Kubricks Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick Part 1: Kubrick Apollo (2011)

➡ The documentary “Kubrick’s Odyssey” suggests that renowned filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was involved in creating fake footage of the Apollo moon landings. The theory is based on Kubrick’s close ties with NASA and his groundbreaking film techniques. The documentary also explores the idea that Kubrick’s subsequent films, including “The Shining,” contain hidden messages revealing his involvement in the moon landing hoax. However, these claims are speculative and lack concrete evidence.
➡ The article discusses a theory that the Apollo moon landing was faked using advanced filming techniques. It suggests that Stanley Kubrick, the director of 2001 Space Odyssey, used a special screen projection technology to create realistic space scenes. The theory also proposes that the movie was released before the moon landing to familiarize the public with what space looks like. Lastly, it points out that the original credits of the movie thanked NASA, but these were removed in later releases, possibly to distance the movie from the Apollo mission.
➡ The text discusses three theories about the moon landing: one group believes it happened exactly as NASA reported, another group believes it never happened, and a third group believes we went to the moon but the footage we’ve seen is fake. The text also discusses theories by Jay Widener and Richard Charles Hoagland, who suggest that the moon landing footage was manipulated or faked, possibly to hide evidence of civilization on the moon. The text also mentions theories connecting Stanley Kubrick’s films to the moon landing, suggesting that Kubrick may have been involved in faking the moon landing footage.
➡ The text discusses a theory that Stanley Kubrick’s film, “The Shining,” is actually a confession of his involvement in faking the Apollo 11 moon landing. The theory suggests that various elements in the film, such as the twins representing the Gemini missions and Danny’s Apollo 11 sweater, are symbolic references to the moon landing. The text also mentions a theory that the phrase “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” is actually a coded message about the moon landing. The author also discusses other theories about the film, such as the Native American rug symbolizing rockets and the winter scenes representing the Cold War.
➡ Philip Carey Plate, also known as the Bad Astronomer, is a popular science blogger and skeptic who has worked for the Hubble Space Telescope team. He has publicly challenged Richard Hoagland’s controversial theories through multiple articles and an open letter. Despite the ongoing debate and the potential for a face-to-face discussion, it seems unlikely that a resolution will be reached. The discussion has sparked interest and influenced various interpretations in popular culture, suggesting that these theories may continue to be debated for a long time.
➡ Nasacomic.com is a website promoting a 40-page comic about the conspiracy theory that Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo space mission. The comic is a great read for fans of Kubrick, comics, or conspiracy theories. The text also includes lyrics to a song, expressing various emotions and experiences.

Wag your Kubrick. Under the docks. Yeah. Under the docks. Under the docks. Under the docks. Yeah. Under the docks. Welcome back. Under the docks. Paranoid American. And Sean Chris. Sean P. John P. John C. She’ll see. Yeah, this is. This is me. Paranoid American. Paranoid as ever. And I think that this particular series of movies is right up my alley, and I hope it’s up yours too. I want to do like, a little reading Rainbow. And it’s like. But you don’t have to take my word for it. But this. This really was crazy because re watching these for the first time in a little while, at least I’m going through it, and it’s like, oh, I’ve heard that before.

I’ve heard that before. Right? And then I realized, like, yeah, from. From this documentary series is where you heard it. You know, it wasn’t like this guy was saying something. You already knew this. Jay Widener is the one that directed Narrates. So the very first one we’re gonna do today is. It’s a long one. So it’s called Kubrick’s Odyssey. That’s the name of the movie series. And in this particular, the first installment of this series is called Kubrick’s Odyssey. One secret hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick. And then the IMDb subtitle is Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick, part one, Kubrick and Apollo.

This is from 2011, and like I mentioned, it was directed, written and narrated by Jay Widener, who, if you haven’t heard that name before, hopefully you’ll look into more his work. It’s really fascinating. And the entire premise of this movie. This is on the tales of watching 2, 3, Room 237 that we did last week. And Room 237 was a documentary about a whole bunch of different people’s interpretations of the Shining. Well, this one is just about Jay Widener’s interpretation of not just the Shining, but all of Kubrick’s body of work and how it represents Kubrick trying to communicate to the public that he directed the moon landings, and he’s kind of sorry about it.

I don’t. I don’t really get all the dynamics behind it, but he’s letting us know this in the most coded way possible so that it could sneak through all of his CIA handlers and the Hollywood handlers and whatever he needed to do. This was the thing that was. Allowed him to kind of bake this information into his movies, specifically the Shining. So have you ever seen this particular documentary before? No. This whole Kubrick Month is new to me. Like, I’ve heard little clips in here and there. They said some stuff about this a little loosely, not the actual film, but some of these conspiracies, like on Rogan and a couple other podcasts, but you’re talking about, like, a minute or two of them discussing it.

