{"id":946,"date":"2009-10-11T15:54:04","date_gmt":"2009-10-11T15:54:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/2009\/10\/11\/how-faking-the-moon-landings-nearly-cost-stanley-kubrick-his-marriage-and-his-life-1\/"},"modified":"2009-10-11T15:54:04","modified_gmt":"2009-10-11T15:54:04","slug":"how-faking-the-moon-landings-nearly-cost-stanley-kubrick-his-marriage-and-his-life-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/how-faking-the-moon-landings-nearly-cost-stanley-kubrick-his-marriage-and-his-life-1\/","title":{"rendered":"“How Faking Photos of the Moon Landings Nearly Cost Stanley Kubrick his Marriage and his Life”"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n


\nHow Stanley Kubrick
\nFaked the Apollo Moon Landings:<\/font>
\n<\/strong><\/font>Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.
\n<\/strong><\/font>Alchemical Kubrick II<\/strong>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n


\nBy
\n<\/strong><\/font>Jay Weidner<\/strong>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n


\nCopyright July 20
\nth<\/sup> 2009
\n
\nSacred Mysteries Productions <\/font><\/p>\n


\n"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available,
\nto those who can remove one of truths protective layers"<\/em>
\n<\/font>
\n-Neil Armstrong, 'First Man on the Moon'.
\n<\/font> July 20
\nth<\/sup> 1994
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

It
\nhas now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the
\nApollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people
\ntend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger
\nof the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on
\nthe moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the
\nsurface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more
\nvocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the
\nmoon and that the entire thing was faked.<\/font><\/p>\n

This
\nessay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view
\nfalls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position
\npostulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in
\nphotographs was completely faked.<\/font><\/p>\n

Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.<\/span><\/p>\n

1) MOTIVATIONS FOR FAKING<\/span><\/p>\n

But
\nwhy fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation?
\nAuthors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable
\nproof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer
\ntechnology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US
\nGovernment brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in
\norder to build these highly advanced flying machines.<\/font><\/p>\n

Furthermore,
\nthey believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading
\nthe Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this
\ntechnology.<\/font><\/p>\n

Many
\nsources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that
\nafter John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his
\nPresidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the
\nflying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world.
\nHe saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way
\ntowards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things.<\/font><\/p>\n

Soon
\nafter seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech
\nasking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many
\ninsiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the
\nsecret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was
\nobvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man
\nto the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to
\nrelease the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in
\norder to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the
\n1960's. JFK's ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced
\ntechnology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.<\/font><\/p>\n

After
\nthe assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would
\nsolve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA,
\nand the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to
\nstill make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and
\nback.<\/font><\/p>\n

Someone
\nhigh up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire moon
\nlandings in order to conceal the United States' extremely new and
\nadvanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our enemies.<\/font><\/p>\n

In
\nsome ways NASA's position on this was understandable. We were in the
\nmiddle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to
\nshow the Russians what we had?<\/font><\/p>\n

2). WHO WILL FAKE IT?<\/span><\/p>\n

In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film.<\/span><\/p>\n

While
\ndirecting Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for
\npermission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The
\nPentagon turned him down.<\/font><\/p>\n

The
\nmovie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been
\nordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The
\nPentagon read Kubrick's script and rejected his request to actually
\nfilm the inside, and outside, of a B-52.<\/font><\/p>\n

The
\nreason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly a satire
\non the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to
\nassist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.<\/font><\/p>\n

Undaunted
\nby the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the
\nB-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special
\neffects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very
\ngood. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in
\nDr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the
\nperson best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do
\nthat well on a limited budget – what could he do on an unlimited budget?<\/font><\/p>\n

No
\none knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo
\nlandings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that
\nhis brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party
\nmay have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get
\nStanley to cooperate.<\/font><\/p>\n

Kubrick
\nalso had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It
\nwould have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall during
\nthe negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.<\/font><\/p>\n

In
\nthe end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in
\nreturn for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to
\nmake his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the
\nsecond was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no
\noversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.<\/font><\/p>\n

Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.<\/span><\/p>\n

3). PARALELLING EVENTS<\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey
\nparallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and
\nwent on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the
\nApollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon
\nlandings on July 20th 1969.<\/font><\/p>\n

Also
\nit is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was
\nworking both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top
\nscience advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.<\/font><\/p>\n

Once
\nhe negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem
\nfor Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the
\nground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the
\nscenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the
\nmoon and not in a studio back lot.<\/font><\/p>\n

4). HOLLYWOOD TRICKERY.<\/span><\/p>\n

No
\none knows how many things he tried but eventually Kubrick settled on
\ndoing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen
\nProjection.<\/font><\/p>\n

It
\nis in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of
\nKubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video
\nmaterial.<\/font><\/p>\n

What is Front Screen Projection?<\/span><\/p>\n

Kubrick
\ndid not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it.
\nFront Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be
\nprojected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if
\nthe actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen
\nProjection.<\/font><\/p>\n

The process
\ncame into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called
\nScotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds
\nof thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4mm wide. These
\nbeads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection
\nprocess
\nthe Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage.
\nThe plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to
\nbe exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene
\nonto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would
\ngo through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the
\ncamera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen
\nand he would appear to be 'inside' the projection.<\/font><\/p>\n


\n
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

Today
\nHollywood magicians use green screens and computers for special effects
\nand so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine
\nand the Model T, but for its time, especially in the 1960's, nothing
\nworked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that
\nwould be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey
\nand the faked Apollo landings.<\/font><\/p>\n

