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

I've seen at least a few documentaries how each of his movies are filled with clues about the ruling class of the world, and all the debauchery involved.

"The Mysterious Work of Stanley Kubrick" and another about the faking of the moon landing (something I saw many years ago) are a few documentaries.

I think its possible that Kubrick threw in certain things for his own amusement, knowing people always look for symbolism. Kubrick seemed like a very intelligent guy.

I once read a quote (probably refuted now) supposedly by Nicole Kidman who said that Kubrick told her "The world is run by pedophiles", which could be true, since it seems like people become power-drunk, and engage in the worst acts and crimes to show they are above the law.

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

A friend of mine believes that Kubrick helped fake the moonlanding in real life, and that he confesses this in The Shining but what is written on the kids shirt. But I don't consider that to be a confession to faking the moonlanding at all, and find it to be a huge reach that some would connect that shirt to the moon landing as a confession.

I enjoy these rabbit holes as much as Alex Jones, but I highly doubt that Kubrick was using subliminal messages in order to convey messages like the world is run by pedophiles. I think he was really good at his job, and while there are some strange coincidences in some of his movies, chances are that's all it was.

For example, in the Shining, one of the conspiracy theories is that he was trying to convey some hidden message about native Americans being slaughtered, and one of the examples are all of the native art pictures in the hotel. It's much more likely that some gofer was told "go fill the place up with pictures" and he found some art collector that had a lot of native american art in his collection.

Was the moon landing faked, and Kubrick was instrumental in helping film some of the faked bits? Well, some of that stuff is pretty damn difficult to believe. Live streaming audio and video from the moon in 1969 was probably beyond the limits of technology. I've heard explanations about the signal being bounced off of satellites, and that's a possibility. Considering the limits of video broadcasts back then, it's a bit of a stretch. Hell, even a terrestrial based broadcast towers resulted in nothing but snow if you were 40 miles away. So the technological constraints and the danger of everything going **** up for the world to see leads me to think that somebody in the Nixon administration might have come up with a solution for any possible problems associated with the mission.

It's an interesting conspiracy theory to toy with, but I guess we'll never really know.

In 2012, with the moon and Jupiter aligned in the solar house of Leo, I took ketamine and ashwaganda and had a seance with my cat lady phallic statue and a pile of bullet-ridden coca-cola cans, and, I swear on Tim Carey's grave of shaking snakes. that Stanley himself told me personally that you're all indefatigable idiots.

Proof that huffing Jenkem is bad for little children and other living things.

Makes you wonder what those Room 237/Dark Side of the Moon folks are huffing.

Yeah yeah, I get that. On the other hand, you get to explain how easy it was in 69 to livestream from the moon.

Here.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yeah yeah, but in 1969, we couldn't do anything close to that in reality. I was 7 years old at the time, and TV was rabbit ears, and if there was anything even close to being an hour's drive away resulted in snow.

That's my problem with it. You can say that there was this and that technology, but here on earth, we weren't able to pick up anything from the next county, let alone the moon.

Live streaming from the moon? Umm... sorry, but I don't buy it.


Right now, there's a helicopter on mars. It doesn't send live video and audio feeds. It takes a long time to upload still images. That's with today's technology.

i remember i been watching ghost hunters when they did Stanley Kubrick hotel episode yrs ago

One word for why we can do today what they couldn't do in yesteryear. Infrastructure.


What NASA could accomplish for one space mission wasn't what they could do down here on Earth cause we didn't have the infrastructure.


It took decades for telecommunications companies to exploit the technology that was being created and esploited by NASA. And why is that...Infrastructure.

No.

Were you under the assumption your television was supplied and funded by NASA? Interesting.

Seems about right.

I admit I was under the assumption that they are hampered by the same basic technology that we are forced to live with.

There's always the alien technology conspiracy theory, if that's up your alley. You know, how they have UFOs in area 51, and they reverse engineer stuff, and only leak it out slowly to the general public.



That might explain how they had technology in 69 that we don't have today.

I don't quite get why we now need to resort to alien technology conspiracies. Isnt your basic premise simply you don't think they could broadcast from space because the tv in your living room had bad reception? Are you also going to introduce into evidence how your car can't travel to the moon? The abilities of technology aren't limited simply by what you can purchase and bring home with you.


Im legitimately puzzled by your reasoning, so I'm sure I must be missing something

It has nothing to do with the TV my folks had in 1969, and everything to do with signal strength. We're not talking about walkie talkies, but a live audio and video signal being broadcast from the moon in 1969 on the lunar module. We're talking about some serious wattage just to get it to the command module that was orbiting the moon. So even given that this was possible, the distance from the moon to the earth is 243 thousand miles. The circumference of the earth is almost 25,000 miles just for a general idea of the actual distance involved.

Have you ever been driving somewhere while listening to the radio, and the signal kept degrading to the point that it was gone? That's just an audio signal, and only a few hundred miles before it's just gone altogether.

Okay, let me put it like this. With clear line of sight and no interference, it takes 512 watts to transmit an FM signal 34 miles. 1 watt has a range of slightly over 1 mile.

Did you ever see Apollo 13? You know how they're trying to figure out how to get enough power from both the LM and CM combined so they can get back to earth safely? So many volts for the computer, so many for basic life support, and not enough for heat, and just maybe?

Since "terrestrial" AM/FM radio and TV broadcasts in 1969 weren't using the then state-of-the-art satellite technology, your examples are comparing apples to eightballs. Maybe its the lack of understanding the satellite aspect of the technology that's prevented you from refuting a single fact mentioned in mark f's link. Just because satellite TV and radio wouldn't be commercially available until the 80s and 90s, respectively, doesn't mean it didn't exist in 1969. DARPA's internet took 15 years to go from premiere (1974) to the commercialized world wide web (1989).



To give an alternate example which comes easily to mind would be NASA's ATS-1 satellite which, two years before the moon landing, coordinated the first global satellite TV simulcast, in 24 countries around the globe. That technology wasn't as sophisticated as what was used for the Apollo comms, but it's sufficient to show how far ahead it already was from the terrestrial examples you've mentioned, and enough to make your point moot.

No, but I believe Bart's: