How Stanley Kubrick
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.
Alchemical Kubrick II
By
Jay Weidner
Copyright July 20
th 2009
Sacred Mysteries Productions
"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available,
to those who can remove one of truths protective layers"
-Neil Armstrong, 'First Man on the Moon'.
July 20
th 1994
It
has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the
Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people
tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger
of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on
the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the
surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more
vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the
moon and that the entire thing was faked.
This
essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view
falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position
postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in
photographs was completely faked.
Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.
1) MOTIVATIONS FOR FAKING
But
why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation?
Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable
proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer
technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US
Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in
order to build these highly advanced flying machines.
Furthermore,
they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading
the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this
technology.
Many
sources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that
after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his
Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the
flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world.
He saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way
towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things.
Soon
after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech
asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many
insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the
secret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was
obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man
to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to
release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in
order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the
1960's. JFK's ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced
technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.
After
the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would
solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA,
and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to
still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and
back.
Someone
high up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire moon
landings in order to conceal the United States' extremely new and
advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our enemies.
In
some ways NASA's position on this was understandable. We were in the
middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to
show the Russians what we had?
2). WHO WILL FAKE IT?
In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film.
While
directing Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for
permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The
Pentagon turned him down.
The
movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been
ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The
Pentagon read Kubrick's script and rejected his request to actually
film the inside, and outside, of a B-52.
The
reason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly a satire
on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to
assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.
Undaunted
by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the
B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special
effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very
good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in
Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the
person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do
that well on a limited budget - what could he do on an unlimited budget?
No
one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo
landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that
his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party
may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get
Stanley to cooperate.
Kubrick
also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It
would have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall during
the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.
In
the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in
return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to
make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the
second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no
oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.
Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.
3). PARALELLING EVENTS
It
is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey
parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and
went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the
Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon
landings on July 20th 1969.
Also
it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was
working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top
science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Once
he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem
for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the
ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the
scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the
moon and not in a studio back lot.
4). HOLLYWOOD TRICKERY.
No
one knows how many things he tried but eventually Kubrick settled on
doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen
Projection.
It
is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of
Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video
material.
What is Front Screen Projection?
Kubrick
did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it.
Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be
projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if
the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen
Projection.
The process
came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called
Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds
of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4mm wide. These
beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection
process
the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage.
The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to
be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene
onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would
go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the
camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen
and he would appear to be 'inside' the projection.
Today
Hollywood magicians use green screens and computers for special effects
and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine
and the Model T, but for its time, especially in the 1960's, nothing
worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that
would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey
and the faked Apollo landings.
To
see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen let's examine the
ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film 2001: A Space
Odyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them
in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the
actors in Ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you
are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually
shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men in 2001 are actually
slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at
the rear of the set.
In
order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a photographic
team to Spain to shoot 8'' X 10'' Ektachrome slides. These slides were
then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the
Scotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the
screen acting out the script.
If
you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually see the 'seams' of the screen
occasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen
Projection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were
forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could
create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.
In this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely.
Next
is the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic
program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased
the contrast.
Please examine:
Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.
To
get the perspective correct one has to realize that the Scotchlite
screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on
the soundstage.
The
lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws
in the screen give the sky give a peculiar 'geometry' when the image is
properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen.
Page 2:
Let's show another
example. Here is a still from the famous 'water hole' scene from
2001:
This next image
is again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast
increased:
While watching
2001,with the scenes of the ape-men, one can begin to see the tell
tale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection
system is being used.
It should be emphasized
that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those
are 'real' rocks (whether paper mache or real) that surround the
ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene
is being projected via the Front Screen Projector.
One of the ways
that you can tell the Front Screen system is being used is that the
bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite
screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located rocks and
other things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the projection
screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the
bottom of the background projection screen if it weren't blocked
in some fashion. As part of the 'trick' it became necessary to place
things in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the
screen.