To
\nsee how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen let's examine the
\nape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film 2001: A Space
\nOdyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them
\nin the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the
\nactors in Ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you
\nare seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually
\nshot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men in 2001 are actually
\nslides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at
\nthe rear of the set.<\/font><\/p>\n

In
\norder to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a photographic
\nteam to Spain to shoot 8'' X 10'' Ektachrome slides. These slides were
\nthen projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the
\nScotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the
\nscreen acting out the script.<\/font><\/p>\n

If
\nyou watch 2001 on DVD you can actually see the 'seams' of the screen
\noccasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen
\nProjection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were
\nforced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could
\ncreate the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.<\/font><\/p>\n

In this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely.<\/span><\/p>\n


\n
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

Next
\nis the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic
\nprogram. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased
\nthe contrast.<\/font><\/p>\n

Please examine:<\/span><\/p>\n


\n
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.<\/span><\/p>\n

To
\nget the perspective correct one has to realize that the Scotchlite
\nscreen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on
\nthe soundstage.<\/font><\/p>\n

The
\nlines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws
\nin the screen give the sky give a peculiar 'geometry' when the image is
\nproperly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Page 2:<\/span><\/p>\n

Let's show another
\nexample. Here is a still from the famous 'water hole' scene from
\n2001:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

This next image
\nis again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast
\nincreased:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

While watching
\n2001,with the scenes of the ape-men, one can begin to see the tell
\ntale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection
\nsystem is being used.<\/font><\/p>\n

It should be emphasized
\nthat the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those
\nare 'real' rocks (whether paper mache or real) that surround the
\nape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene
\nis being projected via the Front Screen Projector.<\/font><\/p>\n

One of the ways
\nthat you can tell the Front Screen system is being used is that the
\nbottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite
\nscreen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located rocks and
\nother things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the projection
\nscreen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the
\nbottom of the background projection screen if it weren't blocked
\nin some fashion. As part of the 'trick' it became necessary to place
\nthings in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the
\nscreen.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

I have photo-shopped
\na line differentiating the set and the background Scotchlite Front
\nProjection Screen. Please note how everything is in focus, from the
\npebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains beyond.<\/font><\/p>\n

You will see that
\nhiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is always being done when
\nthe Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
\nHiding the screen is one of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its
\nuse. Just like the stage magician who needs the long sleeves of his
\ncostume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed
\nto hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon
\nline between set and screen.<\/font><\/p>\n

Here is another
\nexample from 2001: A Space Odyssey:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

And here is the
\nsame image with my photo shop line separating the set with the ape-man
\nactor and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

And you will see,
\nbefore this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this
\nsame evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and
\nvideo footage.<\/font><\/p>\n

It is this fingerprint
\nthat reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also
\nHOW they faked them.<\/font><\/p>\n

Let's examine a
\nfew NASA Apollo images now.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a still
\nfrom Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen
\nProjection process.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Again I have photo-shopped
\na line indicating the back of the set. One can see that there is
\na slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of
\nthe screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from
\nthe lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a strange
\nchange in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This
\nis because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection
\nsystem has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we
\ngo on we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout
\nthe Apollo images.<\/font><\/p>\n

Here is another
\nApollo image.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Now here is my
\nversion where I show the line between set and screen.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Again notice that
\nthe texture of the ground changes right behind my lines.<\/font><\/p>\n

Now let's go to
\nsome more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing occurs here
\nas in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating
\nthe set from the screen. Even if you do not see it at first it will
\nbecome apparent, as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen
\nProjection process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts
\nstanding on the lunar surface.<\/font><\/p>\n

Go to any NASA
\nsite like ( http:\/\/www.apolloarchive.com\/apollo_gallery.html<\/a>)
\nand start looking for yourself.<\/font><\/p>\n

Not all lunar surface
\nshots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing
\non the set with a completely (and suspicious) black background. The
\nearly missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when
\nthey had to. But as the missions went on and they had to look better,
\nKubrick began to perfect the process.<\/font><\/p>\n

Although you can
\nsee the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously
\nrevealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14,
\n15, 16 and (my favorite) 17.<\/font><\/p>\n

Here are a few
\nfrom Apollo 17.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

That astronaut
\nis driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is
\nonly three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how
\nthe tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually they are going to
\nthe edge of the set.<\/font><\/p>\n

Page 3:<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The astronaut is
\nabout six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please note how
\neverything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera
\nall the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut. As
\nwe shall see very soon, even that is impossible.<\/font><\/p>\n

Also please note
\nthe other tell tale evidence that permeates the Apollo images: There
\nis a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what
\nis being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the number
\nof small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen
\non the set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my
\nline this granularity disappears.<\/font><\/p>\n

This next image
\nis slick little piece of work. When first viewed one is sure that
\nthey are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning
\nto end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

But sure enough
\n– a close examination reveals the set\/screen line once again. Again
\nplease note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on
\neach side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear
\nbehind the line.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Doesn't the fakery
\njust make you all patriotic inside?<\/font><\/p>\n

5). DEPTH OF FIELD:
\nMORE EVIDENCE<\/font><\/p>\n

Besides the telltale
\nevidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing
\ngranularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale
\nfingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to
\ndo with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of
\nfield has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera
\nis tuned to.<\/font><\/p>\n

The main rule of
\nthumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the
\nless depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of
\nfield. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley
\nwas using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the
\nApollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.<\/font><\/p>\n

What this means
\nis that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart
\nin the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One
\nof the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to
\nuse depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds
\nthat are visually very pleasant to the human eye.<\/font><\/p>\n

