is Leviticus. The 7th verse (which is 70 without the meaningless zero) of the 10th chapter is:

7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.

Lord Leases = Loss Leader

This is a hidden message that can only be retrieved subconsciously, but it is plainly there in the text. Using my birthday as the code-breaking devise, I found that God has personally leased me his powers as Lord of the universe.
And, using those powers, I am able to proclaim:

Everything you're saying is complete nonsense.

Jrrarglblarg · 15th August 2013, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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.

The two items in my signature, beneath the post text, are links to the lunar samples compendium and the lunar surface journal. I request that you visit those links for actual information about the moon landings and present the catalog number of photographs proving your #1 and #2 points.

Your #3 point is nonsense. In college I was employed for a year as a "party pix" photographer for fraternity and sorority parties. At one unpleasantly drunken event I shot 9 rolls of film in 45 minutes in order to complete the job and make my escape. That's 9 x 38 = 342 frames, shot with a manual focus/manual exposure Nikon. That's 7.6 frames per minute, or 7.8 seconds per frame. These were semi-formally posed pictures (we were paid by how many pairs of faces were in each image) and the total time includes rewinding and reloading the camera.

JayUtah · 15th August 2013, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

I read some messages from Kubrick, that he said he faked it...

No. You've read accusations and speculations against him. According to Stanley Kubrick's personal assistant Anthony Frewin, Kubrick was initially amused by the tall tales, but toward the end of his life become increasingly irritated especially when they started to involve his family. I assure you Kubrick had very little if any tolerance or patience for them.

As I said, I do not consider you an expert on Kubrick's life or work.

Quote:

...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.

Are we leaving Kubrick behind now and focusing on the actual missions? If so, please state your case.

Quote:

My question is : Is this a result of Kubricks sublingual messages ? I am afraid that it is.

No, you're not "afraid" it is -- you're desperately pitching the notion that it must be, on no better authority than your say-so. Sorry, but not everything you imagine, "sublingually" or not, can be attributed to Kubrick. You have the burden to prove Kubrick intended whatever symbolic meaning you've contrived, if your argument is that these contrivances were meant to relate to his supposed role in faking the Moon landings.

Quote:

Now I am interested in this topic.

What is the nature of your interest? You seem to be interested primarily in foisting your subjective musings as evidence.

Jrrarglblarg · 15th August 2013, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You have the burden to prove Kubrick intended whatever symbolic meaning you've contrived, if your argument is that these contrivances were meant to relate to his supposed role in faking the Moon landings.

And, Hans, I've presented an alternate interpretation of the symbology embedded in The Shining that is consistent with his larger body of work. Your interpretation is incompatible with all other literary and artistic analysis of Kubrick's work, nor does ir explain in any way the literal tons of internally and externally consistent material evidence for manned moon landings.

Your theory answers no questions but raises many others.

carlitos · 15th August 2013, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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 ?

I have worked in advertising for most of my career. No one uses subliminal messages to sell anything.

Originally Posted by 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)

..

Your messages without words are words. Deep.

LaurelHS · 15th August 2013, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I have worked in advertising for most of my career. No one uses subliminal messages to sell anything.

It sounded to me like he was actually referring to product placement ("Coke messages") rather than subliminal messages. Product placement in movies and TV shows is very real, but I don't know how effective it is in getting people to buy things. I notice it, but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to buy the product (if it's a very expensive brand name, I probably can't afford it anyway!).

JayUtah · 15th August 2013, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

<SNIP>

Edited by LashL:

Edited to remove moderated content and response to same.

Quote:

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.

Do not patronize your critics. You are admitting that you have to make contrivances in order to get your "coincidence" to hold, just as you have to do arithmetic to get your "237" to supposedly relate to the distance to the Moon in miles, which isn't even the real distance. The more gymnastics you have to do in order to make your "coincidences" happen, the less convincing they are. This is just numerology dressed up as film criticism.

Quote:

So it fits to the Apollo 11 sweater of Danny...

Nope. Kubrick merely wanted a sweater with a hand-knit look. The costume designer had a friend knit it, and it just happened to be Apollo-themed because the knitter surmised it's something a kid from the mid-1970s would have liked. Kubrick had no hand in the subject matter of the sweater.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/mo...anted=all&_r=0

Quote:

...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.

Pure contrivance.

Quote:

Why?

First answer "if."

Quote:

These sublingual messages are not noticed by us, but they are noticed by our subconscious.

Irrelevant. By that logic anything anywhere at any time can be a "subliminal message" for anything you want to imagine. These elaborate alleged correlations between subtle forms, colors, etc. are not how subliminal messaging works.

Quote:

What happens after recieving the moon fake messages from shining ?

There are no "moon fake messages" in The Shining that were intended by Kubrick. You simply trust the word of wannabe film critics.

Quote:

Is there a connection between the launch of the movie and the finding of following facts by the moon fake theorists ?

No. And we'll take your "facts" in order...

Quote:

1.) Something is wrong in the set. Things changed position .

You give no specific examples. However, I have examined the Apollo photographic record exhaustively and am considered an expert on it. The examples that others have provided for alleging that something has moved are generally their misunderstanding of distance and parallax as it occurs in photography.

[quote]2.) Something is wrong in the mirrowings of the astronauts visors.