I have photo-shopped
a line differentiating the set and the background Scotchlite Front
Projection Screen. Please note how everything is in focus, from the
pebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains beyond.
You will see that
hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is always being done when
the Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Hiding the screen is one of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its
use. Just like the stage magician who needs the long sleeves of his
costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed
to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon
line between set and screen.
Here is another
example from 2001: A Space Odyssey:
And here is the
same image with my photo shop line separating the set with the ape-man
actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.
And you will see,
before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this
same evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and
video footage.
It is this fingerprint
that reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also
HOW they faked them.
Let's examine a
few NASA Apollo images now.
This is a still
from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen
Projection process.
Again I have photo-shopped
a line indicating the back of the set. One can see that there is
a slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of
the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from
the lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a strange
change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This
is because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection
system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we
go on we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout
the Apollo images.
Here is another
Apollo image.
Now here is my
version where I show the line between set and screen.
Again notice that
the texture of the ground changes right behind my lines.
Now let's go to
some more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing occurs here
as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating
the set from the screen. Even if you do not see it at first it will
become apparent, as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen
Projection process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts
standing on the lunar surface.
Go to any NASA
site like ( http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html)
and start looking for yourself.
Not all lunar surface
shots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing
on the set with a completely (and suspicious) black background. The
early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when
they had to. But as the missions went on and they had to look better,
Kubrick began to perfect the process.
Although you can
see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously
revealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14,
15, 16 and (my favorite) 17.
Here are a few
from Apollo 17.
That astronaut
is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is
only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how
the tire treads just lead to nowhere. Actually they are going to
the edge of the set.
Page 3:
The astronaut is
about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please note how
everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera
all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut. As
we shall see very soon, even that is impossible.
Also please note
the other tell tale evidence that permeates the Apollo images: There
is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what
is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the number
of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen
on the set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my
line this granularity disappears.
This next image
is slick little piece of work. When first viewed one is sure that
they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning
to end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot.
But sure enough
- a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again
please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on
each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear
behind the line.
Doesn't the fakery
just make you all patriotic inside?
5). DEPTH OF FIELD:
MORE EVIDENCE
Besides the telltale
evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing
granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale
fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to
do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of
field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera
is tuned to.
The main rule of
thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the
less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of
field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley
was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the
Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.
What this means
is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart
in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One
of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to
use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds
that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.
While watching
the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything
is in focus. Whether it is the apes - or the far away desert background
- they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen
on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not
far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing
the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite
screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever
is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of
focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.
This depth of field
is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm.
Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually
confined to a small place.
It may look like
the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality
they are all on a small set in a studio.
It may look like
the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are
on a small confined set.
According to the
NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad
cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film
on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly
the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.
The plane of focus,
the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should
have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would
have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect
to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When
you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not
even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras,
this would have only increased the chances that most of what they
would be shooting would be out of focus.
I have gone through
the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard
in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's
Houston headquarters.
When the Apollo
photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would
expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots,
we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur
photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially
when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their
camera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality
of a highly polished professional photographer.
Before embarking
on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer
working for Look Magazine.
Honestly, even
a professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera
would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal
clear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.
Unfortunately though,
for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the
Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.
Examine the above
photographs from Apollo. Please note how everything is in focus.
As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that
the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth
of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in
focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of
physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface.
Page 4:
Indeed the very
physics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears
when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record the cameras
were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else).
As a professional
photographer and a filmmaker I have wrestled with depth of field
problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer
has noticed the lack of depth of field problems encountered by the
astronaut-photographers. In reality the lack of depth of field problems
is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.
6). GLASS CITIES
OR FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION?
Former NASA consultant
Richard Hoagland has examined many of the photos of the Apollo landings
and, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field,
he has found other strange anomalies in the NASA material.