So, yeah, this was great for me. A fresh slate. You know, you’ve seen it a few times. I’ve never seen it. And this one, I was like, wow. Like, it got me definitely going into a lot of different directions. All right, let’s plot the course on this one. There’s a lot of claims made. I’m gonna try and just limit it to, like, my top five or six. The first one is essentially that the Shining and the rest of his movies that came after the Shining, all the way up to Eyes Wide Shut, the last Kubrick movie that came out, were all about him revealing how he had worked on this Apollo mission.

And not just that he did it, but exactly how he did it. So, for example, the Jay Widener in this documentary, he has his theory. And what his theory is was that Stanley Kubrick was trying to get some information about the B52 bombers when he was planning for Dr. Strangelove movie. And of those things, he was trying to. To get just like, some photos and video footage so he can make his more realistic. And I guess the Pentagon, or just the military in general, they look at his body of work and they look at what he’s working with, and they realize that it’s going to be satirical, it’s going to be kind of anti war, it’s not going to be pro military establishment, you know, like complex.

So because of that, they say, nope, you’re not going to get access to the B52. But Kubrick being kind of a terrier and a really smart one at that, he figures out exactly what the B52 looks like inside and out by just pouring through countless photos that have been released in magazines and little clips here and there. And he pieces together very realistically what the B52 looks like again, inside and out. And not just that, but he. He was sort of at the cutting edge of technology. So even if you go back and watch Dr. Strangelove now, you might be like, oh, that’s obviously some sort of green screen, right? You can kind of tell.

But when this came out, it was so kind of groundbreaking that it looked realistic because there was no other frame of reference for this. So the Pentagon military, they see what Kubrick did. I assume after they stopped torturing him for a few hours. Like, how did you get this information? He. They finally realize, oh, this guy’s just really good at this, and he’s a terrier, and it’s better to have him on our side than not have him on our side. So they say, like, okay, if you’re so good at this, we got a real project for you.

How about you shoot these fake moon landings? And then Jay makes the case that if the CIA asks you a question like that, the only answer is yes or no, and then you die. So just him being presented with that. And again, this is all theoretical. There’s not a single point when Jay’s like, and here’s the evidence that this is how this all happened. So you have to swallow this one huge pill that Stanley Kubrick was directed because of how good he was at his craft. And everything flows after that. So claim number one, what did.

What do you think about this claim in general? They. He sold his soul. Like, that’s where they kind of initiate that, I think the claim. I mean, we’ve seen it time and time again that these things do happen. I’m not. It’s not far fetched to me to make this claim. It’s not as wild as one may think, because. But I do have. The only problem I have a little bit with it is that they. They go further into, like, then he was. He made this deal and he. He could do any film he wants, any way he wants.

And I’m like, whoa. Would they give him that much free range to give you, to give away the secret? I mean, I know there’s the old occultic, like, they have to tell you. You know what I mean? I get that point from it. But the way he said, I’m like, well, how does he get free range? Yeah, he. The premise is that by doing this Apollo, he gets unlimited budget. He gets final say, which is unheard of, you know, final cut for everything. Which I guess was true all the way up until his last movie, Eyes Wide Shut, which there’s a lot of controversy.

We’ll save that one for a whole nother, you know, episode. Because I’m sure there’s documentaries that’ll be on that by then, but, yeah, that he did. I mean, stepping away from all the claims that Jay Wagner makes in this documentary, Stanley Kubrick is an outlier in that he did have amazing budgets for their time. Like, budgets now for, like, a modern Disney movie would dwarf a lot of that. But for his time, this was record breaking for the fact that he did get a final say in these final cuts. That was record breaking. There’s a couple other things that come up in this particular claim, too.

The proximity of Stanley Kubrick to Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the Sentinel and which was based, you know, 2001 Space Odyssey, but he was also an advisor to NASA in various capacities. And the fact that NASA scientist named Frederick Ordway, who was working for the NASA Apollo mission, he ends up being Stanley Kubrick’s, like, lead science advisor for 2001 Space Odyssey. So the. The idea here being that there was really a revolving door a little bit between Stanley Kubrick Productions and between NASA as far as who was working in consulting for the both of these. So they could have been messengers back and from or.

And I was actually finding myself wondering through this movie, is the government feeding Kubrick info, or is Kubrick feeding the government info? And that. That comes up again. But that’s. I guess that’s the one major claim, and those are the reasons why a lot of this ends up holding a little bit more weight, is because of the proximity from Stanley Kubrick to NASA at the time. And it’s also interesting, Jay doesn’t really say, like, you know, that fake space is fake and gay. Right? Like, he. He admits that there’s possibilities of us going. He’s staying this particular mission because of the Cold War, maybe, and there would be an incentive for them to fake it.

I mean, this was the premise of my comic book, Never a Straight Answer. And the. And it all sprung from, like, one joke. It was like a single panel that. That had worked on years ago. But the whole thing was like, we’re not gonna let Russia fake a moon landing before we fake a moon landing. Like, they. They knew that they were gonna fake it. So it was almost like a fake Cold War in order to get there. But it’s a very real premise that if there’s a competition, even if it’s a fake competition, all the more reason for you to win that fake competition, right? So regardless if you believe that we’ve been to the moon or you don’t believe it or that you’re somewhere in between.

And I’ll mention I’m going to get into that too, because Jay kind of outlines these different categories of. Of thinking around the moon. The second major claim is that the way that Stanley Kubrick did this and the way that we can analyze the footage and sort of prove this improve is a. Doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement, but that it’s all based on this Front screen projection technology that the company 3M, the same one that makes like, tape and glue and packaging materials and stuff. Well, they also made these. This screen out of these tiny little glass beads that once you get to almost a microscopic level of making glass beads, then they’ve discovered a way that you can project light onto those glass beads without getting too technical.

It’s like a 90 degree angle and there’s mirrors involved. Long story short, though, is that instead of having to do green screen, which was really obvious and was clunky and you could tell they were able to film actors on a set with the pro, the actual background art projected behind them. So it wasn’t a separate process. You could see seams in this. This was the most realistic way to shoot any sort of green screen style footage. And not a lot of people have the resources. And in fact, on 2001 Space Odyssey and, you know, by proxy, the Apollo moon landings, if you follow the logic of this documentary, the Stanley Kubrick bought all these hundreds of thousands of beaded, you know, screens and then had those stitched together and made the biggest 3M front projection screen that had ever existed at that point.

And that this specific technology is what allowed him to do 2001 Space Odyssey and the Apollo missions. It was all about this front screen projection. And Jay starts pulling up pictures and he said when he makes one really specific claim, which I always found interesting, and that’s that one of the things that you’ll see in Space Odyssey is that whenever they’re using the front projection screen, which is pretty much all of the first chapter of the Apes, you never see the bottom of the screen. You never see the horizon. The horizon is always covered up by rocks or like a little hill or mounds or something.

And it’s done tactfully so that it’s not obvious. It’s not obvious. There’s a screen in the background. They do it incredibly well. And then he starts pulling up photos from Apollo 14, 15, 16, and he says his favorite is 17 that, like, the more they thought they were getting good at it, the more flippant they were being. They were kind of like leaving more clues. And he’ll Show here’s this NASA 17 footage, and here’s this line where it’s clearly covering up the horizon. Why is it that in every one of these photos, whenever he points out this line, there’s all sorts of detail about, like little rocks and little divots in the sand and everything.

And then after that, that line that’s blocking the horizon, you lose all the detail and all the quality. So that’s another pretty major claim. Not just what Kubrick did, but how he did it and how to look out for it. See the first part where they’re talking about, like, made a deal. We’ve heard this time and time again, like. And I’m like, ah. You know, I’m always skeptical. I’m. I’m one of those people that goes in skeptical. But when I started hearing this front projector and how he was showing it, I was really. It sucked me in right there.

That’s where I started getting like, okay, you got something. Because I saw a lot of the differences myself with the. The, you know, grainy sand and how he puts the audit. The Space Odyssey 2001 and compares it to the lunar film, the Apollo 11 film. When they’re on the moon, quote, unquote, you can see that after the horizon not only blocked, but you could see that it was different. Like, the grain was different completely. Where you would be like, whoa, this doesn’t match up at all. So this is where to me, I’m like, okay, now you got my attention.

And to build on that, the next major claim that he makes is that 2001 Space Odyssey was filmed at the exact same time as the Apollo mission. This is true. 1964. And then 2001 Space Odyssey comes out in 1968. And then the first footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing is in 1969. And the claim here is that 2001 Space Odyssey was used to prime the public. It was used to show you the audience. Here’s what space looks like. If you’re walking around in space. Here’s what that looks like. Maybe it’s a little slow and kind of, like, wobbly.

Here’s what footage might look like. Again, establishing. If we’re going to use 3M front projection screen, here’s a whole bunch of examples of that. So that now when you see it next year, when NASA shows you their footage, you’re not questioning it because you’re like, oh, Yeah, I saw 2001 Space Odyssey. This checks out, right? So that, to me, that’s. That’s a huge, huge claim. It’s kind of a mind numbingly large claim to say that Stanley Kubrick movies were literally being used to prime you. So that when they show you this other fake footage, you don’t.

You don’t have, like, a reaction to it where you’re denying it. You’re not saying, like, oh, that looks different than I was expecting. Because no one knew what to Expect, therefore, this was the perfect time to introduce what they wanted you to think. Yeah, it gives you a reference point so that you’re like, oh, this is space. This is stars. It’s supposed to be dark. It’s. It’s bad imagery, like, you know what I’m saying, Where you can barely see the person and you can’t see the sunlight. So it pushed people into the direction of like, yeah, these bass is real, like, right? Yeah, you just speed up this footage here and slow it down there, and all of a sudden people are on board.

And another. Another concept is that Stanley Kubrick and the rest of if allegedly. If you believe this was all true, that they might have considered. Look at this huge room of expensive film equipment that we need to set, you know, at faster and slower speeds. I don’t know if anyone was thinking someone’s going to download this online and, you know, 40 or 50 years and just use VLC to, like, speed or slow it down like that. It was unheard of to digitize and be able to manipulate media in this way. So another thing that he points out is that the original release of Space Odyssey, at the very end, during the credits, it gave shout outs to NASA, like, thank you for, you know, helping us on these scenes.

And then in subsequent releases after that original, all those credits are removed. So. And the. The premise being. That’s being implied by Jay Wagner here is that this is Kubrick maybe got a call or maybe he’s covering up his tracks and like, hey, hey, guy. Like, take. Take this out of there. We can’t let people know how close Space Odyssey and the Apollo 11 mission were to each other. Yeah, kind of let’s. Let’s get some distance from it. And I thought too, with the front projector stuff, just go back to that for a second. I. I thought it was.

The reason why it’s such a compelling argument is because at first I was like, oh, because they think he’s so smart. How would he not think of someone? Because he wouldn’t think of anybody going back, because nobody was doing that. So, like, you know what I mean? Like, now we got green screen, we can go, ah, we were talking before this. Ah, that’s AI generated. Right. Or that’s green screen. Like, but there was nothing else before that. So nobody would even think to argue against it. Yeah. Imagine you’re showing someone AI video footage, but you’ve, like, traveled back to the 60s and there’s not a single person that’s like, oh, I can tell the pixel move like a Pixel doesn’t exist.

Right. So it’s. There’s sort of an analogy there where he was so far ahead in technology, which is. We’ll get into that in the next episode. But, like, it’s just nuts, the meta of how the tools are advancing at this breakneck speed. Anyways, the other thing that. And this is these three categories that Jay Widener describes, and he says that there’s people that just straight up believe the. The official narrative. You know, we’ve had, what, six different missions and 12 different people have stepped on the Moon, and everything happened exactly as NASA said. And any of the video or image footage that we’ve seen has all been legit.

All that’s the official narrative. Then you’ve got the exact opposite of that as sort of this other group of people that are like, we’ve never been to the moon. It’s impossible to be to the moon. All the footage has always been faked. And then Widener suggests this, like, third, and he says it’s in between the two. I almost think it’s like removing yourself from that dimension into another one. But these are the people that say, we have been to the Moon, but all of the footage that we’ve seen, that’s all fake still. Like, we haven’t seen the actual images of the Moon or the ones that we do see are all doctored.

And he brings up this super, super OG Moon theorist by the name of Richard Charles Hoagland. And Richard Charles Hoagland predates Jay Widener, I believe. And what he did is what he took some of the original images published by NASA and he put them into a scanner and he blew them up. And he raised the gain up when he was scanning them. Anyone that’s used like an OG scanner before, the gain is basically like how bright you want the whites to be and how dark you want the blacks to be. You can put this gain and it runs this, you know, mathematical formula that kind of filters out only the most extreme values when you’re scanning something.

So he says that when he scans the official NASA photos in he sees these, quote, glass crystalline structures, like. Like an actual architecture and geometry. And the long story short here is that he claims there are giant glass moon bases and that maybe they’re abandoned, maybe they’ve been destroyed, but that when the astronauts got to the Moon, they saw evidence of civilization there. And so they. They, quote, painted it out, meaning that they took all these photos and they just kind of like erased, either digitally or using analog beans to get rid of these crystalline Structures on the moon.

So Jay Widener is kind of building on top of that. He. He goes out of his way to say, look, I’m not debunking Hoagland’s work, but I think what Hoagland is seeing are not crystalline structures on the moon. They’re seeing these anomalies from this 3M front projection screen that Kubrick was using. So he says that Hoagland’s looking at this footage, thinking it actually came from the moon, but really it came from a sound stage. And he’s looking at the crystalline structure of these 3M glass bead screens. So it’s. I. I had not heard Hoagland directly before this and this.

When I first saw, I thought it sounded pretty crazy. And I gotta say, on the second watch around or like, this is probably the 10th time I’ve seen this one. It never. Doesn’t sound crazy to me because I just. I’ve scanned plenty of things before in my life. And I know, like, certain areas, they just get blown out. They get weird. Like, because, you know, I’m using like a 60 scanner or something. I’m not using like a hundred thousand dollar scanner. So I don’t know. I attribute it to that. But it’s so interesting how Jay Widener starts building on that.

And he uses Hogland’s claims as, like, no, he. He wasn’t recognizing what it actually was. It was really this thing. And that builds on my theory that I’m developing. Yeah. And they even claimed that there was like a little rain. You know, when you take a picture and a reflection of light off the glass, you see the little rainbow pattern. I think that if it were to be more. I would go with Jay’s way a little bit more. Like, as far as if that being the claim, I think that Hogan was. Hoagland was being a little bit far farther out there for me.

