-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
Finally, the truth comes out!
Finally, the truth comes out!
who gave you this link?
did the Russians give you this link???
who gave you this link?
did the Russians give you this link???
zzzipp can only assume the Russians gave you that link.
zzzipp can only assume the Russians gave you that link.
i’m glad I finally know symbols are worth a million words a piece. A MILLION.
i’m glad I finally know symbols are worth a million words a piece. A MILLION.
gold
gold
i have to say the reading techniques in this are quite amazing, no matter where they lead
i have to say the reading techniques in this are quite amazing, no matter where they lead
agreed. i had a lot of fun.
agreed. i had a lot of fun.
How come he’s not accusing stephen king of any of this? though Kubrick did change things, the primary story (which is what dudeface is reading) is Kings…..
How come he’s not accusing stephen king of any of this? though Kubrick did change things, the primary story (which is what dudeface is reading) is Kings…..
putin himself.
putin himself.
yes, thats what i love about the essay
the part where you ‘literally’ see apollo 11 take off before your very eyes cracks me up
yes, thats what i love about the essay
the part where you ‘literally’ see apollo 11 take off before your very eyes cracks me up
He doesn’t think Shelley Duvall’s character was a main role in The Shining? And there I was all set to believe anything he had to say…
He doesn’t think Shelley Duvall’s character was a main role in The Shining? And there I was all set to believe anything he had to say…
the story is kings, but not the symbols and the visual representations. those are Kubricks.
To me, I find it more interesting the easy dismissal of what is presented here. I think things like this happen all the time. Especially, for example, in THEY LIVE. You could break down that film, without disregarding such supposed fantastic notions as aliens on earth, and be kind of worried. Sometimes we forget that certain “built in” reservations that we have toward some fantastic elements are engrained via government programs to form mind controlling properties. Such as PR firms, but those are more public companies. We like to think that kids, kids who more easily believe fantastic elements, are just “imaginative/naive/ignorant of the truths of the world”, when truly, it could simply be the MK-Ultra type control the government attempts to place upon its citizens has yet to solidify. Chomsky talks about this in HEGEMONY. For all the things that come out of us artists during creation, who is to say the stress of this deal didn’t truly manifest itself through Kubrick’s art? I honestly believe that some people try to tell us certain things through mediums which “those in charge” think the average citizen won’t see the deeper meanings and merely take it as entertainment.
Before NASA was created, Margaret Mead as chosen to be a part of a think tank to decide on the affects alien life would have on society. She said it would be the breakdown of society as we know it. Of course when change occurs it will cause a breakdown of what we know as society and create a possible new, better society. But this was viewed as a negative and this is one of the reasons alien activity is very much so kept under wraps. Of course this place where I am speaking of this isn’t ideal, but gathering up the evidence of such “strange activity”, taking into account the theory of ancient astronauts, and all this time of possible “visitations”… how can one deny such evidence outright without first shifting through it all to find if there is truth, instead of the instant, built in, “no way”.
the story is kings, but not the symbols and the visual representations. those are Kubricks.
To me, I find it more interesting the easy dismissal of what is presented here. I think things like this happen all the time. Especially, for example, in THEY LIVE. You could break down that film, without disregarding such supposed fantastic notions as aliens on earth, and be kind of worried. Sometimes we forget that certain “built in” reservations that we have toward some fantastic elements are engrained via government programs to form mind controlling properties. Such as PR firms, but those are more public companies. We like to think that kids, kids who more easily believe fantastic elements, are just “imaginative/naive/ignorant of the truths of the world”, when truly, it could simply be the MK-Ultra type control the government attempts to place upon its citizens has yet to solidify. Chomsky talks about this in HEGEMONY. For all the things that come out of us artists during creation, who is to say the stress of this deal didn’t truly manifest itself through Kubrick’s art? I honestly believe that some people try to tell us certain things through mediums which “those in charge” think the average citizen won’t see the deeper meanings and merely take it as entertainment.
Before NASA was created, Margaret Mead as chosen to be a part of a think tank to decide on the affects alien life would have on society. She said it would be the breakdown of society as we know it. Of course when change occurs it will cause a breakdown of what we know as society and create a possible new, better society. But this was viewed as a negative and this is one of the reasons alien activity is very much so kept under wraps. Of course this place where I am speaking of this isn’t ideal, but gathering up the evidence of such “strange activity”, taking into account the theory of ancient astronauts, and all this time of possible “visitations”… how can one deny such evidence outright without first shifting through it all to find if there is truth, instead of the instant, built in, “no way”.
“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.”
those three sentences right there, ladies and gents, are the high-water mark of K-mart realism. There’s no going back now that Jay Weider has demolished the style via his mastery.