While watching
\nthe ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything
\nis in focus. Whether it is the apes – or the far away desert background
\n– they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen
\non which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not
\nfar away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing
\nthe desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite
\nscreen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever
\nis projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of
\nfocus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.<\/font><\/p>\n

This depth of field
\nis impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm.
\nKeeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually
\nconfined to a small place.<\/font><\/p>\n

It may look like
\nthe ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality
\nthey are all on a small set in a studio.<\/font><\/p>\n

It may look like
\nthe astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are
\non a small confined set.<\/font><\/p>\n

According to the
\nNASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad
\ncameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film
\non which they took the images. This large format film is exactly
\nthe same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.<\/font><\/p>\n

The plane of focus,
\nthe depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should
\nhave been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would
\nhave to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect
\nto see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When
\nyou consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not
\neven have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras,
\nthis would have only increased the chances that most of what they
\nwould be shooting would be out of focus.<\/font><\/p>\n

I have gone through
\nthe entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard
\nin Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's
\nHouston headquarters.<\/font><\/p>\n

When the Apollo
\nphotographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would
\nexpect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots,
\nwe find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur
\nphotographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially
\nwhen one remembers that they are not even able to look through their
\ncamera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality
\nof a highly polished professional photographer.<\/font><\/p>\n

Before embarking
\non his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer
\nworking for Look Magazine.<\/font><\/p>\n

Honestly, even
\na professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera
\nwould be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal
\nclear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.<\/font><\/p>\n

Unfortunately though,
\nfor everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the
\nApollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.<\/font><\/p>\n

Examine the above
\nphotographs from Apollo. Please note how everything is in focus.
\nAs one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that
\nthe astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth
\nof field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in
\nfocus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of
\nphysics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface.<\/font><\/p>\n

Page 4:<\/p>\n

Indeed the very
\nphysics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears
\nwhen the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record the cameras
\nwere not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else).<\/font><\/p>\n

As a professional
\nphotographer and a filmmaker I have wrestled with depth of field
\nproblems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer
\nhas noticed the lack of depth of field problems encountered by the
\nastronaut-photographers. In reality the lack of depth of field problems
\nis a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.<\/font><\/p>\n

6). GLASS CITIES
\nOR FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION?<\/font><\/p>\n

Former NASA consultant
\nRichard Hoagland has examined many of the photos of the Apollo landings
\nand, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field,
\nhe has found other strange anomalies in the NASA material.<\/font><\/p>\n

Examining the photographic
\nrecord of the Apollo missions, and processing Apollo images through
\nvarious graphics programs, Hoagland has discovered 'geometries' in
\nthe skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He postulates that
\nthese geometries are evidence of some kind of gigantic glass-like
\nstructures behind, above and surrounding the astronauts as they stand
\non the lunar surface. Hoagland even shows us that there are rainbow
\nlights reflecting in the sky high above the astronauts.<\/font><\/p>\n

Many people, especially
\nin NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. Yet, no
\nmatter how much they attack Hoagland, they can never explain what
\nit is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In the same way
\nthat evidence in the JFK assassination and the high weirdness around
\n911 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists,
\nso too, is Hoagland's evidence just simply ignored by the critics.<\/font><\/p>\n

Instead they have
\ncreated an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland – the
\nman – while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence.<\/font><\/p>\n

His critics are
\neither wrong or they know what is really happening.<\/font><\/p>\n

I have known Richard
\nHoagland for a long time. I was with him during his initial discoveries
\nof artifacts on the lunar surface. I have seen photographic evidence
\nthat there are very strange things on the surface of the moon. I
\nam not here to start an argument with Mr. Hoagland or anyone else.<\/font><\/p>\n

I, like Hoagland,
\nbelieve that NASA has actually gone to the moon. I believe that moon
\nrocks were taken from the surface of the moon. I believe that there
\nis strong evidence of some kind of past intelligent activity on surface
\nof the moon. But I do not believe that standard rocket technology
\nis what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of the Moon.<\/font><\/p>\n

I am not trying
\nto debunk Hoagland's discoveries. All I am trying to do, with the
\nfollowing evidence, is show that the Apollo landings were a hoax.
\nAnd that Stanley Kubrick, using the Front Screen Projection system,
\ndirected them.<\/font><\/p>\n

Again I want to
\nmake sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are
\nnot strange structures on the moon. What I am saying is that the
\nstructures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing in the
\nphotographs taken on the lunar surface are not what he thinks they
\nare.<\/font><\/p>\n

Here are a few
\nof Hoagland's images. He believes that these images are proof that
\nNASA is hiding evidence of alien cities.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a processed
\nphotograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken
\nduring the Apollo 14 mission. Of course all of the stuff in the sky,
\nas seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible
\nif it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the
\nmoon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland
\nprocessed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered,
\nover and over again, all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts.<\/font><\/p>\n

No one in NASA
\neven attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange
\nstuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.<\/font><\/p>\n

Richard Hoagland
\ntheorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned 'glass
\ncities' on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing
\nin the above processed image is huge glass towers that only show
\nup on the images after they have been processed through graphics
\nsoftware.<\/font><\/p>\n

Here are some other
\nof Hoagland's images:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Hoagland has taken
\nthe image on the left and processed it in a manner very similar to
\nhow I processed the above images from 2001: A Space Odyssey. By increasing
\nthe gamma and the contrast of the image he arrived at the picture
\non the right.<\/font><\/p>\n