It’s like, how could you go there and then you race the part in the background. It makes more logical sense to fake the whole thing than to, oh, we went there and there was Martians, you know what I mean? There was space aliens and they had a base. So we took out the background and the gamut. Like the his part. That’s where I was kind of like, I don’t know, man. Like, I’ve done the same thing. I’ve took contrast out to, you know what I mean, change the gains. And it. To me, that wasn’t like, prove, oh, the smoking gun as he thought it was.

Right. I think both of them, in my opinion, Jay, Wagner and Hoagland, they’re describing compression artifacts that when you’re editing something in Premiere or Photoshop or whatever you’re using. I think Widener specifically mentions Photoshop quite often. We’re talking about loading it up in a compressed format that. That has these kind of, like, geometric shapes, these blocks that everything’s compressed in. So clearly, if you’re digitally manipulating it, you’re going to bring out and emphasize some of those sort of, like, digital lossy algorithms. So without getting a complete tangent on all that, this part is not the part that sold me seeing, like, little lines and compressions.

And in fact, even before it gets to Hoagland, Jay was mentioning that you can see seams. And he’s like, see, look at this shot. And look at this shot. And I swear I watched this so many times in my life, I still don’t see the seam that he’s talking about in some of the photos where it’s like, oh, he’s gonna draw a line from here to there. And it’s totally different from what I was expecting. So there. It’s not as night and day as some of the claims come out to be. Try to look up close and.

And was zooming in, I couldn’t see either. So, I mean, some of them, you gotta kind of like your head and squint and pray a little bit in order to see it, but it still makes for some great content. And then finally, the. The last big claim that I guess I want to go into is the whole reason that led us here. We started at Room 237, and this movie sort of ends off on Room 237. And I’m talking about the Shining Room 237. And that this is notable because it’s one of the few details that Kubrick completely changed from Stephen King.

Like, why change the room number in some hotel that they’re staying in? Like, why would he care so much about that? And one. I mean, some of the explanations that the hotel didn’t want him to use an actual room note, whatever. I don’t. I don’t care what all the exclamations are in this movie. It’s theorized it’s because the moon is 237,000 miles from the Earth, which is technically true, because if you look at a diagram of the moon orbiting the Earth, it’s elliptical. It’s, like, egg shaped. So there are certain times when it’s like 250,000 away.

And there’s some times when it’s like 280,000 away. So there is a certain moment when it’s exactly 237,000 miles away from us. There’s a kind of a wide range. But the way that the room key also says room number, the O and number is kind of like removed from the rest. It’s a different size and shape. So really you’ve got just the letters to spell out moon room if you kind of do it, you know, in a very creative way. And that there’s a tie here to Eyes Wide Shuts. And he mentions that the last Kubrick movie, it was contractually released on the exact day 30 years to the day that the Apollo moonlission launched.

So it came out in. On July 16, 1999, and July 16, 1969 was the Apollo mission launch. So just all these different kind of connections. He starts. He gets a little bit more into the weeds if you really want to get into some of the. Like, for example, he mentions how in the first half of the movie, the manager of the hotel, his daughter, his son are all wearing red, white and blue. And that this represents like this gung ho pro America. Oh yeah, they’re giving me all this money to make these movies. Like, this is Stanley going through all this in his own mind.

And then the whole premise of the Shining is that Jack is supposed to be a writer and he’s struggling with how to write this thing. And he’s made these horrible deals with management that his wife and his kid are just now starting to find out about. And that all of this is a. Is symbolic for Kubrick getting in over his head. And Kubrick’s wife and kids maybe finding out that he’s faking the moon landing. And knowing that this could know kill them all. Like, this is information they’re not supposed to know, which ends on this typewriter scene.

And I’ll, I’ll get into that when we get into like the highlights. But it makes a incredibly compelling case, even if you don’t believe any of it, that you’ll never be able to watch the Shining again. The same. Yeah, the, the way he unfolds everything, even like comparing the twins being Gemini, because you know what I mean, Two, like Gemini and the. And the previous missions were called Gemini. I mean, you could say it’s a reach, but I mean, it, it is factual. That that is the case. And it, it, you can look it up. And it was 30 years to the date when Eyes Wide Shut, because I was like, let me just look this up.

It’s really easy to look up And I’m like, well, it is. It’s not a coincidence. I. I don’t see that being a coincidence. Like, it. That seems like something Kubrick would specifically be like, yeah, contractually, I’d like this to fall on this date. And he makes a good argument about this being his confession. Right. Because, you know, we got into it a little bit with room 2, 237. This gives you a lot more extended of that theory of the Shining. Was Stanley Kubrick’s Moon Land fake filming confession? And I actually feel a little bit lucky because I saw Jay Widener’s documentary that we’re talking about right now before room 237 even came out.

So the first time I saw that whole claim about Danny being Apollo 11 lifting off with, like. I mean, I was so sold on that. It was. It was something new that I had never heard before. And it was just like, oh, my God, this is the smoking gun evident. I mean, in retrospect, again, it’s just a kid standing up, wearing a sweater in a movie. So no one’s going to jail. They’re not doing, like, congressional hearings over this. But, man, like, even now, watching it, it was just such an impactful claim to make. And the.

The time in which it shows up in this documentary, it kind of builds on all this other stuff you’ve been thinking. And it’s like, I don’t know. I don’t know about that. Okay, maybe that’s a little bit weird. And then when he shows the Danny being Apollo 11, it’s like, oh, my God, it’s all true, isn’t it? So it was just. It was well placed and definitely the climax of the whole movie, in my opinion. Well, they got me, too, because, you know, we watch. Me. I watch room 237 first. Then I watched this. But they got me again when he’s talking about the Native American rug that’s hanging over the fireplace that’s looking like rockets.

Like, in that one scene, I was like, you did it again, man. Like, because it is. Again, not everything is like, maybe, you know, it’s just shot, but it’s like, man, that just seems too perfect to have it in the right place for me. The Hidden Treasures. I mean, the whole entire movie. Let me just be clear about that. But if I have to nitpick, the very beginning and the very end, they play this song called Masonic Moon by a group called Elders of Zion. And if you look up some of their other tracks, it’s all, like, they are deep in the conspiracy Lore.

It’s interesting music, so that one was kind of cool. It put me on to the Elders of Zion, the music group. But by far, like, my. My favorite, aside from Danny Standing up, which is like its own thing that’s. That’s so commercial now, like, I can’t cite that one because everyone. That’s like the basic sort of version of this, right? My absolute favorite one is that this. This key scene in the movie is when the wife walks up to the typewriter and she’s like, all right, what’s Jack Ben working on this entire time? And she starts going through the pages and realizes it’s just him writing.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Over and over again, hundreds of pages. Sometimes it’s written as dialogue, sometimes it’s broken up into, like, paragraphs, but it’s the exact same phrase. And this is when Wendy realizes, oh, he’s crazy and he’s probably going to kill us. So he’s completely lost his mind in this work. And then Jay points out that it’s not all work and no play. It’s a one. One work and no play. And that this is again, Stanley saying, I’m Jack and I was forced or I was put into this really horrible position.

I had to make a deal that I couldn’t refuse with the devil and that this Apollo 11 work is taking away any time for me to interact with my family and do, like, these creative things that I want to do, which is a little bit conflicting with what they said before, that he gets his blank check and he make whatever he wants. And. But that. That was kind of mind blowing to me with this very specific. The A11 was Stanley’s encoded way to tell the viewers of this film that it’s about the moon landing and it’s not about Jack.

And for me, the hidden treasure would be like I to kind of go off that part. But they really got me sucked into, like, if you look at it as, hey, this is my confessional. But when they’re talking about Mr. Holloran, the detective, the. The grounds guy that was, uh, uh, uh, Danny’s psychic, uh, friend that he calls back when he’s losing it, that he represents somebody that Kubrick may have told. And then I’m like, well, are we saying that Kubrick murdered somebody? Or, like, that kind of got me, like, really looking into more things because I’m like, maybe he did.

Because obviously, you know, we always talk about stuff like this, or maybe he didn’t murder them, but maybe he feels like he killed them by maybe telling some information. So I. I wanted to do some digging on. Did anybody close around him or, like, mysteriously die? Like, because he makes that claim, but he doesn’t really back it up. But I. I just like the whole putting it in. Hey, America’s the Hotel Jack. Is. Is Kubrick, like, he got me really in that mindset of. I’m like, yeah, that makes sense. Like, I can see him hiding this dialogue.

Even to go as far as saying, like, the. The wintry stuff was representing the Cold War and all the bears, little bears here and there, it. It makes you think this guy is not an idiot. Right. Like, Kubrick does strategically do things to. To let it unfold. So I. I do. I’ve been leaning that this confession may be a confession. Yeah. And in room 237, they focus on the furniture and the chairs popping in and out, all the inconsistencies. That doesn’t come up at all in this movie. So there’s so many different ways you can watch this.

But I would say this is my favorite lens to watch the Shining through is through Jay Widener’s Kubrick’s Odyssey sort of lens. It is so fun. It makes it into a completely different movie with so much more symbolism. And I. And I guess this leads me into the. The overboard moment. I could probably pick a few of them on here. It’s got to have to do with, like, the Hoagland stuff, the glass structures on the moon and even on Mars. And if you look into Hogan, this kind of goes down a deep rabbit hole. He’s. He’s got lots of really interesting claims.