“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.”
those three sentences right there, ladies and gents, are the high-water mark of K-mart realism. There’s no going back now that Jay Weider has demolished the style via his mastery.
wild stuff
mental moon candy
wild stuff
mental moon candy
i believe it every inch
i believe it every inch
zzzzip bets Kubrick had something to say about the moon, or the moon on his mind, when he was filming the shining.
he did make 2001, which he probably cared deeply about as he was making it. it gets infuzed.
that doesn’t mean you can make the leap to a faked moon landing and etc. zzziipp doesn’t think people are disregarding this reading due to a built in “no way” filter, more like a good bullshit detector
zzzzip bets Kubrick had something to say about the moon, or the moon on his mind, when he was filming the shining.
he did make 2001, which he probably cared deeply about as he was making it. it gets infuzed.
that doesn’t mean you can make the leap to a faked moon landing and etc. zzziipp doesn’t think people are disregarding this reading due to a built in “no way” filter, more like a good bullshit detector
so does my mom
– well, the faking the moon landing part she does –
every inch!
not sure what she thinks, or even knows about Kubrick
(let alone his hand in it all)
although i’m pretty sure she’s seen the shining and 2001
i’ll hafta ask her
and my dad really likes dr. strangelove
so does my mom
– well, the faking the moon landing part she does –
every inch!
not sure what she thinks, or even knows about Kubrick
(let alone his hand in it all)
although i’m pretty sure she’s seen the shining and 2001
i’ll hafta ask her
and my dad really likes dr. strangelove
It’s not about dismissing it outright – it’s about the giant leap (excuse the pun) from a pretty intensly projective reading (which in a lot of places has the conclusion as a hidden premise) to “Stanley Kubrick filmed the [already assumed] fake moon landing”.
And ancient astronauts is not a “theory”, it’s stupid.
It’s not about dismissing it outright – it’s about the giant leap (excuse the pun) from a pretty intensly projective reading (which in a lot of places has the conclusion as a hidden premise) to “Stanley Kubrick filmed the [already assumed] fake moon landing”.
And ancient astronauts is not a “theory”, it’s stupid.
@Ross:
Why is it stupid? Why is it stupid that certain parts of historical architecture cannot be linked to technology of the civilizations that built them? Let’s put it like this: it is basically confirmed in the scientific community that the idea of aliens in the universe is not a pretty slim chance — what the argument is, is whether they have visited us or not. So, if we assume there are aliens and they have visited us, why must their technology correlate to when our technology is as advanced as we’ve seen of ourselves for this time period? We have the Nasca lines, we have the related structures of stone with the apperance of machine cuts lines which fit perfectly together, that we have a somewhat easy time cutting now, but at least 200 years ago would not have been so easy. We have the ancient writings and paintings that depict “visitors” — yes, this can be written off as simple creations/myths, or the interpretations of meeting a very dissimilar human. But with that conclusion you isolate the paintings/writing and remove them from the whole schematic of structural evidence, and cultural evidence. Can the many sightings in current times of visitations, not just by “normal people” but writers, painters, intellectuals (Da Vinci!), be simply written off as stupid? And coupled with the centuries of ancient documentation be written off as simply stupid? Can these things truly be so fantastic? Or is the fantastic idea more so our ability to write about and experience the wonders of the universe and really come to the conclusion that “what we see is what we get is all we’ll know”…..
@Ross:
Why is it stupid? Why is it stupid that certain parts of historical architecture cannot be linked to technology of the civilizations that built them? Let’s put it like this: it is basically confirmed in the scientific community that the idea of aliens in the universe is not a pretty slim chance — what the argument is, is whether they have visited us or not. So, if we assume there are aliens and they have visited us, why must their technology correlate to when our technology is as advanced as we’ve seen of ourselves for this time period? We have the Nasca lines, we have the related structures of stone with the apperance of machine cuts lines which fit perfectly together, that we have a somewhat easy time cutting now, but at least 200 years ago would not have been so easy. We have the ancient writings and paintings that depict “visitors” — yes, this can be written off as simple creations/myths, or the interpretations of meeting a very dissimilar human. But with that conclusion you isolate the paintings/writing and remove them from the whole schematic of structural evidence, and cultural evidence. Can the many sightings in current times of visitations, not just by “normal people” but writers, painters, intellectuals (Da Vinci!), be simply written off as stupid? And coupled with the centuries of ancient documentation be written off as simply stupid? Can these things truly be so fantastic? Or is the fantastic idea more so our ability to write about and experience the wonders of the universe and really come to the conclusion that “what we see is what we get is all we’ll know”…..
I don’t about “basically confirmed in the scientific community.” I mean, I’m no expert, so maybe you could back that up?
Also the Nazca lines are not at all mysterious. The culture was probably mathematically competent. Like, if you know the equations used to draw the lines, and you test them by drawing a small version of it in the dirt, then all you have to do is scale them up. They probably couldn’t “check their work” but if they were, as I said, mathematically competent, they wouldn’t really need to.
“I don’t *know* about”, sorry.
I don’t about “basically confirmed in the scientific community.” I mean, I’m no expert, so maybe you could back that up?
Also the Nazca lines are not at all mysterious. The culture was probably mathematically competent. Like, if you know the equations used to draw the lines, and you test them by drawing a small version of it in the dirt, then all you have to do is scale them up. They probably couldn’t “check their work” but if they were, as I said, mathematically competent, they wouldn’t really need to.
“I don’t *know* about”, sorry.
Also, looking back, I think maybe I was misinterpreting you when you said it was basically confirmed. I see now you were setting up a hypothetical. Sorry, forget that part.
Also, looking back, I think maybe I was misinterpreting you when you said it was basically confirmed. I see now you were setting up a hypothetical. Sorry, forget that part.
thanks, ryan. this is awesome.
thanks, ryan. this is awesome.