You give no specific examples. However, the few that others have offered are simply their misunderstanding of photography and their simplistic assumptions for what they think they should be seeing. "Something wrong" (i.e., something they cannot understand) gets translated immediately by conspiracy theorists into evidence of some affirmative hoax theory. That's just question-begging.

Quote:

3.) There are too much pictures for that short time on the moon.

You do not specify what is the right amount and how you are able to know that. The arguments purporting that "too many" pictures were taken on the lunar surface wrongly presume the photography was distributed roughly evenly throughout the EVAs. This commits a numerical fallacy of averages, and does not reflect how the photographs were actually taken. Many of the photographs were taken in "clusters" of several exposures over the course of a minute or so, such as for panoramas. Then the cameras were left alone while the crew performed other work.

If you want serious answers you must provide actual examples. While we're at it, I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of "Apollo 12" in the pages Jack typed. If you are going to do nothing but wave your hands vaguely at allusions of evidence, this will be a very brief debate.

Quote:

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 ?

They are not fails. They are merely expressions of the ignorant assumptions of Apollo hoax theorists. I have studied these wacky theories for more than 10 years and have yet to see any that were even remotely rational.

They are not triggered by subconscious effects of watching The Shining. The practice of hoax theorism continues unaffected by whether the proponents have seen the film. No correlation means no causation.

There is no symbology in The Shining relating to fake Moon landings. This is purely a contrivance on the part of people who have no knowledge of Kubrick's work or life. Kubrick himself, and those who worked closely with him on this and other films, strongly deny that interpretation.

JayUtah · 15th August 2013, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by LaurelHS

It sounded to me like he was actually referring to product placement ("Coke messages") rather than subliminal messages.

I disagree. He was talking about such things as the colors and patterns of the carpet, and of subconscious processing of these and other cues to arrive at some abstract notion of "fake." These would not be very overt placements. He's also suggesting that the brain somehow automatically does his anagram and arithmetic for the room key.

Quote:

Product placement in movies and TV shows is very real, but I don't know how effective it is in getting people to buy things.

It seems to have been a big thing in the 1990s and 2000s but not so much anymore. The only vestige seems to be blurring or pixelating brand names shown in reality shows that conflict with the sponsor's brand. So if the show is sponsored by Coke and someone happens to be drinking a Pepsi, the sponsor agreement may require the producers to blur it. This indicates that sponsors at least believe it is somewhat effective.

JayUtah · 15th August 2013, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

Your interpretation is incompatible with all other literary and artistic analysis of Kubrick's work...

Not to mention incompatible with all the other tacked-on theories the Kubrick nuts attribute to The Shining, such as the Trail of Tears or the Holocaust. It seems every major world event or controversy, even long after Kubrick's death, is somehow woven into the fabric of all his movies in the form of disjoint Easter Eggs.

As I've said, it's just the Nostradamus Effect all over again.

Quote:

...nor does ir explain in any way the literal tons of internally and externally consistent material evidence for manned moon landings.

That's the important point. No matter what leads you to suspect something, determining whether it actually happened is a matter of examining the evidence. Too many conspiracy theorists simply want to infer the conclusion. Hans has given us three brief sentences about the Apollo 12 missions, but has not provided any actual evidence.

It simply doesn't matter whether Kubrick's movie leads you to think he might have helped fake the Moon landings. If the missions were faked at all by anyone, there should be unique, telltale cues irrespective of the source of the original suspicion. Constantly alluding back to that source doesn't prove the hypothesis it generated. That's purely circular reasoning.

But this line of argument fails for even deeper reasons. Hans has given us a list of supposed allusions to Apollo and the Moon, but none for the concept of fakery. Merely alluding to something that happened doesn't prove your specific theory for how you say it happened or didn't happen. If I note that a character in the film obsessively folds and unfolds a dollar bill in some scene, that's not proof for some accusation I may have just made up about the filmmaker being a counterfeiter.

At the very best one may interpret all these random Easter Eggs in The Shining as references to the Apollo missions, but there is nothing about them that says "Kubrick is telling us the missions were fake." That's a stretch even beyond the stretch.

Quote:

Your theory answers no questions but raises many others.

And hence is rejected as pure contrivance, and unparsimonious contrivance to boot.

frenat · 15th August 2013, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by LaurelHS

It sounded to me like he was actually referring to product placement ("Coke messages") rather than subliminal messages. Product placement in movies and TV shows is very real, but I don't know how effective it is in getting people to buy things. I notice it, but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to buy the product (if it's a very expensive brand name, I probably can't afford it anyway!).

My wife and I laugh when we see product placement because it is often very obvious and awkward.

Garrison · 15th August 2013, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

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

Hans

If you just looked at the details under each posters name you would realize how foolish that remark is...

Hans · 15th August 2013, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Garrison

If you just looked at the details under each posters name you would realize how foolish that remark is...

Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky

TjW · 15th August 2013, 06:20 PM

Or as the kids would have it: Yucky.

Tanalia · 15th August 2013, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Hans

Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky

And that Canada place a few people have listed is just a suburb of New York.

LSSBB · 15th August 2013, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tanalia

And that Canada place a few people have listed is just a suburb of New York.

I thought Vancouver was a suburb of Hong Kong?

Loss Leader · 15th August 2013, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Tanalia

And that Canada place a few people have listed is just a suburb of New York.