But Jay Weiner does something interesting in this movie, and it almost reminded me of the Roger and Me Michael Moore, where the whole movie is about this guy that won’t give him an interview, and it’s like, why won’t he give me. And you find out he actually got the interview, but it just wasn’t, you know, con. Like, conducive to, like, making the film that Michael Moore want to put out. So Jay Widener, in a very specific claim, they’re talking about Hoagland. You mentioned it before, that Hoagland was seeing these weird rainbow patterns. And if you zoomed in far enough on one of these, zoomed in things like from NASA’s footage, you’d see, like, a little stripe of color, and it would look like a tiny little, like, rainbow sliver.

And instead of assuming that maybe that’s an anomaly from the digital process or the scanning process or anything, Jay Widener says no, that’s the light reflect refracting off of one of these tiny little 3M glass spheres. And it was just oriented in the wrong angle. So when the light hit it, we’re kind of seeing an anomaly because of like a. Like a chink in the armor almost. And he mentions. But these claims by Hoagland and also by proxy Jay Widener have not been refuted by anyone. That NASA will come in and other scientists will come in and they’ll say that it’s silly and they’ll try and debunk it, but they don’t actually address that specific claim.

And it wasn’t hard to find that that’s not 100 accurate. For example, I just searched for Hoagland Rainbow Light, you know, debunk. And there’s an entire website dedicated to it. It’s called badastronomy.com and it was run by this guy, Philip Carey Plate, who’s known as the Bad Astronomer. And he’s been running this blog for well over a decade, I believe. And he’s a American astronomer, skeptic, and popular science blogger. But he’s also worked for the Hubble Space Telescope team. So if you’re going to find someone to make a direct refutation, I don’t know, someone that worked on the Hubble Space Telescope seems like the closest you might get to engaging with this.

And not only has he responded to it, but he’s put out, like, multiple articles, including an open letter directly to Hoagland that is dated August 28, 2002. And it just. It’s called An Open Letter to Richard Hoagland. And it’s like, come at me, bro. Like, I don’t think any. I think everything you’re talking is cap, and I don’t believe any of it. And here’s all my different reasons. And so when Widener makes the claim that, no, you know, oh, Hoagland’s made these discoveries and NASA can’t refute no one. Like, they won’t even talk about it. I don’t know.

It. There’s something on the other side of the argument, too, where this, this skeptic astronomer is also, like, Hogan won’t respond. I’ve got this open challenge or this, like, thing. We can debate about it. So somewhere in between those two, there’s, like, a disconnect. They’re both still alive. So, like, this could theoretically happen. I don’t think it’s going to happen. Setting it up. We’re setting it up. We’re gonna. We’re setting it up. Yeah. Join the Patreon. Once we get to, like, I don’t know how much it’ll take to get these guys in a room. Maybe they’re gonna have to box it out.

I don’t know if this is going to be solved verbally. Might have to get physical, but in my mind, that just represented a huge sort of overboard moment of, like, making a claim without following it up, especially when it’s kind of easy to see more to it now. Now, all that said, I also found that this Plate guy, he’s got total TDS and total Elon Musk Derangement Syndrome. He left Twitter a couple years ago because of the right wing, you know, fascist. He fits that particular mold, which is kind of like the essential conspiracy theorist versus the sheep, right? Like, those are the two archetypes.

So Hogan versus Plate. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. And it represents pretty much those two groups that Jay Widener originally tries to define. The. The Die Hards and then the ones that believe that it’s all been conspiracy. And for me, the overboard moment was just Hogan in general. I thought. I just didn’t like it. It actually made me watching it. And again, this is me watching it for the first time. I’m like, this guy, man. Like, you know what I mean? I’m waiting for the next. But he catches you. The good thing is that he catches me back.

And Jay got me back in. But, yeah, it got me checked out for a little bit where I’m like, here we go. Like, I didn’t really like his. I didn’t see what he was talking about. I didn’t. He was a little boring for me as well. Like, his sermon of showing people the pictures. And I’m just. I didn’t see it. And I’m like, man, I couldn’t imagine going to a convention watching this and. And being like. I’d have to stand up, be like, nah, man, I don’t see it. Like, what are you talking about? Ripples and waves on this one, man.

Hogland seems like he was the real ripple. And then Widener comes and he kind of emphasizes that, and he adds a little bit more credibility to Hogland’s claims. So I honestly, I’m too close to this movie because I saw it when it first came out, and I was all in and it blew my mind. So I like to think that this made all sorts of cultural impact. I feel like Jay Widener’s theory on this is something that he won’t get credit for. But you. You’ll see it pop up in all sorts of media, even, like, long after we’re gone, that some of these interpretations are so dope and so evergreen that there’s, you know, it is almost indisputable that some of these theories are going to live far beyond Jay Wagner, either of us.

So I think that it does stand the test of time. It’s incredibly fascinating to go back and watch. So I. I think that the ripples and waves is more of like a one on one basis right now. Like, we’re. We don’t live on a timeline long enough to make that call, but I think that there’s a good chance that it stands for a while. Well, like I said in the beginning, I heard some of this on Joe Rogan, right? Like, it got that far into the social sphere that, like, they talked about it on Rogan. They didn’t say Jay’s name.

