Speaker 1: Hello, conspiracy players. Welcome to another episode today. I have
Speaker 1: back on writer Lee to talk about something that he
Speaker 1: teased in the last episode where we were talking about
Speaker 1: the UFO stuff, and that is none other than his
Speaker 1: most recent movie, A Clockwork Shining. And I've talked about
Speaker 1: it a couple times on this show, so if you
Speaker 1: haven't watched it, listen to this and then watch it
Speaker 1: or vice versa. But it's a killer movie and Laurel
Speaker 1: Canyon is one of my favorite topics.
Speaker 2: Just Kubrick in general.
Speaker 1: And then you even threw some other stuff in there,
Speaker 1: and we're going to get into all of it. So
Speaker 1: welcome to the show. Writer, Thanks for coming on once again.
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me on. Brother, I really appreciate it,
Speaker 3: and I'm really happy that you enjoyed the movie and
Speaker 3: you liked it. But yeah, it was a passion project,
Speaker 3: a lot of work, blood, sweat and tears. As we
Speaker 3: were talking about before we started the show. I'll put
Speaker 3: into the movie, so I hope people after or if
Speaker 3: they haven't already seen it, they go in support and
Speaker 3: it's une buy it on Amazon Prime.
Speaker 1: I would recommend buying it because, like I was telling
Speaker 1: him earlier before we started recording it, you're just gonna
Speaker 1: want to watch it again and even maybe more than twice.
Speaker 2: So just buy the damn thing.
Speaker 1: Before we get into a Clark clockwork shining though, I
Speaker 1: do want to for a moment if you don't mind,
Speaker 1: pick your brain about JFK because your first movie, JFK
Speaker 1: X Solving the Crime of the Century, you and Jay
Speaker 1: Widener lay out a theory that I think is probably
Speaker 1: cooler than anyone I've ever seen, and it makes the
Speaker 1: most sense. And I also have in the last few
Speaker 1: years started swaying in two staged events being more common
Speaker 1: than actual real events. So it made sense to me
Speaker 1: that being said, what do you think is going to
Speaker 1: happen with these JFK file releases that we're chomping at the.
Speaker 2: Bit for, just like we were the Epstein files.
Speaker 3: Well, here is an article from Vanity Fair. This blew
Speaker 3: my mind because if you've seen JFKX, you know what
Speaker 3: the theory is and what j Wyiner basically proposes in there.
Speaker 3: And this Vanity Fair article came out I think November
Speaker 3: twenty well, November nineteenth, twenty twenty four. Right here is
Speaker 3: that thinkay real quick before.
Speaker 1: You say what you're gonna say, do you want to
Speaker 1: just lay it out in like a brief summary of
Speaker 1: what that theory is For those who haven't seen it.
Speaker 3: Well, you can watch it for free on Amazon Prime,
Speaker 3: Amazon Prime Free V. You can also watch it for
Speaker 3: free on two B as well, and it's on a
Speaker 3: bunch of other streaming platforms. So you can just google
Speaker 3: jfkx and it'll be one of the first things that
Speaker 3: pop up for people that haven't seen it. We basically
Speaker 3: theorize that JFK essentially faked his death, and that might
Speaker 3: sound really outlandish. And that's why I've brought up this
Speaker 3: Vanity Fair article because I've shown so many people of
Speaker 3: this Vanity Fair article that are, like, I know a
Speaker 3: lot about JFK, and they don't even know what to
Speaker 3: think of this Vanity Fair article that came out. But essentially,
Speaker 3: Tibbet officer JD. Tibbitt was also assassinated, supposedly by Oswald
Speaker 3: on the day of the JFK assassination, and he looks
Speaker 3: almost identical to JFK. He looks so identical that they
Speaker 3: even called him h oh shit, this is freaking pop up.