I think Dave Barry referred to it as a small wildlife park in northern New York.

threadworm · 15th August 2013, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

The two items in my signature, beneath the post text, are links to the lunar samples compendium and the lunar surface journal. I request that you visit those links for actual information about the moon landings and present the catalog number of photographs proving your #1 and #2 points.

Your #3 point is nonsense. In college I was employed for a year as a "party pix" photographer for fraternity and sorority parties. At one unpleasantly drunken event I shot 9 rolls of film in 45 minutes in order to complete the job and make my escape. That's 9 x 38 = 342 frames, shot with a manual focus/manual exposure Nikon. That's 7.6 frames per minute, or 7.8 seconds per frame. These were semi-formally posed pictures (we were paid by how many pairs of faces were in each image) and the total time includes rewinding and reloading the camera.

I made this point myself the other day. I was the 'official' photographer at my stepson's wedding a couple of months ago, during which lovely weekend I took more photographs than in the Apollo 11 and 12 EVA's combined.

While I appreciate I was using a digital camera, I think this was slightly compensated for by the fact that there was only one photographer and that photographer was quite drunk by the end of the day.

You take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff, you take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff. It's not difficult.

threadworm · 15th August 2013, 09:41 PM

Oh, and I saw The Shining high as a kite on psilocybin mushrooms and it still made more sense than the contorted conspiracy interpretations out there.

(For the record this was not the smartest thing I have ever done, and I would not recommend it)

JayUtah · 15th August 2013, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Hans

Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky

I hope that means our skiing and their whiskey.

SpitfireIX · 15th August 2013, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I hope that means our skiing and their whiskey.

Just don't drink the whiskey while you're skiing.

Hans Peper · 15th August 2013, 11:59 PM

It starts to get boring.

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?

Hans

AdMan · 16th August 2013, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

It starts to get boring.

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?

Hans

Stop it with your idiotic comments. Either present your actual evidence or please go away.

Captain_Swoop · 16th August 2013, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

The two items in my signature, beneath the post text, are links to the lunar samples compendium and the lunar surface journal..

Lunar Samples Compendium is a fantastic site. I always use it when I see claims about 'fake rocks' etc.

AtomicDog · 16th August 2013, 05:15 AM

Why would Kubrick, in emulating the Riddler, leave clues pointing to the one landing mission of which there is almost no video?

Garrison · 16th August 2013, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Hans

Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky

Who cares what a few treacherous colonials think?

Garrison · 16th August 2013, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

It starts to get boring.

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?

Hans

Fit what? Even if you were precisely correct in what way Kubrick playing a joke
within his film affect the mountain of evidence that Apollo is real?

332nd · 16th August 2013, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

It starts to get boring.

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?

Hans

I'm a professional actor. I've done work for both film & stage. My current job involves writing, directing, & performing in a LARP (Live Action Role Playing) game that is full of visual puzzles & clues, I've been doing this for 6 years. In that time I've learned than when no one gets the puzzle you're trying to present, you've done something wrong. 90% of the time, whst you've done wrong is see something that isn't actually there.

JayUtah · 16th August 2013, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

It starts to get boring.

Yes, often the real facts are "boring" compared to conspiracy theories. If you aren't willing to participate in a debate of your claims, why present them here?

Quote:

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?

Stop accusing your critics of being blind, pig-headed, or reluctant. You have presented your claim. Despite all requests for it, you have failed to present any actual evidence. Your contrivances and speculation have been patiently heard and commented upon. Several of your audience have asked you specific questions and have given you good reasons why your speculation is not likely to be true. You have largely ignored most of it in favor of chiding your critics for their apparent lack of insight.

I'm sorry that we have failed to entertain you, but that wasn't our goal.

Loss Leader · 16th August 2013, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ?

Very easily. There's even a whole theory about it. Basically, the viewer imports into the work something meaningful to him or her.

The TV show Cagney and Lacey was a huge hit with lesbians. Despite the fact that one character was married and the other serially dated men, lesbians watched the show as though Cagney and Lacey were a lesbian couple. Why? Because there were no shows about lesbians on at the time. They had no other models on which to project what was important to them.

That's what you are doing. You are bringing your own personal meaning to a work because that's what is important to you. The meaning isn't inherent in the work. It is a projection from your mind. That's why no one else can or ever will see it. No one else needs that meaning to be there like you do.

You might want to read a bit on film criticism. It's all in there.

(source)

JayUtah · 16th August 2013, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Redtail

I'm a professional actor. I've done work for both film & stage.

Well done! I'm a professional engineer, but also a (paid) set and prop designer and sometimes a (paid) actor. Not relevant until farther down the post, but I thought I'd verbally shake your hand here for your choice of profession.

I should also put up my standard "Jay in costume" avatar, now that I've been here a while.

Quote:

In that time I've learned than when no one gets the puzzle you're trying to present, you've done something wrong.

I hide stuff in sets and props all the time, but as tips-of-the-hat to people who worked on the production, not as some nefarious attempt to overthrow the Establishment. I had a set design that used a lot of street signs, and the streets were named after the executive producers. All the price tags in one convenience store set were "$6.66."

We all do this, if we have the chance.. I actually burst out laughing in the theater at Serenity when I saw the ID number "C57D" on something. All the illegible labels in the spaceship Leonov set in 2010 were reproductions of the original instructions for using the zero-gravity toilet, from Kubrick's 2001. It's part of designing in this idiom.