Examining the photographic
record of the Apollo missions, and processing Apollo images through
various graphics programs, Hoagland has discovered 'geometries' in
the skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He postulates that
these geometries are evidence of some kind of gigantic glass-like
structures behind, above and surrounding the astronauts as they stand
on the lunar surface. Hoagland even shows us that there are rainbow
lights reflecting in the sky high above the astronauts.
Many people, especially
in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. Yet, no
matter how much they attack Hoagland, they can never explain what
it is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In the same way
that evidence in the JFK assassination and the high weirdness around
911 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists,
so too, is Hoagland's evidence just simply ignored by the critics.
Instead they have
created an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland - the
man - while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence.
His critics are
either wrong or they know what is really happening.
I have known Richard
Hoagland for a long time. I was with him during his initial discoveries
of artifacts on the lunar surface. I have seen photographic evidence
that there are very strange things on the surface of the moon. I
am not here to start an argument with Mr. Hoagland or anyone else.
I, like Hoagland,
believe that NASA has actually gone to the moon. I believe that moon
rocks were taken from the surface of the moon. I believe that there
is strong evidence of some kind of past intelligent activity on surface
of the moon. But I do not believe that standard rocket technology
is what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of the Moon.
I am not trying
to debunk Hoagland's discoveries. All I am trying to do, with the
following evidence, is show that the Apollo landings were a hoax.
And that Stanley Kubrick, using the Front Screen Projection system,
directed them.
Again I want to
make sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are
not strange structures on the moon. What I am saying is that the
structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing in the
photographs taken on the lunar surface are not what he thinks they
are.
Here are a few
of Hoagland's images. He believes that these images are proof that
NASA is hiding evidence of alien cities.
This is a processed
photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken
during the Apollo 14 mission. Of course all of the stuff in the sky,
as seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible
if it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the
moon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland
processed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered,
over and over again, all of this 'crud' in the sky above the astronauts.
No one in NASA
even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange
stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.
Richard Hoagland
theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned 'glass
cities' on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing
in the above processed image is huge glass towers that only show
up on the images after they have been processed through graphics
software.
Here are some other
of Hoagland's images:
Hoagland has taken
the image on the left and processed it in a manner very similar to
how I processed the above images from 2001: A Space Odyssey. By increasing
the gamma and the contrast of the image he arrived at the picture
on the right.
Hoagland interprets
the image on the right as proof of giant glass structures behind
the astronaut and, for that matter, all over the surface of the moon.
What Hoagland is
really seeing, though, is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite
screen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections
can also be found in the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in
2001: A Space Odyssey (see above).
What Hoagland,
and the above image reveals, is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite
screen.
Because of the
vastness of the set, because he needed it to look like it was NOT
DONE ON A SOUNDSTAGE, Kubrick had to sew several Scotchlite screens
together. It was only when he had created a large enough Scotchlite
screen was he then was able to get a large enough background image
that would look expansive enough to appear to be the surface of the
moon or a desert four million years ago.
The same process
that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is the same process that
created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.
This is picture
from Hoagland's research.
The processed image
reveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts
in the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting
off of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the astronaut.
What this is really
is a light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite
screen. For some reason that particular glass bead was slightly off
from its 90-degree angle and so it caught the projector light and
reflected it back to the camera.
Again a scene from
2001: A Space Odyssey (processed):
And one of Hoagland's
processed Apollo shots:
It is pretty clear
from the two images above that Hoagland's 'geometries' are really
the patterns and flaws and stitches in the Scotchlite screen.
Maybe this is why
NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA
just admitted that they 'accidentally' taped over the original high-resolution
tape of Apollo 11. Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong, 'the first man
to walk on the moon', doesn't want to participate in the 40 th anniversary
parties.
Maybe this is why
we have never gone back to the moon.
7). INCONSISTANT
SHADOWS
Many researchers
have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of
the moon. Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can
there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?: 
How can the astronaut's
two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually
standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should
be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick
used studio lighting!
But why would Kubrick
make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image?
A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a
huge mistake.
My answer is that
Kubrick did this on purpose.
He left behind
telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just
in the above shot but actually all over the Apollo photographic record.
In my forthcoming
documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled "Kubrick's Odyssey",
I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can
in this short essay.
One thing that
I am sure is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to
know what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that
would explain who did it and how.
8). LAST NOTES
Those of you who
are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey
called Alchemical Kubrick (see http://www.jayweidner.com/kubrick.htm)
already know that I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest
esoteric film of all time.
For the first time
anywhere, in that essay, I show how Kubrick designed the black monolith
to be exactly the same size as the screen on which 2001 was projected.
The monolith and the screen are the same thing. The monolith is the
screen and the screen is the monolith. It is truly one of the greatest
discoveries in cinema history.
When one realizes
that Kubrick also used the Front Screen Projection system - not only
for the ape scenes in 2001 - but also the fake the moon landings
- we can see a double, or even possibly a triple meaning, inside
the idea that the screen is the monolith and the monolith is the
screen.
If the monolith
is that device that enlightens humanity then the Front Screen Projection
system, and it's unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens
humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.
But also we can
see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an
opportunity to make one great film.
Because he had
negotiated a deal where no one would be given oversight on the film,
Kubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing that
no one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the
first abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the
greatest esoteric work of art in the 20 th century.
The President of
MGM, at the time in 1968, publicly stated, that he never even saw
a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years
of production. Does that sound like the manner in which a head of
a major studio would act? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most
expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely
possible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous progress
of the film?
No way.
I am sure that
2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives
who funded the movie never scrutinized the film.
Why weren't they
more interested in this very expensive endeavor?
Because MGM
did not fund 2001, the US Government did.
Outside of the
Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe nails the fraud
of the Apollo landings; there is other circumstantial evidence that
forces the conclusion even more in the direction of Kubrick directing
the entire Apollo missions.
For instance:
In the original
release of 2001 there were many credits thanking NASA and many of
the aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings.
These credits have since been removed from all subsequent releases
of 2001. But for those of us old enough to remember, in the original
credits, Kubrick thanks a vast array of military and space corporations
for their help in the production.
As these are the
same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts
to the moon - one has to wonder - what kind of help did they gave
Stanley? And for what price?
In the film 'Wag
the Dog' Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to
'fake an event'. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie
'Stanley' mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants
to take credit for the 'event' that he helped fake.
Stanley Kubrick
died soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner
Brothers. It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that
film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally
was in France when Stanley died and I saw, on French television,
outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw outtakes from
several scenes that were never in the finished film.
Warner Brothers
has even come out and admitted that they re-edited the film. To this
day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's cut. Not only
is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with
Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see
the un-edited version of this film.
One has to wonder
what was cut out?
And finally:
Eyes Wide Shut
was released on July 16 th 1999.
Stanley Kubrick
insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.
July 16 th 1999
is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.
Happy Fortieth
Anniversary Stanley. Now you can rest in peace.
Source: http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html
Copyright July 20
th 2009
Sacred Mysteries Productions
Secrets of The Shining:
Or How Faking the Moon Landings Nearly
Cost
Stanley Kubrick his Marriage and his Life.
By Jay
Weidner
Copyright 2009 Sacred Mysteries Productions
For more information on how Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo moon landings
go here
The Shining is surely Stanley Kubrick's most misunderstood masterpiece.
I use the word 'masterpiece' guardedly because I have never really thought that The Shining was a very good film.
At
the time, in 1980 when I first saw it, I didn't like it at all. The way
that Kubrick threw out so much of Stephen King's great source material
and replaced it with a lot of things that just didn't seem to make any
sense, really bothered me.
Hopefully,
before I am finished with this essay, the reader will see it is only
when Kubrick dramatically alters the script from Stephen King's novel
that we can begin to understand what Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell
us in his version of The Shining.
It
should be understood from the beginning that The Shining is Stanley
Kubrick's most personal film (outside of, possibly, Eyes Wide Shut).