Hoagland interprets
\nthe image on the right as proof of giant glass structures behind
\nthe astronaut and, for that matter, all over the surface of the moon.<\/font><\/p>\n

What Hoagland is
\nreally seeing, though, is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite
\nscreen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections
\ncan also be found in the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in
\n2001: A Space Odyssey (see above).<\/font><\/p>\n

What Hoagland,
\nand the above image reveals, is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite
\nscreen.<\/font><\/p>\n

Because of the
\nvastness of the set, because he needed it to look like it was NOT
\nDONE ON A SOUNDSTAGE, Kubrick had to sew several Scotchlite screens
\ntogether. It was only when he had created a large enough Scotchlite
\nscreen was he then was able to get a large enough background image
\nthat would look expansive enough to appear to be the surface of the
\nmoon or a desert four million years ago.<\/font><\/p>\n

The same process
\nthat created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is the same process that
\ncreated the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.<\/font><\/p>\n

This is picture
\nfrom Hoagland's research.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The processed image
\nreveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts
\nin the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting
\noff of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the astronaut.<\/font><\/p>\n

What this is really
\nis a light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite
\nscreen. For some reason that particular glass bead was slightly off
\nfrom its 90-degree angle and so it caught the projector light and
\nreflected it back to the camera.<\/font><\/p>\n

Again a scene from
\n2001: A Space Odyssey (processed):<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

And one of Hoagland's
\nprocessed Apollo shots:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

It is pretty clear
\nfrom the two images above that Hoagland's 'geometries' are really
\nthe patterns and flaws and stitches in the Scotchlite screen.<\/font><\/p>\n

Maybe this is why
\nNASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA
\njust admitted that they 'accidentally' taped over the original high-resolution
\ntape of Apollo 11. Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong, 'the first man
\nto walk on the moon', doesn't want to participate in the 40 th<\/sup> anniversary
\nparties.<\/font><\/p>\n

Maybe this is why
\nwe have never gone back to the moon.<\/font><\/p>\n

7). INCONSISTANT
\nSHADOWS<\/font><\/p>\n

Many researchers
\nhave pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of
\nthe moon. Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can
\nthere be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?: <\/font><\/p>\n

How can the astronaut's
\ntwo shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually
\nstanding in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should
\nbe at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick
\nused studio lighting!<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

But why would Kubrick
\nmake a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image?
\nA great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a
\nhuge mistake.<\/font><\/p>\n

My answer is that
\nKubrick did this on purpose.<\/font><\/p>\n

He left behind
\ntelltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just
\nin the above shot but actually all over the Apollo photographic record.<\/font><\/p>\n

In my forthcoming
\ndocumentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled "Kubrick's Odyssey",
\nI will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can
\nin this short essay.<\/font><\/p>\n

One thing that
\nI am sure is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to
\nknow what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that
\nwould explain who did it and how.<\/font><\/p>\n

8). LAST NOTES<\/span><\/p>\n

Those of you who
\nare familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey
\ncalled Alchemical Kubrick (see http:\/\/www.jayweidner.com\/kubrick.htm<\/a>)
\nalready know that I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest
\nesoteric film of all time.<\/font><\/p>\n

For the first time
\nanywhere, in that essay, I show how Kubrick designed the black monolith
\nto be exactly the same size as the screen on which 2001 was projected.
\nThe monolith and the screen are the same thing. The monolith is the
\nscreen and the screen is the monolith. It is truly one of the greatest
\ndiscoveries in cinema history.<\/font><\/p>\n

When one realizes
\nthat Kubrick also used the Front Screen Projection system – not only
\nfor the ape scenes in 2001 – but also the fake the moon landings
\n– we can see a double, or even possibly a triple meaning, inside
\nthe idea that the screen is the monolith and the monolith is the
\nscreen.<\/font><\/p>\n

If the monolith
\nis that device that enlightens humanity then the Front Screen Projection
\nsystem, and it's unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens
\nhumanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.<\/font><\/p>\n

But also we can
\nsee that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an
\nopportunity to make one great film.<\/font><\/p>\n

Because he had
\nnegotiated a deal where no one would be given oversight on the film,
\nKubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing that
\nno one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the
\nfirst abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the
\ngreatest esoteric work of art in the 20 th<\/sup> century.<\/font><\/p>\n

The President of
\nMGM, at the time in 1968, publicly stated, that he never even saw
\na rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years
\nof production. Does that sound like the manner in which a head of
\na major studio would act? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most
\nexpensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely
\npossible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous progress
\nof the film?<\/font><\/p>\n

No way.<\/span><\/p>\n

I am sure that
\n2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives
\nwho funded the movie never scrutinized the film.<\/font><\/p>\n

Why weren't they
\nmore interested in this very expensive endeavor?<\/font><\/p>\n

Because MGM
\ndid not fund 2001, the US Government did.<\/em> <\/font><\/p>\n

Outside of the
\nFront Screen Projection evidence, which I believe nails the fraud
\nof the Apollo landings; there is other circumstantial evidence that
\nforces the conclusion even more in the direction of Kubrick directing
\nthe entire Apollo missions.<\/font><\/p>\n

For instance:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the original
\nrelease of 2001 there were many credits thanking NASA and many of
\nthe aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings.
\nThese credits have since been removed from all subsequent releases
\nof 2001. But for those of us old enough to remember, in the original
\ncredits, Kubrick thanks a vast array of military and space corporations
\nfor their help in the production.<\/font><\/p>\n

As these are the
\nsame corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts
\nto the moon – one has to wonder – what kind of help did they gave
\nStanley? And for what price?<\/font><\/p>\n