But these are just Easter Eggs. I've never been asked by any director to encode some irrelevant pseudo-dramaturgical bombshell into a set or prop design. Nor have I any inclination (on the typical schedule and budget) to do this myself. Much of what comes together on the stage or film set is a happenstance marriage of my efforts plus the set dresser and prop buyer. And this is how Kubrick worked too. He obsessed over some details but left others (like what Danny's sweater would actually look like) to others.

Sure Kubrick (or someone working with him) might have had an Easter-Egg sense of humor. The classic example is "Serum 114" from A Clockwork Orange. Many critics consider it a homophone of the "CRM-114 discriminator" device from Dr. Strangelove. The device is mentioned and named in the book, so Kubrick simply and wisely reflected his source material there. But since you still have to sort of cherry-pick the elements of the prop label in Clockwork to get that, it's a dubious connection.

I laughed when someone told me that in The Shining the elevator indicators are always set to floors 1 and 2, and that this was a significant numerological detail. I laughed because, from my own experience in film and theater, it simply meant that all the elevator shots were filmed the same day, regardless of when they would appear in the final edited film. It's just as plausible to conclude Kubrick didn't notice or care what the indicators said. Or that the indicators were immovable, fastened in place by the set designer. Or that -- since I haven't checked -- the claim they "always read the same" might actually be false. Or that Kubrick in his infinite penchant for detail researched how elevators work and discovered that "rest floors" for elevators are a thing, and that the middle floor is often the rest floor for an unused elevator, to which it returns automatically after a certain period of disuse. That is, it could be intentional but not for the suspect reason (e.g., a shout-out to the Twelve Apostles).

You can go round and round with this sort of nonsense, trying to read hidden meanings into meaningless features. It's pointless unless the people involved actually confirm that this was their meaning. Artists, including filmmakers, know that people will take away things from their work that they didn't intent. And that this is the brilliantly collaborative nature of art. Thus they aren't necessarily opposed to what people want to say about their films. However in this case Kubrick has made it fairly evident that "fake moon landings" is not any sort of intent in The Shining.

Quote:

90% of the time, what you've done wrong is see something that isn't actually there

Indeed, and here's where we get back to engineering -- especially forensic engineering that tries to uncover why things go wrong.

For any incident you choose to investigate, there will be one network of causation that interests you, because it leads backward from the catastrophic effect to the original causes. Finding that set of root causes and the manner in which they conspired to wreak havoc is the art of forensic engineering. But real life never lays that causal chain or network out in neatly labeled form for you to discover. You must carefully extract it from all the irrelevant causal chains -- all the other things that were happening at the time. The art of forensic engineering investigation is not knowing what to include, but knowing what to pare away.

At any given moment in any endeavor in life, several things are going on. While the operator of some equipment may be distracted by surreptitiously sending his wife a text message and thus open a hydraulic vent valve by mistake and cause heavy stuff to crash to the floor, at the same time you may have (irrelevant) safety violations at the electrical panel, (irrelevant) goofing off in the foreman's office, (irrelevant) illicit drug deals on the assembly floor, (irrelevant) abstenteeism, (irrelevant) maintenance irregularities, (irrelevant) thermal loads, etc.

In that line of reasoning, it's proper to say by analogy, "The Shining is a story about off-season caretakers in a haunted hotel." But Kubrick isn't that kind of filmmaker. He will embellish the theme and put it in a thematic framework that dictates or affects details about the production. Likewise, "A distracted operator mistakenly opened the wrong hydraulic valve," accurately describes the cause of some incident, but is more helpfully embellished by things such as, "The safety culture at Blabco Industrial is lacking," or "Insufficient safeguards to prevent operator error."

And at no time do we have to incorporate everything that we seen in our snapshot of the factory floor into our theory, just as we do not have to incorporate everything we see on the screen into some over-arching theory for the filmmaker's intent. Sometimes an elevator indicator is just an elevator indicator.

Garrison · 16th August 2013, 10:29 AM

Article at the BBC today about the experiences of the production designer who worked with Kubrick on Dr Strangelove and Berry Lyndon; Kubrick really does not come across as the guy you would pick to shoot your time constrained hoax footage...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23698181

JayUtah · 16th August 2013, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Basically, the viewer imports into the work something meaningful to him or her.

Stanley Kubrick explicitly knew this and embraced it about his work. He explicitly chose subjects he believed had "meaty" themes, knowing that people would see his films and debate how he handled those themes -- which was often offbeat, shocking, or revelatory. The parent of a 15-year-old girl will approach Lolita with a different perspective than a wealthy widower. Hence they will come away from it with different reactions and impressions. Kubrick had no problem with this, but he didn't presume to know or care about catering to it. He always made the film he wanted to make, regardless of how others might interpret it ex post facto.

Granted, with Lolita he had to craft the film to be acceptable to audiences (and film distributors) of the time, but that's kind of the point. In the 1960s you could joke about pedophilia and make a film about it. Kubrick's treatment is a comedy of juxtaposition. Could you make Lolita the same way in 2013? Or even at all? No, I don't think so. Disapproval of pedophilia and child sex abuse, especially in the United States, these days achieves almost hysterical proportions. The subject matter of Lolita is, these days, no laughing matter.

Quote:

You are bringing your own personal meaning to a work because that's what is important to you. The meaning isn't inherent in the work. It is a projection from your mind. That's why no one else can or ever will see it. No one else needs that meaning to be there like you do.