But that’s his theory, right? Like the. The. The way they described. It’s his theory to a T. Not only that, when I was looking to find this video, I found another one. And I watched it. After I watched these ones, it was exposed Kubrick. And it’s basically verbat, Verbatim, The. The. Exactly what Jay said. And it’s just put differently with, like, really cool, like, comic book, like a great arts art put behind it with the woman narrator voice. But it’s his theories, and they just go through the whole thing. So I think this is a lot more ripples than we would think, because I didn’t know from Jay, but I’ve heard about this, right? Little loosely.

So I think it made pretty big ripples just in general of anybody that’s talking about Kubrick. All right. Secret swim. You go swim all the way for me, man. First time watcher. Really enjoyed it. Again, there was a little lull for me, and then there was a couple things where I didn’t. Wasn’t sold with the whole, like, oh, he sold this soul. And, like, he kind of changed a little bit of his tune of that. Like, and it made more sense as the movie went on. But in the beginning, when he’s talking about, like, he made this deal and.

And he’s gonna have all this power. But as it went through, he sucked me into the whole concept of the Shining being the all in all, secret admission of faking the moon landing. So I would definitely say a swim. People should check this out. I mean, no surprise. I think same here. If we did it out of 10, I’d give this one 10 out of 10. Or more appropriate, I give it like, an Apollo 11 out of 10 or something. But, yeah, for sure, this one is a full swim. It completely changed the way that I interpret Stanley Kubrick movies.

And I guess, like, just in movies in general, like, not just Kubrick, but anything. It made my mind way more open to these kind of, like, weird concepts that information is being baked in and strange and subversive ways. And in fact, I like this one so much when this one came out. I think I saw it in, like, 2011, when it first came out, and I made sure that everyone at Disney that I worked with and the creative bays all watch this. I made sure my creative director watched it, and I made sure my art director watched it, who were both, like, my bosses at the time.

Right. And I realized that no one cared even, like a tenth as much as I did about any of this. But it, like, I. I felt like it was one of the most important things I’d ever seen, one of the most interesting things I’ve ever seen. So I can’t give this particular documentary enough praise. So kudos to Jay Widener for putting this together. Even the claims that, like, he didn’t come up with all these theory, like, no, there was claims that Stanley Kubrick had faked the moon landing since forever. It made its way into James Bond movies.

It made its way in the. The Capricorn one movie. So that that concept isn’t new, but the way that Jay Widener puts it together makes, you know, a skeptic. I considered myself a skeptic when I first saw it. This is, like, was starting to turn me into X Files all over again. Yeah, I’m a skeptic at heart, and I was skeptical through the whole thing, but the way. But when you put it logically where I can see it, and I’m like, well, that makes sense. And if it can make sense to me, then I can start to believe it and delve into the subject.

So you did a great job on that. Next up on the horizon, we’re gonna watch the second installment of this documentary series. This. The next one’s called Kubrick’s Odyssey 2. Imagine that. And the subtitle is Secret Hid Secrets Hidden in the Film Stanley Kubrick Part 2 Beyond the Infinite. And this came out a year later in 2012. So we’re going to jump into that one and. And we might even get into some more Jay Widener stuff in the distant future. But I think this marks towards the end of Kubrick month after we do this next one.

I’m excited about it, man. I I’ll see you on the next one. Till next time, peace docks under the door. Ready for a cosmic conspiracy about Stanley Kubrick, moon landings and the CIA? Go visit NASA comic.com NASA comic.com CIA’s biggest on this. While we’re singing this song I’m not so comic that com go visit nas.com go visit NASA comic.com yeah go visit NASA comic.com NASA comic.com CIA’s biggest con Stanley Kubrick put us on. That’s why we’re singing this song about. Nasacomic.com go visit nasacomic.com go visit NASA comic.com never a straight answer is a 40 page comic about Stanley Kubrick directing the Apollo space mission.

This is the perfect read for comic Kubrick or conspiracy fans of all ages. For more details visit NASA comic.com I scribbled my life away driven the right to page Will it enlight your brain give you the flight my plane paper the highs ablaze somewhat of an amazing feel when it’s real to real you will engage it your favorite of course the lord of an arrangement I gave you the proper results to hit the pavement if they get emotional hate maybe your language a game how they playing it well without Lakers evade them whatever the cause they are to show shapeshift snakes get decapitated met is the apex execution of flame you out Nuclear bomb distributed at war rather gruesome for eyes to see Max them out that I light my trees blow it off in the face you’re despising me for what though calculated and rather cutthroat paranoid American must be all the blood spoke for real Lord give me your day your way vacate they wait around to hate Whatever they say man it’s not in the least bit we get heavy rotate when a beat hits a thing cuz you’re welcome for real you’re welcome? They ain’t never had a deal you’re welcome man they lacking a pill you’re welcome yet they doing it still you’re welcome.
[tr:tra].