Before we are done here it will be easy to see that Kubrick was only
using Stephen King's novel as a launching pad (excuse the pun) to be
able to tell a completely different story under the guise of making a
film based on a best-selling novel. He did this for a very important
reason - mainly to save his life.
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
In fact, let's start at the beginning.
There are two main characters in the film, Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) and his son Danny (played by Danny Lloyd).
It
is important to understand here that Jack and Danny are two aspects of
Stanley Kubrick himself. Jack is the practical, pragmatic guy who wants
to be a great artist. And he is, apparently, willing to do anything to
accomplish his goal of being an artist (writer). Jack, like Stanley has
black hair, he is idiosyncratic and even smokes the same cigarettes as
Stanley (Marlboro).
Danny is the other side of the great director. He is the child-like Kubrick. It is Danny who is actually the real artist.
The
Danny side of Kubrick side is psychic, youthful and sees things that no
one else sees. Danny also has a tendency to tell people things that
should be kept quiet.
The first part of the The Shining is probably the longest, most boring, 58 minutes in Kubrick's career.
The
opening of the film takes place with us witnessing Stanley's pragmatic
side, Jack, cutting a deal with the Manager of the Overlook Hotel.
The deal between Jack and
the Manager of the Overlook is that Jack can write (that is - create)
all that he wants as long as he "takes care" of The Overlook.
One
other important point is that the Manager of The Overlook tells Jack
that the previous caretaker went crazy from the stress of the job and
killed his wife and two girls.
Jack says he is "intrigued" but
takes the deal anyway.
The
Manager of the Overlook Hotel is wearing red, white and blue. Jack's
wife Wendy (played by Shelly Duval) and his son Danny also wear red,
white and blue for almost the entire first hour of the film.
In this symbolic
interpretation the Overlook Hotel is AMERICA. It was built, just
like the Manager says, on the graves of Indians. Even when walking
on the floor of the Overlook Hotel, one finds oneself trampling
over various Native American symbols.
The Overlook Hotel itself is America.
Like America, the Overlook
Hotel is new and shiny. It is ostentatious, corny and architecturally
boring. As the Manager tells Wendy "All of the best people stayed here".
But there is something very deep happening. Kubrick brushed shoulders with the elite of the world. He knows what is going on.
We
have to begin to understand Kubrick's story from his use of symbols. As
I like to say: if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a symbol is
worth a thousand pictures. For it will be through the use of symbol
that the real story of The Shining can be revealed.
The Manager of the Overlook,
while interviewing Jack, has an American Eagle right behind his head.
It is as if "The Eagle" is the power behind the Manager.
Not only is the Eagle the
symbol of America but it should be noted that the Lunar Lander of
the Apollo 11 mission was called "The Eagle". To the Manager's right
on the desk is an American flag.
Symbolically the Manager
(played by Barry Nelson) is the face of the government of the United
States. Jack has cut this deal with the government to be the "caretaker" of
the Hotel.
The
Manager tells Jack that his main job is to prevent the Overlook Hotel
(America) from appearing like it is decaying. The Manager reiterates
that this is Jack's primary responsibility.
On
their first day in the Hotel, Danny has a vision of the previous
caretaker's daughters, and he sees that they are twins. The previous
caretaker's daughters were not twins in the Stephen King novel. This
discrepancy between the book and the film will grow in importance as we
continue.
Jack,
Danny and Wendy also meet Dick Halorann who is the cook for the
Overlook. He befriends Danny and it is through him that Danny discovers
that he is not alone when it comes to psychic ability.
Dick warns Danny to stay away from Room 237.
Jack,
Wendy and Danny have now fully moved into the Hotel. There is a long
cold winter ahead of them. At first Jack loves the hotel but he is
having problems with his writing. Also he cannot sleep. Meanwhile Wendy
and Danny are having fun.
Jack
is not writing. Instead he is throwing a tennis ball at the wall in the
room where his typewriter sits. On the wall, which is being struck by
the tennis ball, is a Native American artistic motif that looks
suspiciously like a group of rockets about to be launched.
page
2
Finally
the ball bounces away from Jack and disappears into the darkness of the
hotel. Jack walks over and looks down at the model of the maze. He sees
Wendy and Danny caught in the middle of the maze, totally unaware of
the nature of the deal that he has cut with the Overlook.
A
cold winter storm has now blown over the Hotel. The oncoming storm is a
symbol of the Cold War between Russia and the United States. Of course
the Cold War is also one of the driving forces for the entire reason
for faking the moon landings. It was necessary to hide the advanced
U.S. saucer technology from the Soviet Union. We were living in a very
dangerous world and it was shrewd to hide our advanced technology from
the Russians. This is the reason for the bears that are seen all over
The Shining. The Russian Bear, and its competition for the race to the
Moon, was a driving force behind having to fake the Apollo Moon
landings.
Jack,
his family, and the Overlook Hotel, are trapped in the Cold, just as
America was trapped in the Cold War with Russia. The stuffed bears,
seen through out the film, are the Soviet Empire's symbol.
Symbolically
the Bears seen through the film are also the representation of the
pressure that the Russians put on the USA to get to the Moon. They had
to fake the moon landings and cover up the real truth behind the flying
saucer craft and machinery that the US government actually has created
and employed since World War Two.
Danny is riding his bike
through the halls of The Overlook when he comes upon the twin dughters
of the previous caretaker. They stare
at Danny and together they say: "Come play with us Danny. Forever
and ever." Danny turns and wheels it out of there.
At this point in the film we graphically discover the nature of the deal that Jack really cut with the Manager of the Overlook:
It is the most
crucial scene in the film. Danny is in a hallway playing with his
trucks. Suddenly,
out of nowhere, The Project, the Overlook Hotel, rolls the tennis
ball, from nowhere, at him. It is a gesture that says: "Wanna play?" It
is here that we discover what happened to Jack's tennis ball that
was previously swallowed up by the darkness of the Overlook. We also
discover what game it is that the twin daughters of the previous
caretaker were inviting Danny to play.
Mystified
by where the ball came from, Danny stands up, and the audience finally
sees what the nature of the Project really is about:
As Danny stands
up, the answer is revealed in an instant. Danny is wearing a sweater
with a crudely sewn rocket pictured on the front. On the rocket clearly
seen on Danny's sweater are the words: APOLLO 11.
The audience watching the film literally sees the launch of Apollo
11, right before their eyes, as Danny rises from the floor. It isn't
the real launch of Apollo 11, it is, of course, the symbolic launching
of Apollo 11. In other words - it isn't real.
What happens next is crucial to understanding everything else that happens in the film.
Danny,
bewildered, walks down the hallway. He sees that Room 237 - the room
that Halorann warned him about - has a key in the lock and the door is
wide open.
It
is important to note that the room in question was numbered 217 in the
Stephen King version of The Shining. For unknown reason's Kubrick
changed it to 237.
Those unknown reasons are about to be come known.
Danny
is literally carrying a symbolic Apollo 11, on his body, via the
sweater, to the Moon as he walks over to room 237. Why do I think this?
Because the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 237,000 miles.
The
real truth is that this movie is really about the deal that Stanley
Kubrick made with the Manager of the Overlook Hotel (America). This
deal was to get Kubrick to re-create, in other words, to fake, the
Apollo 11 Moon landing.
Danny
represents the artistic side of Kubrick. Because of the complexity of
the artistic realization of the manner in which the lunar landings
needed to appear, Kubrick needed to trust his artistic side.
Room
237 represents the fake lunar set that Stanley had to create to make
the lunar landings appear factual. But really, on this set, and in this
room, nothing is real.
As the film will soon reveal,
Room 237 has to be lied about. It cannot be understood at all … ever.
Nothing real ever happens in room 237.
For a moment, in the film, it looks like Danny is actually going to enter Room 237. But we are never sure.
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.
Meanwhile
Danny enters the scene and it is obvious that some mysterious force has
physically hurt Danny. This mysterious force has also torn his Apollo
11 sweater.