That's it, in a nutshell.

nomuse · 16th August 2013, 11:29 AM

Not in the same august company, but I've been employed in theater for most of my working life. At one theater, we used to put a pig somewhere on every set in memory of a former props designer. Myself, I've tried to sneak a Wilhelm into every sound design (and it just as often gets cut).

Closest I can come to this kind of whistleblowing-the-conspiracy-in-scenic-elements was a set designer who had just been through an acrimonious divorce, and designed the courthouse set for a production so that when looked at from the right angle the jury box, witness stand and a decorative pillar formed a distinctive middle finger at all courthouses, everywhere.

Okay, sure, theater has often been subversive. From political theater back to the pointed commentary of the court jester. But I really can't think of or even imagine a scenario in which a few people on a production decided to reveal their own role in a conspiracy by putting in clues so opaque almost no-one would ever see them.

That sounds a lot more like a product OF Hollywood, than it does a Hollywood production.

Buckaroo · 16th August 2013, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Hans Peper

It starts to get boring.

Hans

Edited to remove breach. Please, be civil and polite as per Rule 0.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:LashL

15th August 2013, 05:20 AM	#441
Border Reiver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,726	Originally Posted by Hans Peper 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 Just because I'm sure this is a language issue: sublingual means "under the tongue", I believe you mean "subliminal", or "below the level of conscious perception". Second, if it was faked, the sheer number of people involved in the fakery (on the order of several thousand) would preclude it having remained a secret. Especially with people leaving clues that it was faked in other media.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

15th August 2013, 05:56 AM	#442
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141	And I suppsoe Arthur C Clarke worked as a technical advisor on this mythical fake moon landing film Kubrick is supposed to have made?
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141

15th August 2013, 06:25 AM	#444
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,762	Originally Posted by Hans Peper 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 You can't just take the average of the minimum and maximum. The Moon's orbit is an (approximate) ellipse, with the Earth at one of the ellipse's foci. Further, the Moon is moving faster with respect to the Earth when it is closer to the Earth, because it has less potential energy (and thus more kinetic energy) with respect to the Earth in that situation, so it spends less time close to the Earth. See here.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

15th August 2013, 06:43 AM	#445
AtomicDog New Blood Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 20	Douglas Trumbull was the special effects chief on 2001. How come the conspiracy theorists never zero in on him as the one responsible for the moon hoax? Could it be because he's still around to defend himself?
AtomicDog New Blood Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 20

15th August 2013, 07:09 AM	#446
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141	Originally Posted by AtomicDog Douglas Trumbull was the special effects chief on 2001. How come the conspiracy theorists never zero in on him as the one responsible for the moon hoax? Could it be because he's still around to defend himself? And Silent Running is stiill a great film
Dcdrac Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,141

15th August 2013, 06:19 AM	#443
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 11,097	Originally Posted by Hans Peper We have "MOOR N 237" which is written on the lable. If you cut away the R, you get "MOON 237" Of course, if you just try to pronounce it as is, you get "MORON".

15th August 2013, 07:44 AM	#447
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 28,231	Originally Posted by Hans Peper 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. 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. So, you went looking for a message and, in a two hour movie, you found a couple of seconds that, with a great deal of work, you were able to twist into something that had meaning to you. Let me illustrate what I mean. I contend that God was speaking directly to me in the Bible. My birthday is the third day of October 1970. The third book of the Bible is Leviticus. The 7th verse (which is 70 without the meaningless zero) of the 10th chapter is: 7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses. Lord Leases = Loss Leader This is a hidden message that can only be retrieved subconsciously, but it is plainly there in the text. Using my birthday as the code-breaking devise, I found that God has personally leased me his powers as Lord of the universe. And, using those powers, I am able to proclaim: Everything you're saying is complete nonsense.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader Last edited by Loss Leader; 15th August 2013 at 07:49 AM.

15th August 2013, 08:23 AM	#448
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by Hans Peper 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. The two items in my signature, beneath the post text, are links to the lunar samples compendium and the lunar surface journal. I request that you visit those links for actual information about the moon landings and present the catalog number of photographs proving your #1 and #2 points. Your #3 point is nonsense. In college I was employed for a year as a "party pix" photographer for fraternity and sorority parties. At one unpleasantly drunken event I shot 9 rolls of film in 45 minutes in order to complete the job and make my escape. That's 9 x 38 = 342 frames, shot with a manual focus/manual exposure Nikon. That's 7.6 frames per minute, or 7.8 seconds per frame. These were semi-formally posed pictures (we were paid by how many pairs of faces were in each image) and the total time includes rewinding and reloading the camera.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

15th August 2013, 08:41 AM	#449
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,412	Originally Posted by Hans Peper I read some messages from Kubrick, that he said he faked it... No. You've read accusations and speculations against him. According to Stanley Kubrick's personal assistant Anthony Frewin, Kubrick was initially amused by the tall tales, but toward the end of his life become increasingly irritated especially when they started to involve his family. I assure you Kubrick had very little if any tolerance or patience for them. As I said, I do not consider you an expert on Kubrick's life or work. Quote: ...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. Are we leaving Kubrick behind now and focusing on the actual missions? If so, please state your case. Quote: My question is : Is this a result of Kubricks sublingual messages ? I am afraid that it is. No, you're not "afraid" it is -- you're desperately pitching the notion that it must be, on no better authority than your say-so. Sorry, but not everything you imagine, "sublingually" or not, can be attributed to Kubrick. You have the burden to prove Kubrick intended whatever symbolic meaning you've contrived, if your argument is that these contrivances were meant to relate to his supposed role in faking the Moon landings. Quote: Now I am interested in this topic. What is the nature of your interest? You seem to be interested primarily in foisting your subjective musings as evidence.

