Why Doesn't Anyone mention Capricorn One?

    So let's say you view Jay Weidner's 1st installment of Kubrick's Odyssey. You are then acquainted with the idea that Kubrick faked the Moon Landings for NASA.
   Now, you happen upon the Youtube video, The Shining Code, which reinforces and elaborates on the clues Kubrick supposedly left in his 1980 film The Shining.
   So now armed you might move onto Room 237 or some other documentary that presents similar information.

So listen to this film maker regarding Apollo 11:

“There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have . . . came from a TV camera.” link

He goes on to say,  "Whenever there was something on the news about a space shuttle, they would cut to a studio in St. Louis where there was a simulation of what was going on. I grew up in the generation where my parents basically believed if it was in the newspaper it was true. That turned out to be bullshit. My generation was brought up to believe television was true, and that was bullshit too. So I was watching these simulations and I wondered what would happen if someone faked a whole story." link

 The film maker is Peter Hyams, who wrote and directed Capricorn One.
 Capricorn One is a fictional account of a faked Mars landing that was done without the complicity of the astronauts (one of whom was O.J. Simpson). The reason for the hoodwinking was to prevent funding from being cutoff from the space program.  The astronauts are briefed at the last minute and are forced to comply to save their families. One of the astronauts transmits a coded message to his wife during an in flight TV chat. What could be more relevant to a discussion of coded messages about a faked lunar landing?

I recommend the movie. Highly.

   So my question becomes, why doesn't Jay Weidner or anyone else pushing the Kubrick Apollo theory mention Peter Hyams and this film? Their critics certainly do, with the gist being that they probably thought it was a documentary.

   What's more, Peter Hyams had contact with Kubrick. In fact he wrote and directed the sequel to 2001 A Space Odyssety, entitled 2010 The Year We Make Contact.

 
From Wikipedia:

When Clarke published his novel 2010: Odyssey Two in 1982, he telephoned Stanley Kubrick, and jokingly said, "Your job is to stop anybody [from] making it [into a movie] so I won't be bothered."
... However, Peter Hyams was interested and contacted both Clarke and Kubrick for their blessings:

    'I had a long conversation with Stanley and told him what was going on. If it met with his approval, I would do the film; and if it didn't, I wouldn't. I certainly would not have thought of doing the film if I had not gotten the blessing of Kubrick. He's one of my idols; simply one of the greatest talents that's ever walked the Earth. He more or less said, 'Sure. Go do it. I don't care.' And another time he said, 'Don't be afraid. Just go do your own movie.'

Again, what could be more relevant to the Kubrick/Apollo discussion? Why leave it out, because it taints the theory and makes it seem a derivative of the film? I think a strong argument could be made that it strengthens the theory and adds to the drive to disseminate the truth.

Till later, hope all is well.