Wendy, horrified, thinks that Jack did it.
In a way she is right because Danny got hurt because of the deal that Jack cut.
Frustrated,
Jack goes to the bar located in the Gold Room. Obviously stressed, Jack
whispers to no one that he would sell his soul for a drink.
It
is then that Jack meets the real manager of the Overlook Hotel. A
mysterious man suddenly appears behind the bar. His name is Lloyd and
he is the bartender of the Overlook Hotel.
Clearly Stanley Kubrick shows Lloyd in a Satanic light.
Lloyd seduces Jack with a drink.
Jack has sold his soul to the Project, to being the caretaker of the Overlook.
Jack
and Lloyd's conversation is interrupted by Wendy's entrance. Lloyd and
Jack's glass of Scotch suddenly disappear. Wendy tells Jack that
someone else is in the hotel.
Jack then goes to Room 237 and sees the manifestation of a young woman into an old woman.
Because
Room 237 is, symbolically, the Lunar Set for Apollo 11, Jack has to lie
to Wendy about what is going on in the room. He tells her that nothing
is going on in Room 237. It is apparent that Danny must have hurt
himself.
page
3
It
is true, Danny did get hurt because of Jack. Danny is the side of
Stanley that knew of Stanley's secret project. Somehow he got into a
situation where they (The Overlook Hotel - America) hurt him.
After
this Jack begins to go to hell physically. He is growing an unkempt
beard and is not combing his hair - two things that Stanley Kubrick was
known for doing, or not doing, himself.
Now
Jack (Nicholson) is looking a lot like Stanley Kubrick. Especially as
he began to appear under the stress of the twin productions going on at
once: (1), 2001: A Space Odyssey and (2), faking the Apollo 11
landings. It should also be noted that Jack and Stanley are about the
same age and they have the same hair color.
Early
2001: A Space Odysey Production photos show a youthful and un-bearded
Kubrick with combed hair, looking quite handsome. But photos taken four
years later - near the end of the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey -
show that Kubrick was a physical wreck. The de-evolution of Stanley
Kubrick's appearance during the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey is
disturbingly close to Jack Torrance's (Jack Nicholson's) appearance in
The Shining.
Despite his disheveled appearance Jack has started writing again.
Wendy,
(who is really supposed to be Kubrick's wife Christina), wants to read
the book that Jack is working so furiously on. She asks to see what he
is writing. Jack is surprised by her entrance into the room where he
does his writing. Angrily he rejects her. He tells her to stay out of
the room where he is writing.
It is clear that Wendy, Kubrick's wife, is not allowed to know anything about the Project.
But what is this book that Jack is writing?
Wendy
soon finds out what is in the book that Jack is writing. It is then
that we get the clincher that proves that this essay is the correct
interpretation of Kubrick's The Shining.
Wendy sneaks into Jack's writing room. Slowly she begins to read the book that Jack has been working on.
This
scene is totally original to the movie. It is not in the King novel.
Although it is mildly terrifying, it is not that horrific. Yet it is
the centerpiece of the film and arguably the scariest scene in the
movie.
Why?
Because every single one of the hundreds of pages that Jack has been furiously writing is a variation of only one sentence:
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".
Incredibly
every page has this exact sentence. And it is written over and over.
Truly it is scary enough to think that Jack has just been sitting
there, day after day, writing the same sentence, over and over. Wendy
face reveals her fear over the discovery.
What does it all mean?
May I humbly suggest that
the word "All" in this repeated sentence actually stands for "A11" that is: "A-One-One",
or Apollo 11?
"A11 work and no play makes
Jack a dull boy."
May I suggest that the nickname, or the code name, for the faking of the Apollo Moon Missions was A11?
Accepting that this is true we can see what Stanley is really telling us:
'"Apollo 11 work and no
play makes Jack (Kubrick) a dull boy."