15th August 2013, 08:49 AM	#450
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by JayUtah You have the burden to prove Kubrick intended whatever symbolic meaning you've contrived, if your argument is that these contrivances were meant to relate to his supposed role in faking the Moon landings. And, Hans, I've presented an alternate interpretation of the symbology embedded in The Shining that is consistent with his larger body of work. Your interpretation is incompatible with all other literary and artistic analysis of Kubrick's work, nor does ir explain in any way the literal tons of internally and externally consistent material evidence for manned moon landings. Your theory answers no questions but raises many others.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

15th August 2013, 08:52 AM	#451
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA! USA! Posts: 24,384	Originally Posted by Hans Peper 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 ? I have worked in advertising for most of my career. No one uses subliminal messages to sell anything. Originally Posted by 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) .. Your messages without words are words. Deep.

15th August 2013, 09:02 AM	#452
LaurelHS Muse Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 700	Originally Posted by carlitos I have worked in advertising for most of my career. No one uses subliminal messages to sell anything. It sounded to me like he was actually referring to product placement ("Coke messages") rather than subliminal messages. Product placement in movies and TV shows is very real, but I don't know how effective it is in getting people to buy things. I notice it, but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to buy the product (if it's a very expensive brand name, I probably can't afford it anyway!).
LaurelHS Muse Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 700

15th August 2013, 09:22 AM	#454
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,412	Originally Posted by LaurelHS It sounded to me like he was actually referring to product placement ("Coke messages") rather than subliminal messages. I disagree. He was talking about such things as the colors and patterns of the carpet, and of subconscious processing of these and other cues to arrive at some abstract notion of "fake." These would not be very overt placements. He's also suggesting that the brain somehow automatically does his anagram and arithmetic for the room key. Quote: Product placement in movies and TV shows is very real, but I don't know how effective it is in getting people to buy things. It seems to have been a big thing in the 1990s and 2000s but not so much anymore. The only vestige seems to be blurring or pixelating brand names shown in reality shows that conflict with the sponsor's brand. So if the show is sponsored by Coke and someone happens to be drinking a Pepsi, the sponsor agreement may require the producers to blur it. This indicates that sponsors at least believe it is somewhat effective.

15th August 2013, 09:40 AM	#455
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,412	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon Your interpretation is incompatible with all other literary and artistic analysis of Kubrick's work... Not to mention incompatible with all the other tacked-on theories the Kubrick nuts attribute to The Shining, such as the Trail of Tears or the Holocaust. It seems every major world event or controversy, even long after Kubrick's death, is somehow woven into the fabric of all his movies in the form of disjoint Easter Eggs. As I've said, it's just the Nostradamus Effect all over again. Quote: ...nor does ir explain in any way the literal tons of internally and externally consistent material evidence for manned moon landings. That's the important point. No matter what leads you to suspect something, determining whether it actually happened is a matter of examining the evidence. Too many conspiracy theorists simply want to infer the conclusion. Hans has given us three brief sentences about the Apollo 12 missions, but has not provided any actual evidence. It simply doesn't matter whether Kubrick's movie leads you to think he might have helped fake the Moon landings. If the missions were faked at all by anyone, there should be unique, telltale cues irrespective of the source of the original suspicion. Constantly alluding back to that source doesn't prove the hypothesis it generated. That's purely circular reasoning. But this line of argument fails for even deeper reasons. Hans has given us a list of supposed allusions to Apollo and the Moon, but none for the concept of fakery. Merely alluding to something that happened doesn't prove your specific theory for how you say it happened or didn't happen. If I note that a character in the film obsessively folds and unfolds a dollar bill in some scene, that's not proof for some accusation I may have just made up about the filmmaker being a counterfeiter. At the very best one may interpret all these random Easter Eggs in The Shining as references to the Apollo missions, but there is nothing about them that says "Kubrick is telling us the missions were fake." That's a stretch even beyond the stretch. Quote: Your theory answers no questions but raises many others. And hence is rejected as pure contrivance, and unparsimonious contrivance to boot.

15th August 2013, 03:45 PM	#456
frenat Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 482	Originally Posted by LaurelHS It sounded to me like he was actually referring to product placement ("Coke messages") rather than subliminal messages. Product placement in movies and TV shows is very real, but I don't know how effective it is in getting people to buy things. I notice it, but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to buy the product (if it's a very expensive brand name, I probably can't afford it anyway!). My wife and I laugh when we see product placement because it is often very obvious and awkward.
frenat Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 482	__________________ -Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension. -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory. -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

15th August 2013, 05:20 PM	#457
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,913	Originally Posted by Hans Peper Thanks to god, that you american guys are standing with both feet on the ground. Hans If you just looked at the details under each posters name you would realize how foolish that remark is...
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

15th August 2013, 05:46 PM	#458
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,983	Originally Posted by Garrison If you just looked at the details under each posters name you would realize how foolish that remark is... Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,983

15th August 2013, 06:20 PM	#459
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 11,097	Or as the kids would have it: Yucky.