In the film 'Wag
\nthe Dog' Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to
\n'fake an event'. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie
\n'Stanley' mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants
\nto take credit for the 'event' that he helped fake.<\/font><\/p>\n

Stanley Kubrick
\ndied soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner
\nBrothers. It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that
\nfilm. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally
\nwas in France when Stanley died and I saw, on French television,
\nouttakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw outtakes from
\nseveral scenes that were never in the finished film.<\/font><\/p>\n

Warner Brothers
\nhas even come out and admitted that they re-edited the film. To this
\nday they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's cut. Not only
\nis this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with
\nWarner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see
\nthe un-edited version of this film.<\/font><\/p>\n

One has to wonder
\nwhat was cut out?<\/font><\/p>\n

And finally:<\/span><\/p>\n

Eyes Wide Shut
\nwas released on July 16 th<\/sup> 1999.<\/font><\/p>\n

Stanley Kubrick
\ninsisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.<\/font><\/p>\n

July 16 th<\/sup> 1999
\nis exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.<\/font><\/p>\n

Happy Fortieth
\nAnniversary Stanley. Now you can rest in peace.<\/font><\/p>\n

Source: http:\/\/jayweidner.com\/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html<\/a>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

Copyright July 20
\nth<\/sup> 2009
\n
\nSacred Mysteries Productions
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

Secrets of The Shining:<\/font><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Or How Faking the Moon Landings Nearly
\nCost
\nStanley Kubrick his Marriage and his Life.<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n

By Jay
\nWeidner<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n

Copyright 2009 Sacred Mysteries Productions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong>For more information on how Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo moon landings
\ngo here<\/a> <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

The Shining is surely Stanley Kubrick's most misunderstood masterpiece.<\/span><\/p>\n

I use the word 'masterpiece' guardedly because I have never really thought that The Shining was a very good film.<\/span><\/p>\n

At
\nthe time, in 1980 when I first saw it, I didn't like it at all. The way
\nthat Kubrick threw out so much of Stephen King's great source material
\nand replaced it with a lot of things that just didn't seem to make any
\nsense, really bothered me.<\/font><\/p>\n

Hopefully,
\nbefore I am finished with this essay, the reader will see it is only
\nwhen Kubrick dramatically alters the script from Stephen King's novel
\nthat we can begin to understand what Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell
\nus in his version of The Shining.<\/font><\/p>\n

It
\nshould be understood from the beginning that The Shining is Stanley
\nKubrick's most personal film (outside of, possibly, Eyes Wide Shut).
\nBefore we are done here it will be easy to see that Kubrick was only
\nusing Stephen King's novel as a launching pad (excuse the pun) to be
\nable to tell a completely different story under the guise of making a
\nfilm based on a best-selling novel. He did this for a very important
\nreason – mainly to save his life.<\/font><\/p>\n

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, let's start at the beginning.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are two main characters in the film, Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) and his son Danny (played by Danny Lloyd).<\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis important to understand here that Jack and Danny are two aspects of
\nStanley Kubrick himself. Jack is the practical, pragmatic guy who wants
\nto be a great artist. And he is, apparently, willing to do anything to
\naccomplish his goal of being an artist (writer). Jack, like Stanley has
\nblack hair, he is idiosyncratic and even smokes the same cigarettes as
\nStanley (Marlboro).<\/font><\/p>\n

Danny is the other side of the great director. He is the child-like Kubrick. It is Danny who is actually the real artist.<\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nDanny side of Kubrick side is psychic, youthful and sees things that no
\none else sees. Danny also has a tendency to tell people things that
\nshould be kept quiet.<\/font><\/p>\n

The first part of the The Shining is probably the longest, most boring, 58 minutes in Kubrick's career.<\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nopening of the film takes place with us witnessing Stanley's pragmatic
\nside, Jack, cutting a deal with the Manager of the Overlook Hotel.<\/font><\/p>\n

The deal between Jack and
\nthe Manager of the Overlook is that Jack can write (that is – create)
\nall that he wants as long as he "takes care" of The Overlook.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

One
\nother important point is that the Manager of The Overlook tells Jack
\nthat the previous caretaker went crazy from the stress of the job and
\nkilled his wife and two girls.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jack says he is "intrigued" but
\ntakes the deal anyway.<\/font><\/p>\n

The
\nManager of the Overlook Hotel is wearing red, white and blue. Jack's
\nwife Wendy (played by Shelly Duval) and his son Danny also wear red,
\nwhite and blue for almost the entire first hour of the film.<\/font><\/p>\n

In this symbolic
\ninterpretation the Overlook Hotel is AMERICA. It was built, just
\nlike the Manager says, on the graves of Indians. Even when walking
\non the floor of the Overlook Hotel, one finds oneself trampling
\nover various Native American symbols.<\/font><\/p>\n

The Overlook Hotel itself is America.<\/span><\/p>\n

Like America, the Overlook
\nHotel is new and shiny. It is ostentatious, corny and architecturally
\nboring. As the Manager tells Wendy "All of the best people stayed here".<\/font><\/p>\n

But there is something very deep happening. Kubrick brushed shoulders with the elite of the world. He knows what is going on.<\/span><\/p>\n

We
\nhave to begin to understand Kubrick's story from his use of symbols. As
\nI like to say: if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a symbol is
\nworth a thousand pictures. For it will be through the use of symbol
\nthat the real story of The Shining can be revealed.<\/font><\/p>\n

