What's your theory about 9/11?

You miss the point that 911 was reality and nothing to do with Stanley Kubrick.


Stan, I am working for a iconological analysis of Kubricks FMJ. After that what I found until now, I include in that analysis EWS too.

My english is is a straight translation from German to English only from my head and without google translator. I learned English at school when I was 16 and used it only to understand rockmusic. Now I aktivate my very bad English and try my best. But is it better than google, which brings a lot of misunderstanding.

I am sorry, I cant do it better.

Do not think, that a joker is a comediean like Stan Laurel, or a Marvel joker or a man who makes jokes fur amusement.

I think about a joker from the "Berkana"

Regards Hans
Regards Hans
 
Stan, I am working for a iconological analysis of Kubricks FMJ. After that what I found until now, I include in that analysis EWS too.

Analyze away, if you have nothing better to do, but FMJ has nothing to do with 911. Goodbye.
 
What I don't get is this:

The movie he's carefully combing for clues has a character named Joker. Why are we talking about Kubrick's involvement in 9/11 and ignoring the whole Aurora/Sandy Hook thing?


I saw, that Kubrick used elements and "tricks" in his movie, which the builders and the painters also have used.
These painters and builders are normaly in my interest.
Kubrick used these rules and developed them until he could use them in his movies.

So I use the same routines to find his intention. (iconologic analysis).
I think his hints are adressed to other directors.

BTW : Can you understand my "Krautenglish" easy.

Regards Hans
 
I saw, that Kubrick used elements and "tricks" in his movie, which the builders and the painters also have used.
These painters and builders are normaly in my interest.
Kubrick used these rules and developed them until he could use them in his movies.

So I use the same routines to find his intention. (iconologic analysis).
I think his hints are adressed to other directors.

So what? Still nothing to do with 911.
 
.. How does Kubrick knowing about 911 years before the event work?


Welcome to the party Stan.

I am sure, that he has the answer in his movies.
If he has something more to tell, and I think he has, he would have digged it in his movies.
They will exist for long times, just as your movies.

And we found a piece of the red line , I hope.

Hans
 
And we found a piece of the red line , I hope.

You, not we. And your hope is sadly misplaced. If you are hoping to convince another human being that Kubrick knew about 911 years before the event, then you will be disappointed. But as I believe that you are trolling, I really will say goodbye this time.
 
How on Earth can a film director who died before the events in question have been involved in 9/11???

The same way the Jay Ward and Bill Scott (both died in the 1980s), producers of Rocky and Bullwinkle could reveal the existence of the silent high explosive "Hush-a-boom" back in the 1960s. The Vast Conspiracy is funny like that.
 

Attachments

  • Hushaboom.JPG
    Hushaboom.JPG
    81.7 KB · Views: 1
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon
A "screenplay" about a terrorist group which didn't even exist when FMJ was in production?

Seriously?

Nah, I think that Hans is just amusing himself. Even the cracked English looks faked.

I agree. I think he's really Sasha Baron Cohen, and this is one big piece of performance art. Who, but S.B.C., would include this?

Originally Posted by Hans Peper
Does anyone know : Was Kubrick a jew ?
 
You, not we. And your hope is sadly misplaced. If you are hoping to convince another human being that Kubrick knew about 911 years before the event, then you will be disappointed. But as I believe that you are trolling, I really will say goodbye this time.

It was "we". I'v got inspired about the members postings and found several things.

Hans
 
So specify, what rules are you talking about?


There must be a minimum of rules in that genre, otherwise the messages could not be found from the viewers.

The early netherland painters founded rules , which where unified from Albrecht Dürer in his small and large woodcut passion. During the times new "tricks" where developed. The painters where very creative.

Every painter has his own style, which is based on that rules. It was amazing, to find parts of this rules and new developements in Kubricks artwork.
That set me up, to go deeper in Stanley Kubricks movies.

I will point out some rules, later on - if requested.

Hans
 
So specify, what rules are you talking about?

Okay, nice little NASA cat. I give you an example.

Not only messages are inside paintings, they use it also to attack the subconscious of the viewers.