15th August 2013, 08:57 PM	#460
Tanalia Scholar Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 83	Originally Posted by Hans Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky And that Canada place a few people have listed is just a suburb of New York.
Tanalia Scholar Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 83

15th August 2013, 09:10 PM	#461
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by Tanalia And that Canada place a few people have listed is just a suburb of New York. I thought Vancouver was a suburb of Hong Kong?
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

15th August 2013, 09:16 PM	#462
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 28,231	Originally Posted by Tanalia And that Canada place a few people have listed is just a suburb of New York. I think Dave Barry referred to it as a small wildlife park in northern New York.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

15th August 2013, 09:32 PM	#463
threadworm Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,820	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon The two items in my signature, beneath the post text, are links to the lunar samples compendium and the lunar surface journal. I request that you visit those links for actual information about the moon landings and present the catalog number of photographs proving your #1 and #2 points. Your #3 point is nonsense. In college I was employed for a year as a "party pix" photographer for fraternity and sorority parties. At one unpleasantly drunken event I shot 9 rolls of film in 45 minutes in order to complete the job and make my escape. That's 9 x 38 = 342 frames, shot with a manual focus/manual exposure Nikon. That's 7.6 frames per minute, or 7.8 seconds per frame. These were semi-formally posed pictures (we were paid by how many pairs of faces were in each image) and the total time includes rewinding and reloading the camera. I made this point myself the other day. I was the 'official' photographer at my stepson's wedding a couple of months ago, during which lovely weekend I took more photographs than in the Apollo 11 and 12 EVA's combined. While I appreciate I was using a digital camera, I think this was slightly compensated for by the fact that there was only one photographer and that photographer was quite drunk by the end of the day. You take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff, you take bursts of photographs, you do other stuff. It's not difficult.
	__________________ Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to. ************************** Apollo Hoax Debunked

15th August 2013, 09:41 PM	#464
threadworm Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,820	Oh, and I saw The Shining high as a kite on psilocybin mushrooms and it still made more sense than the contorted conspiracy interpretations out there. (For the record this was not the smartest thing I have ever done, and I would not recommend it)
	__________________ Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to. ************************** Apollo Hoax Debunked

15th August 2013, 09:50 PM	#465
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,412	Originally Posted by Hans Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky I hope that means our skiing and their whiskey.

15th August 2013, 10:10 PM	#466
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,762	Originally Posted by JayUtah I hope that means our skiing and their whiskey. Just don't drink the whiskey while you're skiing.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

15th August 2013, 11:59 PM	#467
Hans Peper Thinker Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 142	It starts to get boring. You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ? Hans
Hans Peper Thinker Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 142	__________________ Do not trust your brain

16th August 2013, 12:01 AM	#468
AdMan Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 10,293	Originally Posted by Hans Peper It starts to get boring. You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ? Hans Stop it with your idiotic comments. Either present your actual evidence or please go away.
	__________________ As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire.

16th August 2013, 04:00 AM	#469
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon The two items in my signature, beneath the post text, are links to the lunar samples compendium and the lunar surface journal.. Lunar Samples Compendium is a fantastic site. I always use it when I see claims about 'fake rocks' etc.

16th August 2013, 05:15 AM	#470
AtomicDog New Blood Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 20	Why would Kubrick, in emulating the Riddler, leave clues pointing to the one landing mission of which there is almost no video?
AtomicDog New Blood Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 20

16th August 2013, 06:49 AM	#471
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,913	Originally Posted by Hans Well everyone I hope is aware that UK stands for the little known Amercian state of Utah-Kentucky Who cares what a few treacherous colonials think?
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

16th August 2013, 06:51 AM	#472
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,913	Originally Posted by Hans Peper It starts to get boring. You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ? Hans Fit what? Even if you were precisely correct in what way Kubrick playing a joke within his film affect the mountain of evidence that Apollo is real?
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

16th August 2013, 07:06 AM	#473
332nd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 11,278	Originally Posted by Hans Peper It starts to get boring. You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ? Hans I'm a professional actor. I've done work for both film & stage. My current job involves writing, directing, & performing in a LARP (Live Action Role Playing) game that is full of visual puzzles & clues, I've been doing this for 6 years. In that time I've learned than when no one gets the puzzle you're trying to present, you've done something wrong. 90% of the time, whst you've done wrong is see something that isn't actually there.
	__________________ The poster formerly known as Redtail

16th August 2013, 08:29 AM	#474
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,412	Originally Posted by Hans Peper It starts to get boring. Yes, often the real facts are "boring" compared to conspiracy theories. If you aren't willing to participate in a debate of your claims, why present them here? Quote: You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ? Stop accusing your critics of being blind, pig-headed, or reluctant. You have presented your claim. Despite all requests for it, you have failed to present any actual evidence. Your contrivances and speculation have been patiently heard and commented upon. Several of your audience have asked you specific questions and have given you good reasons why your speculation is not likely to be true. You have largely ignored most of it in favor of chiding your critics for their apparent lack of insight. I'm sorry that we have failed to entertain you, but that wasn't our goal.