The Manager of the Overlook,
\nwhile interviewing Jack, has an American Eagle right behind his head.
\nIt is as if "The Eagle" is the power behind the Manager.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Not only is the Eagle the
\nsymbol of America but it should be noted that the Lunar Lander of
\nthe Apollo 11 mission was called "The Eagle". To the Manager's right
\non the desk is an American flag.<\/font><\/p>\n

Symbolically the Manager
\n(played by Barry Nelson) is the face of the government of the United
\nStates. Jack has cut this deal with the government to be the "caretaker" of
\nthe Hotel.<\/font><\/p>\n

The
\nManager tells Jack that his main job is to prevent the Overlook Hotel
\n(America) from appearing like it is decaying. The Manager reiterates
\nthat this is Jack's primary responsibility.<\/font><\/p>\n

On
\ntheir first day in the Hotel, Danny has a vision of the previous
\ncaretaker's daughters, and he sees that they are twins. The previous
\ncaretaker's daughters were not twins in the Stephen King novel. This
\ndiscrepancy between the book and the film will grow in importance as we
\ncontinue.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jack,
\nDanny and Wendy also meet Dick Halorann who is the cook for the
\nOverlook. He befriends Danny and it is through him that Danny discovers
\nthat he is not alone when it comes to psychic ability.<\/font><\/p>\n

Dick warns Danny to stay away from Room 237.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jack,
\nWendy and Danny have now fully moved into the Hotel. There is a long
\ncold winter ahead of them. At first Jack loves the hotel but he is
\nhaving problems with his writing. Also he cannot sleep. Meanwhile Wendy
\nand Danny are having fun.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jack
\nis not writing. Instead he is throwing a tennis ball at the wall in the
\nroom where his typewriter sits. On the wall, which is being struck by
\nthe tennis ball, is a Native American artistic motif that looks
\nsuspiciously like a group of rockets about to be launched.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

page
\n2<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally
\nthe ball bounces away from Jack and disappears into the darkness of the
\nhotel. Jack walks over and looks down at the model of the maze. He sees
\nWendy and Danny caught in the middle of the maze, totally unaware of
\nthe nature of the deal that he has cut with the Overlook.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

A
\ncold winter storm has now blown over the Hotel. The oncoming storm is a
\nsymbol of the Cold War between Russia and the United States. Of course
\nthe Cold War is also one of the driving forces for the entire reason
\nfor faking the moon landings. It was necessary to hide the advanced
\nU.S. saucer technology from the Soviet Union. We were living in a very
\ndangerous world and it was shrewd to hide our advanced technology from
\nthe Russians. This is the reason for the bears that are seen all over
\nThe Shining. The Russian Bear, and its competition for the race to the
\nMoon, was a driving force behind having to fake the Apollo Moon
\nlandings.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Jack,
\nhis family, and the Overlook Hotel, are trapped in the Cold, just as
\nAmerica was trapped in the Cold War with Russia. The stuffed bears,
\nseen through out the film, are the Soviet Empire's symbol.<\/font><\/p>\n

Symbolically
\nthe Bears seen through the film are also the representation of the
\npressure that the Russians put on the USA to get to the Moon. They had
\nto fake the moon landings and cover up the real truth behind the flying
\nsaucer craft and machinery that the US government actually has created
\nand employed since World War Two.<\/font><\/p>\n

Danny is riding his bike
\nthrough the halls of The Overlook when he comes upon the twin dughters
\nof the previous caretaker. They stare
\nat Danny and together they say: "Come play with us Danny. Forever
\nand ever." Danny turns and wheels it out of there.<\/font><\/p>\n

At this point in the film we graphically discover the nature of the deal that Jack really cut with the Manager of the Overlook:<\/span><\/p>\n

It is the most
\ncrucial scene in the film. Danny is in a hallway playing with his
\ntrucks. Suddenly,
\nout of nowhere, The Project, the Overlook Hotel, rolls the tennis
\nball, from nowhere, at him. It is a gesture that says: "Wanna play?" It
\nis here that we discover what happened to Jack's tennis ball that
\nwas previously swallowed up by the darkness of the Overlook. We also
\ndiscover what game it is that the twin daughters of the previous
\ncaretaker were inviting Danny to play.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Mystified
\nby where the ball came from, Danny stands up, and the audience finally
\nsees what the nature of the Project really is about:<\/font><\/p>\n

As Danny stands
\nup, the answer is revealed in an instant. Danny is wearing a sweater
\nwith a crudely sewn rocket pictured on the front. On the rocket clearly
\nseen on Danny's sweater are the words: APOLLO 11.<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span><\/td>\n<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The audience watching the film literally sees the launch of Apollo
\n11, right before their eyes, as Danny rises from the floor. It isn't
\nthe real launch of Apollo 11, it is, of course, the symbolic launching
\nof Apollo 11. In other words – it isn't real.<\/font><\/p>\n

What happens next is crucial to understanding everything else that happens in the film.<\/span><\/p>\n

Danny,
\nbewildered, walks down the hallway. He sees that Room 237 – the room
\nthat Halorann warned him about – has a key in the lock and the door is
\nwide open.<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span><\/td>\n<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

It
\nis important to note that the room in question was numbered 217 in the
\nStephen King version of The Shining. For unknown reason's Kubrick
\nchanged it to 237.<\/font><\/p>\n

Those unknown reasons are about to be come known.<\/span><\/p>\n

Danny
\nis literally carrying a symbolic Apollo 11, on his body, via the
\nsweater, to the Moon as he walks over to room 237. Why do I think this?<\/font><\/p>\n

