Do You Believe Stanley Kubrick's "Mysterious Messages"?

I don't know why you guys are pushing me on this. It's like you're invested in apollo 11 being real. So you talk about a satellite a mere two years before apollo 11 managing to send some video images. I can't find any of those images on the internet, so I dunno.

What I do note is that many of you are saying that both the ATS-1 and Apollo 11 were using some very sophisticated technology that wasn't available here where it might have mattered.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I have doubts.

'Cause you brought it up?

Lol, well, it took me about three seconds.



I will graciously accept your concession that you dunno what you're talking about though.

Sorry, but I didn't realize that skepticism was no longer considered a cornerstone of science.

Well, I dunno, but none of that looks like anything from outer space, so maybe I'm just being dense.

Maybe satellites are magic *shrug*

Aside from the documentaries, I was wondering if the viewers here might have read into something themselves, or maybe noticed things in the background that could be little message from Kubrick done in a way to avoid interrupting the story, or hammering our heads with messages.

I think with a full length documentary, the director and/or writer probably has to do a lot of "reaching" to fill at least 90 minutes..

I was also curious if those who did see a certain documentary could point out assumptions made, and explain why it's incorrect for example. Maybe it was a detail in the book, for example, while some think it was Kubrick who was pushing some sort of agenda.

I also wonder why its Kubrick who is the focus of interpretation. Maybe it's because Kubrick was very detail oriented, and didn't do something without purpose? I also think his movies deal with social commentary and the conflicts of man vs. man, technology, with the other powerful forces (government, religion, prison, sex, media, family, karma) we see in "A Clockwork Orange" and their influence, and if/how behavior is modified, and attempting to take an honest look at the dark sides of humans.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Kubrick was a robot...that's what Orson said.

Dark Side of the Moon strangely almost links up with Wizard of Oz if one takes methamphetamines

I love that when a bull**** interpretation of a text maps onto a conspiracy theory, people will attack it, but if a bull**** interpretation merely reflects an idiosyncratic opinion of the text, people will just shrug as if all readings are created equal.

I'll go with being invested in it. I had some family members that not only worked directly on Apollo, but who where there when it lifted off. What you are implying is that they didn't do what they did, that they lied about the biggest event in their lives and that I'm insufficiently skeptical if I believe what they did and that I was deceived as a kid when I saw some of that hardware, before it was in the Smithsonian (which I assume is also a lie). That's a big claim to make with no evidence.

Relaying messages from the moon was quite do-able, since it DID happen; satellite communication had been around for a while at that point. The most difficult part to believe is that there were so many prototype technologies that all had to work and most of them did.

Now, I, on the other hand, am willing to admit that Woodstock, World War II and the Roman Empire never happened and, the biggest of them all, which is that there actually IS NO air on Earth.

You assert, without evidence, that you had family members there, but how do you know? How do we know? Relative to your experience, you have the evidence of their testimony, but family testimony is also why some believe in Bigfoot and cults and the New York Jets. You were not there. Even if you were there, your assertion would only be an assertion.

Many conspiracy theories hold that the rockets were launched, but that they didn't go to the moon or that the only circled it. Thus, we need not doubt that they witnessed a launch or worked on the project. We need not say that they are liars (a moral claim) to undermine the epistemic claim (that we know we went to the moon).

What we "know" we know via narratives (i.e., stories). And we trust the stories, in large part, because we have been habituated to trust the testimony of certain authorities (e.g., parents, teachers, scientists).

What separates you from the rubes who believe in a Flat Earth or Apollo conspiracies is not some bright line of common sense, but merely stories that square a bit better than other stories. There is a bit more coherence for your tale. It does not require supposing quite as much (we don't have to make ad hoc suppositions to "explain away"). It fits better with what we think we know about the world (our world-picture).