16th August 2013, 09:00 AM	#475
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 28,231	Originally Posted by Hans Peper You all know, what is right and what not, but nobody is able to see what is hidden in Wendys pages. How could that fit ? Very easily. There's even a whole theory about it. Basically, the viewer imports into the work something meaningful to him or her. The TV show Cagney and Lacey was a huge hit with lesbians. Despite the fact that one character was married and the other serially dated men, lesbians watched the show as though Cagney and Lacey were a lesbian couple. Why? Because there were no shows about lesbians on at the time. They had no other models on which to project what was important to them. That's what you are doing. You are bringing your own personal meaning to a work because that's what is important to you. The meaning isn't inherent in the work. It is a projection from your mind. That's why no one else can or ever will see it. No one else needs that meaning to be there like you do. You might want to read a bit on film criticism. It's all in there. (source)
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

16th August 2013, 10:29 AM	#476
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 22,412	Originally Posted by Redtail I'm a professional actor. I've done work for both film & stage. Well done! I'm a professional engineer, but also a (paid) set and prop designer and sometimes a (paid) actor. Not relevant until farther down the post, but I thought I'd verbally shake your hand here for your choice of profession. I should also put up my standard "Jay in costume" avatar, now that I've been here a while. Quote: In that time I've learned than when no one gets the puzzle you're trying to present, you've done something wrong. I hide stuff in sets and props all the time, but as tips-of-the-hat to people who worked on the production, not as some nefarious attempt to overthrow the Establishment. I had a set design that used a lot of street signs, and the streets were named after the executive producers. All the price tags in one convenience store set were "$6.66." We all do this, if we have the chance.. I actually burst out laughing in the theater at Serenity when I saw the ID number "C57D" on something. All the illegible labels in the spaceship Leonov set in 2010 were reproductions of the original instructions for using the zero-gravity toilet, from Kubrick's 2001. It's part of designing in this idiom. But these are just Easter Eggs. I've never been asked by any director to encode some irrelevant pseudo-dramaturgical bombshell into a set or prop design. Nor have I any inclination (on the typical schedule and budget) to do this myself. Much of what comes together on the stage or film set is a happenstance marriage of my efforts plus the set dresser and prop buyer. And this is how Kubrick worked too. He obsessed over some details but left others (like what Danny's sweater would actually look like) to others. Sure Kubrick (or someone working with him) might have had an Easter-Egg sense of humor. The classic example is "Serum 114" from A Clockwork Orange. Many critics consider it a homophone of the "CRM-114 discriminator" device from Dr. Strangelove. The device is mentioned and named in the book, so Kubrick simply and wisely reflected his source material there. But since you still have to sort of cherry-pick the elements of the prop label in Clockwork to get that, it's a dubious connection. I laughed when someone told me that in The Shining the elevator indicators are always set to floors 1 and 2, and that this was a significant numerological detail. I laughed because, from my own experience in film and theater, it simply meant that all the elevator shots were filmed the same day, regardless of when they would appear in the final edited film. It's just as plausible to conclude Kubrick didn't notice or care what the indicators said. Or that the indicators were immovable, fastened in place by the set designer. Or that -- since I haven't checked -- the claim they "always read the same" might actually be false. Or that Kubrick in his infinite penchant for detail researched how elevators work and discovered that "rest floors" for elevators are a thing, and that the middle floor is often the rest floor for an unused elevator, to which it returns automatically after a certain period of disuse. That is, it could be intentional but not for the suspect reason (e.g., a shout-out to the Twelve Apostles). You can go round and round with this sort of nonsense, trying to read hidden meanings into meaningless features. It's pointless unless the people involved actually confirm that this was their meaning. Artists, including filmmakers, know that people will take away things from their work that they didn't intent. And that this is the brilliantly collaborative nature of art. Thus they aren't necessarily opposed to what people want to say about their films. However in this case Kubrick has made it fairly evident that "fake moon landings" is not any sort of intent in The Shining. Quote: 90% of the time, what you've done wrong is see something that isn't actually there Indeed, and here's where we get back to engineering -- especially forensic engineering that tries to uncover why things go wrong. For any incident you choose to investigate, there will be one network of causation that interests you, because it leads backward from the catastrophic effect to the original causes. Finding that set of root causes and the manner in which they conspired to wreak havoc is the art of forensic engineering. But real life never lays that causal chain or network out in neatly labeled form for you to discover. You must carefully extract it from all the irrelevant causal chains -- all the other things that were happening at the time. The art of forensic engineering investigation is not knowing what to include, but knowing what to pare away. At any given moment in any endeavor in life, several things are going on. While the operator of some equipment may be distracted by surreptitiously sending his wife a text message and thus open a hydraulic vent valve by mistake and cause heavy stuff to crash to the floor, at the same time you may have (irrelevant) safety violations at the electrical panel, (irrelevant) goofing off in the foreman's office, (irrelevant) illicit drug deals on the assembly floor, (irrelevant) abstenteeism, (irrelevant) maintenance irregularities, (irrelevant) thermal loads, etc. In that line of reasoning, it's proper to say by analogy, "The Shining is a story about off-season caretakers in a haunted hotel." But Kubrick isn't that kind of filmmaker. He will embellish the theme and put it in a thematic framework that dictates or affects details about the production. Likewise, "A distracted operator mistakenly opened the wrong hydraulic valve," accurately describes the cause of some incident, but is more helpfully embellished by things such as, "The safety culture at Blabco Industrial is lacking," or "Insufficient safeguards to prevent operator error." And at no time do we have to incorporate everything that we seen in our snapshot of the factory floor into our theory, just as we do not have to incorporate everything we see on the screen into some over-arching theory for the filmmaker's intent. Sometimes an elevator indicator is just an elevator indicator.