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

Weidner's inflated sense of self-importance can become irritating at times, but damn - this is a really fantastic analysis.

The first two parts are a bit of a chore, for anyone who doesn't have any particular interest in cinematic techniques (like me). The basic premise is that NASA successfully made it to the moon, but Kubrick helped them fake the official footage.

But things really pick up in part 3, and from there it's compelling viewing right through to the conclusion. The way in which he deconstructs The Shining and its subtext is absolutely riveting.

Well, I liked it anyway.

i had read the paper weidner had based these vids on. it was a good read.

excellent video imho. thanks for posting mr. m !

Fascinating piece!

Very interesting.

The "Colorado Room"

http://www.statebillnews.com/2010/07/citin...s-from-display/



Stretching it a bit but..

The "Gold Room"

http://dc95.4shared.com/doc/lsIdyzuv/preview.html

Kubrick has always been my favorite movie-maker, dating from his Lolita right up through "Eyes Wide Shut". The Weidner interpretation of "The Shining" is absolutely riviting - I have never seen anything that remotely resembles it. The poor resolution on the Youtube version is a major problem that I hope the DVD version (14.95 on Amazon) will address.

Thanks for posting this. It is at the very least extremely entertaining, even if it is an elaborate practical joke that Kubrick left us to chew on.

i have been wondering why there were no stars in any of the moon landing pictures. oh, i've heard various explanations, but none were very convincing. i mean i can look out my window at night and see lots of them (stars that is).

but you see, they couldn't show you the stars, not really. because if they did, somebody would discover the hoax. you could attach a pretty accurate timestamp to the exposure, from which you could match the star pattern presented in the picture to what should actually be seen from that spot (lat/lon) on the moon at that time.

I circulated the link among several friends who I thought would be interested. Have not had one response from anyone interested in discussing it, execept for one who complained that Weidner had not presented any evidence for the allegations about the government relationship with Kubrick. Ohhhhh Kay... Here is arguably the best movie director in history (and that's my opinion, I am sticking to it) who makes a fairly expensive movie out of a Stephen f**king King novel, and obviously mangles the plot in order to present an allegorical tale that was guaranteed to go right over the heads of the entire audience (as it obviously did mine). The case presented by Weidner is that Kubrick had to get the story off his chest without tipping his former employers off that he did it, or he was playing a huge practical joke on his audience and most of them would never know.

So what do you think it was?

I am only evaluating what I see in Weidner's film. I have not formed an opinion on the moon landings themselves although cynicism is increasingly a dominent theme in my life. .

It is easy to get this balled up with another youtube clip, " The Dark Side of the Moon" which appears to be pure hoax, purporting to show Nixon White House insiders like Rumsfeld and Kissinger discussing how they participated in the fake landing.

i think the strongest evidence is the apollo sweater worn by danny in the movie, the rest is very speculative and a stretch. i dont doubt the nasa films are fake, but i dont see enough evidence to prove kubrick was the director/cinematographer. if true that it was him, i doubt kubrick would openly confess. and here he doesnt:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html
Kubrick on The Shining
An interview with Michel Ciment


there's quite a kubrick collection at that site, worth a look:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/




sidenote - moon rock a fake - 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6...in-is-fake.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space...moon-rock_N.htm

Since I came just back from holidays and haven't rewied the Weidner piece at this point (thanks Shelton for the links!) and only can refer to the Arte satire "Dark Side Of the Moon", starring Rumsfeld,
Kissinger and co., I am very curiouse and will watch it asap. One thing that always prooved to me that there was no moon landing is not the scientific argument of the radioactive "Van Allen Belt",
that makes it impossible for a living organism to travel to the moon without beeing griled or at least sffer extrem fast and heavy cancer unless the travel is done with a scaceship with a concret protection of 10 foot diameter, but a political-psycological reason, and it makes clear, why noone never ever would have shown this event on live TV. Ever!:


Imagine the situation: If you send 3 Americans to the moon, the options are quite simple:
Either they make it there and back or not. If they do, all is fine, but if they die during the flight, it would be a tragedy.
But what if they make it to the moon, but will not make it back and die there?
The moon has been the subject for romantic poetry for hundrets of years.
From then on, every loving cuple who looks up to the silvery disc will not see the sign of romance anymore but rather 3 dead americans.

If you'd be Richard Nixon and are given the choice to either pre-shoot the landing and air it or show it live, you wouldn waste a second thought, I guess.
But, if you already decided not to show it live, why wasting all the money and ressources to do it at all if the footage already exists?
They did it the American way and let the dream maschine take care of it. There has never been a man on the moon.
A political and psychological impossibility.


still curious about the Weiner piece: Carl