Because the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 237,000 miles.<\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nreal truth is that this movie is really about the deal that Stanley
\nKubrick made with the Manager of the Overlook Hotel (America). This
\ndeal was to get Kubrick to re-create, in other words, to fake, the
\nApollo 11 Moon landing.<\/font><\/p>\n

Danny
\nrepresents the artistic side of Kubrick. Because of the complexity of
\nthe artistic realization of the manner in which the lunar landings
\nneeded to appear, Kubrick needed to trust his artistic side.<\/font><\/p>\n

Room
\n237 represents the fake lunar set that Stanley had to create to make
\nthe lunar landings appear factual. But really, on this set, and in this
\nroom, nothing is real.<\/font><\/p>\n

As the film will soon reveal,
\nRoom 237 has to be lied about. It cannot be understood at all \u2026 ever.<\/font><\/p>\n

Nothing real ever happens in room 237.<\/span><\/p>\n

For a moment, in the film, it looks like Danny is actually going to enter Room 237. But we are never sure.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the next scene Jack has a bad dream while he is working. He tells Wendy that in his dream he has killed Wendy and Danny.<\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile
\nDanny enters the scene and it is obvious that some mysterious force has
\nphysically hurt Danny. This mysterious force has also torn his Apollo
\n11 sweater.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Wendy, horrified, thinks that Jack did it.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a way she is right because Danny got hurt because of the deal that Jack cut.<\/span><\/p>\n

Frustrated,
\nJack goes to the bar located in the Gold Room. Obviously stressed, Jack
\nwhispers to no one that he would sell his soul for a drink.<\/font><\/p>\n

It
\nis then that Jack meets the real manager of the Overlook Hotel. A
\nmysterious man suddenly appears behind the bar. His name is Lloyd and
\nhe is the bartender of the Overlook Hotel.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly Stanley Kubrick shows Lloyd in a Satanic light.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lloyd seduces Jack with a drink.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jack has sold his soul to the Project, to being the caretaker of the Overlook.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jack
\nand Lloyd's conversation is interrupted by Wendy's entrance. Lloyd and
\nJack's glass of Scotch suddenly disappear. Wendy tells Jack that
\nsomeone else is in the hotel.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jack then goes to Room 237 and sees the manifestation of a young woman into an old woman.<\/span><\/p>\n

Because
\nRoom 237 is, symbolically, the Lunar Set for Apollo 11, Jack has to lie
\nto Wendy about what is going on in the room. He tells her that nothing
\nis going on in Room 237. It is apparent that Danny must have hurt
\nhimself.<\/font><\/p>\n

page
\n3<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It
\nis true, Danny did get hurt because of Jack. Danny is the side of
\nStanley that knew of Stanley's secret project. Somehow he got into a
\nsituation where they (The Overlook Hotel – America) hurt him.<\/font><\/p>\n

After
\nthis Jack begins to go to hell physically. He is growing an unkempt
\nbeard and is not combing his hair – two things that Stanley Kubrick was
\nknown for doing, or not doing, himself.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now
\nJack (Nicholson) is looking a lot like Stanley Kubrick. Especially as
\nhe began to appear under the stress of the twin productions going on at
\nonce: (1), 2001: A Space Odyssey and (2), faking the Apollo 11
\nlandings. It should also be noted that Jack and Stanley are about the
\nsame age and they have the same hair color.<\/font><\/p>\n

Early
\n2001: A Space Odysey Production photos show a youthful and un-bearded
\nKubrick with combed hair, looking quite handsome. But photos taken four
\nyears later – near the end of the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey –
\nshow that Kubrick was a physical wreck. The de-evolution of Stanley
\nKubrick's appearance during the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey is
\ndisturbingly close to Jack Torrance's (Jack Nicholson's) appearance in
\nThe Shining.<\/font><\/p>\n

Despite his disheveled appearance Jack has started writing again.<\/span><\/p>\n

Wendy,
\n(who is really supposed to be Kubrick's wife Christina), wants to read
\nthe book that Jack is working so furiously on. She asks to see what he
\nis writing. Jack is surprised by her entrance into the room where he
\ndoes his writing. Angrily he rejects her. He tells her to stay out of
\nthe room where he is writing.<\/font><\/p>\n

It is clear that Wendy, Kubrick's wife, is not allowed to know anything about the Project.<\/span><\/p>\n

But what is this book that Jack is writing?<\/span><\/p>\n

Wendy
\nsoon finds out what is in the book that Jack is writing. It is then
\nthat we get the clincher that proves that this essay is the correct
\ninterpretation of Kubrick's The Shining.<\/font><\/p>\n

Wendy sneaks into Jack's writing room. Slowly she begins to read the book that Jack has been working on.<\/span><\/p>\n

This
\nscene is totally original to the movie. It is not in the King novel.
\nAlthough it is mildly terrifying, it is not that horrific. Yet it is
\nthe centerpiece of the film and arguably the scariest scene in the
\nmovie.<\/font><\/p>\n

Why?<\/span><\/p>\n

Because every single one of the hundreds of pages that Jack has been furiously writing is a variation of only one sentence:<\/span><\/p>\n

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Incredibly
\nevery page has this exact sentence. And it is written over and over.
\nTruly it is scary enough to think that Jack has just been sitting
\nthere, day after day, writing the same sentence, over and over. Wendy
\nface reveals her fear over the discovery.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

What does it all mean?<\/span><\/p>\n

May I humbly suggest that
\nthe word "All" in this repeated sentence actually stands for "A11" that is: "A-One-One",
\nor Apollo 11?<\/font><\/p>\n

"A11 work and no play makes
\nJack a dull boy."<\/font><\/p>\n

May I suggest that the nickname, or the code name, for the faking of the Apollo Moon Missions was A11?<\/span><\/p>\n

