Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Respect Sire, you found in seconds how my methodology works.
I need 17 years to find out.
I noitice you don't address the issue about the flaw. That would be called "Confirmation Bias". All you are doing is watching a film, any film, and making a note of any image that you think confirms your theory, and ignoring every single image that does not confirm or contradicts the idea.
Imagine for a second you believed that there were secret prophecies hidden in the bible. You set a computer to rearrange the text into uniform grids and then to look for codes that make significant statements. It wouldn't care if the codes were found by reading down, reading every sixth lettery, every other word, reading the first letter of every line, as long at made a meaningful sentence.
By chance some of those "codes" would seem to make a lot of sense, to be hidden messages. You would look for complicated "rules" to explain how these are far more important than any of those that made no sense.
But here is the rub. If you look for codes you will find them in any text you put into your computer programme. This forum, Peter Rabbit, The Koran, my favourite cook book. All of them will hold equally random and equally meaningful coincidences.
They simply do not prove a thing.
I could look at any number of films and find images that are evocative of 9/11. Or of something equally spooky, which is utterly unintended, groundless and coincidental. You may as well be discussing the ghost in Three Men and a Baby, or the Munchkin Suicide.
Your "method" is nothing new. In terms of books or artistic imagry it is the reason that Lewis Carol, William Sickert and Oscar Wilde were each purported as (baseless) suspects to be Jack the Ripper. It is why people think the New World Order spends so much time detailing their plans in Olympic Ceremonies and airport artworks. People want there to be a message so they convince themselves something is a message and look for other images to confirm their idea, ignoring everything else.
Obviously you have nothing to predict to see if your theories have an objective base. You have not declared that a Kubric film will be more likely to feature paired oblongs than any other random film, nor have you offered any tangible connection to show these were intentional rather than coincidental.
I recognise your method. It is a shame that after so many years you do not recognise why it is nothing more than your own desire for there to be a message.
). One of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 is that missiles were involved. Director Richard Donner is a little less oblique earlier in the movie when the twin towers are featured in several shots, but clearly Donner (and Supertramp) were trying to warn the world that 23 years later* the military would use rockets to destroy a "world trade center". I mean, it's obvious if you open your eyes and mind, bro.