For me, it is a little complicated to explain that facts in English. But I try.

20 miles away from where I live is an old church from the 13th century. It was a catholic one and changed into protestantic in 1665.

A friend of mine is working inside as a sexton (a kind of caretaker). His hobby was to make detail pictures from the paintings inside. And he phone me to have a look at one altarpainting from 1667.
Every time when he has a longer look at it, he gets bad feelings.

I made an analysis and found the reason. I saw the "opening" symbol already from 60 ft distance.
It was the symbol that told me what to do, to make the truth visible. I took a pic and follow the instruction at home. - I was shocked about the result.
It was an attack at your mind. Your conscious can not see it, but your subconscious can and the attack hits direct into it. Not everybody, but the most people get feelings like fear.

Our brain has a division, which has to extend parts of faces to a complete face. It is needed to detect enimies who are hidden and whatching you. This is a relict of anchient times and it works automaticly every second of our life. When we look i.e. at a bush (not George) this brain division scans the object to find parts of a face. If there is something, the part will be reconstructed to a whole face, and checked if it is dangerous or not.
It there is something, this system give a warning to the "chief", the conscious. He decided if it is true or not. If he decide "fail", you will never see that object.
But as in real life, the chief can fail and the subconscious is in alert. The reactions are bad feelings, fear. You know that as " Something is whatching me, I feel it.."
If the chief decides "fail", he will never change his choice. This is one of the rules that makes the "ames room effect" possible.

The old painting masters must have knowledge about this. Because that picture is the device.

The background to that picture is, that the protestantic church promised, that they will not use paintings in the churches to set the believers in fear with drawings about the hell etc.
But they did it as well, this painting was part of the new altar, which was uprised after they changed to protestantic believe.

The painting is called : The surrender of the badness and the thriumph of the goodness. The title must be "Thriumph of the badness"
..
This is the painting (10ft high) from 1667 made by an artist called Jürgen Ovens, he studied in the netherlands in the 17th century.

Try to find out :
..
 

Attachments

  • ovens origin.jpg
    ovens origin.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
There must be a minimum of rules in that genre, otherwise the messages could not be found from the viewers.

Bzzzz. Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The correct answer is "There must be definable rules otherwise I could just claim anything was a message and have no way of determining if I was correct, suffering confirmation bias, or making this up."

So far you have shown us nothing that might be connected to iconology as defined by any text on the subject. I am going to suggest that if you had any kind of method based on any kind of academic study worthy an "ology" you would actually be bothered to share it hereinstead of othering these empty non-answers you hope will give the impression of academia while containing no actual insight or fact.
 
Okay, nice little NASA cat. I give you an example.

Nope. Nobody asked for an example. How about you give the rules. Like were asked for?

I know why: Because there aren't any. You are not an iconologist. You are a guy who saw a movie and convinced himself he was the only person in the world with the right mind to decipher a hidden message you yourself invented.
 
@TomTomKent :

I tell you the rules by using an example. And you have to pay nothing for it.

But if you know everything better, so you are welcome to show me what is inside that picture. And be sure that it is nothing like "My town".

You do not need to have a look at details in it. It was constructed for a view from long distance, as you have when you sit in the church, looking alt the altar.

If you find it, I will go home and never come back, because there is no need for me any more. You will be the new master of iconology. A natural talented one.



Good morning

Hans
 
Last edited:
I tell you the rules by using an example. And you have to pay nothing for it.

Your example does not include any rules.

You ay you saw an opening symbol. This is not a rule. It does not explain how you established something was intended as a symbol. It does not explain why it was a symbol. It does not explain what analysis was required to recognise the symbol. It is not a rule.

You say the symbol told you what to do. But you do not explain this. You give no rules for establishing what truth was visible.

At no point do you explain the "rules" other than a generic descritpion of pattern recognition that bares no semblence to the tird tier of iconography, which your own stated source calles Iconology and instead discusses the social context of images, not hidden codes.

So may I offer you one last chance to actually cite your rules, and the text in which they are discussed in academic terms, before dismissing you to "ignore"land.
 

Back
Top Bottom