Why would they fake the Moon landings anyway?

There are numerous opinions on why (if indeed they were) the Moon landings were faked.

"It was to bankrupt the Soviet Union" - yes, they many Soviet attempts to land a cosmonaut on the Moon bankrupted them... 20 years and a Cold War/Afghan War later.

"It was to get money for the military industrial complex" - Lord knows the Vietnam and Cold Wars weren't getting them any funds. Plus, great idea just to stop abruptly after Apollo 17 and never again leave Earth's orbit with a manned crew.

"It restored public confidence after the JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X assassinations and took focus off Vietnam." - Maybe, but that was VERY high risk. If it was exposed on the heels of those national tragedies, I can't imagine how different we would be as a nation today

"The Nixon administration wanted to..." - Whatever

One of the other things that sticks in my craw is, if they were faked, why didn't the Soviets expose the hoax for all the world to see? Unless they derived some benefit as well, perhaps?

I was listening to Nexus magazine's Marcus Allen on Coast to Coast the other night where Mr. Allen was discussing his belief the landings were faked to bankrupt the USSR. I felt my old feelings of doubt regarding that assumption when something occurred to me.

We always regard the space program from a national perspective. But what if the architects of this are without national allegiances?

I view this through my Kubrick colored glasses with the EWS filter. What I'm positing is that IF the landings were faked, the ultimate goal was the effective control of the masses. The utter hoodwinking of a world's belief system. An ultimate experiment, if you will in manipulating mass consciousness.

I've said elsewhere in this blog (several times in fact, too lazy to go back and look for specific instances) that EWS was Kubrick's most autobiographical film. My personal feeling is that other  autobiographical films are The Shining and Barry Lyndon.

Others have gone into depth regarding The Shining, and I may attempt to share my personal observations regarding the Overlook, the Gold Room and a location that I think Kubrick is guiding us to... But let's talk about Barry Lyndon.

I know a lot of Kubrick fans who feel this is his least interesting movie, boring even. I think of it was the 1st movie in Kubrick's autobiographical cycle of work.

I once pointed out to Jay Weidner in an email correspondence that Lyndon reinforced his 'Kubrick faked the Moon landing' oeuvre. The protagonist, Lyndon is in love with his cousin, Nora Brady but the family wants her to marry British officer, John Quinn as it will enrich them financially and socially. To resolve the issue, a duel is staged between Quinn and Lyndon where the latter is led to believe he has killed Quinn and must flee to avoid the law. Lyndon leaves for the continent, never knowing that the whole thing was faked and so Quinn was free to wed Brady.

Lyndon goes on to ultimately wed a wealthy society widow by misrepresenting himself and ultimately falling out of high society.

The idea of a man who enters high society but does not ultimately belong, I believed referenced Kubrick and his associations built once he entered the film industry. I've also referenced elsewhere that the mask that Cruise/Harford wears to the Somerton orgy is a replica of ONeal/Lyndon's face.

One of ideas I came to entertain was the fact the Lyndon/Kubrick was hoodwinked at the beginning. What if, Kubrick DID fake the Moon landing photographs/video. What if Kubrick complied with the request, believing he was helping his country, enriching himself and his family, only to find out the truth later?

Why do I think this? Because, in addition to being autobiographical, I feel that the resonant theme of Kubrick's films from 2001 on is mind control.

The indoctrination of Alex in Clockwork Orange, the Monarch poster in The Shining (also the transformation of Jack Torrance) boot camp in Full Metal Jacket, the Rainbow references in EWS are some of the high level obvious examples. There are much more deeper and devious examples that require their own blog entry per film.

I think at some point Kubrick became aware that it was a big con, that the object was not to protect America or win the Cold War but to test controlling the populace. We believe what we're told.

Recall Capricorn One director, Peter Hyams comment: “There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have . . . came from a TV camera.” - Wikipedia

Yet we believe what we were told, that we went there. If I have to convince you of the value of mass control and what it means to those who cast no shadows... then I can't help you.