The skeptic must, to some extent, be welcomed lest we fall into dogmatism. And if we find ourselves vexed, that is likely because we lack the justification we thought we could summon with little effort. On the other hand, the skeptic should not be given the benefit of "two sides" thinking that leads to false equivalence outside of a dialogue with the one who is confused.

I recently saw some nonsense about Deep Underground Military Bases which are categorized under the initialism of DUMBs. At a certain point, you have wonder that people don't realize that they're being trolled. If you believe in DUMBs, you just might be, and yet every scientific revolution begins as a crank theory, every scandal begins as gossip, every scoop begins as a claim, every Wategate begins as a conspiracy theory.

Now, let me tell you about the Stargate program being run by lizards from Rigel, which is stealing waters from Earth's aquifers...

Really. If we are going to get down in the weeds on Cartesian doubt, I'm more willing to go with the obvious assertion that YOU don't exist.

Nothing exists....only doubt, but if you doubt that the bullet that's heading inbound for your head actually exists, you're still dead.

Well the if the technology to broadcast from the moon to Earth was not there in 69, then how could Kubrick have faked it as it just seems impossible to fake it still?

Well, if we're really going to talk about whether or not we went to the moon SPOILER ALERT , we're kind of stuck with this. So... ...yes.

Our friend is confused about what it means to "know" something. That there is room for doubt for any empirical claim, for some, seems to really undermine whether we can say we "know" it.

Instead of trying to establish that the moon claim is good by some unimpeachable class or quantity of evidence (taking on a burden of proof for which the skeptic can always raise the bar with new questions), it may be better to meet such claims "on all fours" and ask our friend what evidence exists to overturn the presumption that we did? And what are other things that this person believes? Why does this person believe these claims, but not the moon landing?

Skepticism sometimes has to be met, not with evidence (to which some are immune), but rather a sort of therapy, working through how they got into the knot in the first place, right?

Considering the number of people who did see this, some of which were family members, I think I'd rather make a case that Italy doesn't exist.

Stanley Kubrick definitely does not exist, at least according to Wikipedia, which says that he died in 1999, but I can see a rational case being made, that would say that he never did.

It's all part of a big NASA cover-up, sewing unprovable doubt that causes people like me to defend the truth of a lie, hence making the real truth (that Apollo never happened) seem like a wacko theory and, ergo, defending a myth and doubting my own experience. How's that for twisted.

The Kubrick conspiracies reveal the perils of over-analysis. Thus, this should be a cautionary example for anyone who loves analyzing movies. The surface of the text is king. The way the film was interpreted by its original audience in its original context is the most secure interpretation we have and should be accorded a presumption that must be overturned, and not merely challenged. Clever new readings of texts should always be greeted with scrutiny -- if this is really there, why didn't anyone else see it? The deeper your analysis goes, the more clever your conclusion, the more likely it is that you're out to lunch.

All I can say to that is you'll have to live with skeptics. It's like the JFK assassination. There are a lot of questions, and not a whole lot of answers, other than "Yeah well, you're wrong".

Not exactly the most cogent of responses, but I doubt that convincing a skeptical audience is uppermost in your mind.

so.... you'll just have to live with it.

There are, in fact, answers here. There are many of them, in fact, which establish the very high probability that the Apollo missions actually sent people to the moon.

This isn't a "poh-tay-toe" vs. "poh-tah-toe" situation where we all have to shrug at our epistemic poverty and respect all opinions equally. Your position does not demand equal respect for the mere fact that you are of a different opinion. On the contrary, people who hold radical views have the burden of proof. It is not our job to persuade you, but your job to persuade us.

If you would like to share those reasons, I'd be happy to hear them. Why are you skeptical of the moon landing? What makes you think that something is going on? When did you become skeptical? Can you remember what made you question it?

Dark Side of the Moon is actually making fun of those who strongly believe in the Stanley Kubrick moon landing conspiracy. They literally set his own wife up to be in on the joke, and at the end they reveal the whole thing is manipulated and scripted. It's an incredibly funny satire.

__________________