Accepting that this is true we can see what Stanley is really telling us:<\/span><\/p>\n

'"Apollo 11 work and no
\nplay makes Jack (Kubrick) a dull boy."<\/font><\/p>\n

If
\nyou think that I am stretching things here I would like to point out
\nthe patch that NASA had created to symbolize the Apollo program:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nare other 'A's' in the film also. The Overlook Hotel has several A's'
\nbuilt into its construction when viewed from the outside:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Stanley
\nhas used these A's before also. Here is the cover of A Clockwork Orange
\nwith Alex menacingly coming out of the 'A' with his all-seeing-eye
\ncufflink:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis clear from the evidence presented in the film that Kubrick's wife
\n(Shelly Duval) had discovered that he (Stanley Kubrick) had made a
\nsecret deal with the Manager of the Overlook, (i.e.) with the rulers of
\nthe USA.<\/font><\/p>\n

Shelly
\nDuval (Christina Kubrick) also discovered that what she thought was one
\nthing actually turned out to be another. What Mrs. Kubrick discovered
\nwas that – instead of making a science fiction film called 2001: A
\nSpace Odyssey – her husband was really working to create the fake
\nApollo moon landings.<\/font><\/p>\n

At
\nthis point the film finally gets really interesting. Frightened by this
\nrevelation Wendy (Stanley's wife) wants Jack (Stanley) to quit the
\nProject.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jack (Stanley) angrily replies: "That is so typical of you! \u2026 I've made an agreement \u2026 I
\nhave obligations to my employers!"<\/font><\/p>\n

Danny
\nuses The Shining to contact Dick Halorann in Florida (which I might add
\nis where Apollo 11 was launched). Dick laboriously travels from Florida
\nto Colorado.<\/font><\/p>\n

In
\nanother abrupt break with the novel, Jack Torrance kills Halorann as
\nsoon as he arrives at the Overlook (so much for Halorann's psychic
\nabilities!)<\/font><\/p>\n

While
\nI think this scene is very disturbing and I doubt if I can ever prove
\nthis but I think Stanley Kubrick is telling us something very definite
\nwith this alteration to the King novel.<\/font><\/p>\n

I believe that the na\u00efve
\nside of him, represented by Danny, told someone that he, Kubrick,
\nwas faking the Apollo missions. He may even have told this person
\nthat he was faking the lunar landings for NASA while also appearing
\nto produce the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hallorin is the representation
\nof the person that Kubrick mistakenly revealed this most secret of
\nall information. Because of that, Hallorin, or the person who Stanley
\ntold, had to die.<\/font><\/p>\n

The
\nsecret must remain safe. This also explains why Kubrick had to hide all
\nof this crucial information inside the construct of the King novel.
\nKubrick wanted the story to get out, but he was also afraid for his
\nlife. Kubrick had to fake the making of the Stephen King novel so that
\nhe could reveal that he was involved in the faking the moon landings!<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

page
\n4<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The
\ntruth is that The Shining is the story of how Stanley Kubrick cut a
\ndeal with the U.S. Government to fake the Apollo moon landings.<\/font><\/p>\n

It is also the story of how Kubrick may have accidentally told someone what he had done and how that person had to be killed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Shining is also the story of how faking the Apollo moon landings almost sacrificed his relationship with his wife.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally it is the story of how Stanley Kubrick barely escaped alive to create another day.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Shining is the story
\nof how a part of Stanley Kubrick was killed by the agreement that
\nhe made with the U. S. government to become the "caretaker" of The
\nProject called A11 or Apollo 11.<\/font><\/p>\n

It is also the story of the history of NASA.<\/span><\/p>\n

This explains why the previous "caretaker" was
\nso pressured and stressed that he had to kill his TWIN daughters.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Why?<\/span><\/p>\n

Because the previous NASA missions before Apollo were named Gemini!<\/span><\/p>\n

There is much more in this film than can be discussed here. I am sure that much more will be discovered.<\/span><\/p>\n

I
\npresent this tidbit of an interpretation to show not only that Stanley
\nKubrick directed the Apollo moon landings but also to ask NASA to
\nrelease all of Kubrick's Apollo moon landing footage in their original,
\nglorious 70 mm film.<\/font><\/p>\n

It
\nis time to shed the lies. But also it is time for the world to view,
\nuncensored, Stanley Kubrick's greatest unknown masterpiece. I ask NASA
\nto release all of the footage directed by Kubrick for the faked Apollo
\nlandings.<\/font><\/p>\n

May
\nI also suggest that NASA use the millions of dollars made from this
\nsurely successful movie release to fund another mission to the moon?<\/font><\/p>\n

I mean it has only been 35 years!<\/span><\/p>\n

Also – may I suggest a title for this new Kubrick film?<\/span><\/p>\n

How about:<\/span><\/p>\n

Never A Straight Answer?<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
The
\nbooks in Jack\u2019s apartment reflect the dual nature of
\nStanley Kubrick. The book on top is entitled \u201cThe Wise
\nChild\u201d represented
\nin the film by Danny and the book below is entitled \u201cThe
\nManipulator\u201d which is represented by Jack.<\/font><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Seven Apollo missions went to the moon, but only six landed.
\nSix crates of 7-up.<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Thanks to Shawn Montgomery for igniting my interest
\nin "The Shining"<\/em> through his great research.<\/font><\/p>\n

 http:\/\/www.jayweidner.com\/ShiningSecrets.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Copyright 2009 Sacred Mysteries Productions<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/omniversity.us\/exopolitics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}