If
you think that I am stretching things here I would like to point out
the patch that NASA had created to symbolize the Apollo program:
There
are other 'A's' in the film also. The Overlook Hotel has several A's'
built into its construction when viewed from the outside:
Stanley
has used these A's before also. Here is the cover of A Clockwork Orange
with Alex menacingly coming out of the 'A' with his all-seeing-eye
cufflink:
It
is clear from the evidence presented in the film that Kubrick's wife
(Shelly Duval) had discovered that he (Stanley Kubrick) had made a
secret deal with the Manager of the Overlook, (i.e.) with the rulers of
the USA.
Shelly
Duval (Christina Kubrick) also discovered that what she thought was one
thing actually turned out to be another. What Mrs. Kubrick discovered
was that - instead of making a science fiction film called 2001: A
Space Odyssey - her husband was really working to create the fake
Apollo moon landings.
At
this point the film finally gets really interesting. Frightened by this
revelation Wendy (Stanley's wife) wants Jack (Stanley) to quit the
Project.
Jack (Stanley) angrily replies: "That is so typical of you! … I've made an agreement … I
have obligations to my employers!"
Danny
uses The Shining to contact Dick Halorann in Florida (which I might add
is where Apollo 11 was launched). Dick laboriously travels from Florida
to Colorado.
In
another abrupt break with the novel, Jack Torrance kills Halorann as
soon as he arrives at the Overlook (so much for Halorann's psychic
abilities!)
While
I think this scene is very disturbing and I doubt if I can ever prove
this but I think Stanley Kubrick is telling us something very definite
with this alteration to the King novel.
I believe that the naïve
side of him, represented by Danny, told someone that he, Kubrick,
was faking the Apollo missions. He may even have told this person
that he was faking the lunar landings for NASA while also appearing
to produce the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hallorin is the representation
of the person that Kubrick mistakenly revealed this most secret of
all information. Because of that, Hallorin, or the person who Stanley
told, had to die.
The
secret must remain safe. This also explains why Kubrick had to hide all
of this crucial information inside the construct of the King novel.
Kubrick wanted the story to get out, but he was also afraid for his
life. Kubrick had to fake the making of the Stephen King novel so that
he could reveal that he was involved in the faking the moon landings!
page
4
The
truth is that The Shining is the story of how Stanley Kubrick cut a
deal with the U.S. Government to fake the Apollo moon landings.
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.
The Shining is also the story of how faking the Apollo moon landings almost sacrificed his relationship with his wife.
Finally it is the story of how Stanley Kubrick barely escaped alive to create another day.
The Shining is the story
of how a part of Stanley Kubrick was killed by the agreement that
he made with the U. S. government to become the "caretaker" of The
Project called A11 or Apollo 11.
It is also the story of the history of NASA.
This explains why the previous "caretaker" was
so pressured and stressed that he had to kill his TWIN daughters.
Why?
Because the previous NASA missions before Apollo were named Gemini!
There is much more in this film than can be discussed here. I am sure that much more will be discovered.
I
present this tidbit of an interpretation to show not only that Stanley
Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings but also to ask NASA to
release all of Kubrick's Apollo moon landing footage in their original,
glorious 70 mm film.
It
is time to shed the lies. But also it is time for the world to view,
uncensored, Stanley Kubrick's greatest unknown masterpiece. I ask NASA
to release all of the footage directed by Kubrick for the faked Apollo
landings.
May
I also suggest that NASA use the millions of dollars made from this
surely successful movie release to fund another mission to the moon?
I mean it has only been 35 years!
Also - may I suggest a title for this new Kubrick film?
How about:
Never A Straight Answer?
 |
The
books in Jack’s apartment reflect the dual nature of
Stanley Kubrick. The book on top is entitled “The Wise
Child” represented
in the film by Danny and the book below is entitled “The
Manipulator” which is represented by Jack. |
 |
| Seven Apollo missions went to the moon, but only six landed.
Six crates of 7-up. |
Thanks to Shawn Montgomery for igniting my interest
in "The Shining" through his great research.
http://www.jayweidner.com/ShiningSecrets.html
Copyright 2009 Sacred Mysteries Productions
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