Speaker 3: They even nicknamed him JFK. And that was the whole
Speaker 3: reason that Oswald was essentially arrested was for the murder
Speaker 3: of that police officer. Oswald was never arrested for the
Speaker 3: assassination of JFK. The public just threw that accusation on
Speaker 3: him and then he was murdered, right And so we
Speaker 3: basically surmised that because when you watch this a Bruner film,
Speaker 3: we have the most clear version of the Zubruter film
Speaker 3: ever made in our movie JFK X. And there's a
Speaker 3: splice in the movie when whenever the limousine goes in
Speaker 3: behind the freeway signs, there's a cut in the Zubruter film,
Speaker 3: and whenever it emerges back behind the Stimmens freeway sign,
Speaker 3: JFK looks like he's putting something on the side of
Speaker 3: his face. I mean, as clear as day, no one
Speaker 3: can argue with this. There's something on the side of
Speaker 3: JFK's face, especially when you see it in high definition,
Speaker 3: in clear video quality, there's something bulging from the side
Speaker 3: of JFK's face, and it appears there whenever he puts
Speaker 3: his hands up like this and he looks like he
Speaker 3: brushes the side of his face and there's something bulging
Speaker 3: from the side of his face is not arguable. There's
Speaker 3: something on the side of JFK's face. And then whenever
Speaker 3: it goes off, you see like this, and we pointed
Speaker 3: out perfectly in our film, it's like this metal piece
Speaker 3: just rolls up the side of his cheek and it's
Speaker 3: even reflecting in the sunlight, and it's just rolling up
Speaker 3: the side of his face and then it just and
Speaker 3: it blows off. So this Vanity Fair article is mind
Speaker 3: blowing because essentially Jackie filmed a fake assassination of JFK
Speaker 3: two months before the supposed real assassination. This article is wild.
Speaker 3: I would highly recommend anybody to look up this article.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to read through it all here, but
Speaker 3: it basically goes into you know how Jackie staged this
Speaker 3: fake assassination two months before the supposed real assassination, and
Speaker 3: that she was all into film and all the Secret
Speaker 3: Service agents that were there and Dealey Plaza at that
Speaker 3: time were also a part of this fake assassination that
Speaker 3: happened two months before. So it's like, whenever you put
Speaker 3: two and two together here, it's, uh, things aren't adding
Speaker 3: up right.
Speaker 1: And that came out four months ago, that article, Yes,
Speaker 1: what the fuck. So what are they get to say, Like,
Speaker 1: when they're supposed to release these JFK files, do you
Speaker 1: think anything's gonna come up it or it's just going
Speaker 1: to be more carrot and stick?
Speaker 3: I mean, I hope. So. I think a lot of
Speaker 3: people are still focused on the multiple shooter theory. But
Speaker 3: the multiple shooter theory doesn't even make any sense either,
Speaker 3: because if there was multiple shooters, that would mean that
Speaker 3: that would have been happening right behind Zubruter, Like the
Speaker 3: shots would have had to have been fired right over
Speaker 3: Zabruterer's head from where he's standing in the gazebo area. There,
Speaker 3: he would have been ducking, he would have heard something.
Speaker 3: He would have been like moving frantically, but his camera
Speaker 3: steadily on JFK the limousine all the way until the underpass.
Speaker 3: He's not moving, he's not ducking unless the only position
Speaker 3: that a second shooter could have been in to hit
Speaker 3: that trajectory on JFK's head. So the second shooter where
Speaker 3: he would have to be doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it almost seems like the multiple shooter theory
Speaker 1: is part of the syeup because Grassy Know stuff has
Speaker 1: been laid out for us in our pop culture for.
Speaker 2: At least the last thirty years.
Speaker 1: I mean that would make sense because it's just more
Speaker 1: conspiracy candy to distract from. I think it's more closely
Speaker 1: to what you guys have put out in your first movie.
Speaker 2: So yeah, everybody check that out.
Speaker 1: And I mean, do you have anything else to say
Speaker 1: about that before we move on to the main topic.
Speaker 3: Just watch jfkix with an open mind. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: a it sounds wild and outlandish. I mean that's what
Speaker 3: you know. Some of the detractors and the people that
Speaker 3: said about whenever the movie just came out, they were like, oh, well,
Speaker 3: this is this is garbage. There's no way that this
Speaker 3: could ever happen. And then the Vanity Fair article hits
Speaker 3: where they're like, they FK filmed a fake assassination two
Speaker 3: months before the real assassination. So it's shaping up like
Speaker 3: it's not so crazy, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I didn't even know this article existed until it's
Speaker 1: probably been a week or two.
Speaker 2: I listened to you on the.
Speaker 1: Occult Rejects with jj Vance and Nick there, and you
Speaker 1: guys brought it up. So I kind of hoped that
Speaker 1: when I prompted you here you talk about that, because
Speaker 1: I think everybody needs to read that thing, and if
Speaker 1: you haven't, in tandem at least watched the movie too,
Speaker 1: because I think that, yeah, whatever they put out, who knows,
Speaker 1: the Epstein thing was a big flop, so we'll see.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a bunch of it was redacted. So I'm sure
Speaker 3: that that's the way that a lot of these other
Speaker 3: documents are going to go to. It's a bunch of
Speaker 3: it's just going to be redacted. I mean, the people
Speaker 3: that they disclosed in the Epstein documents was like the
Speaker 3: not the clients, but the contact list. So it was
Speaker 3: like Michael Jackson and a few other people that were
Speaker 3: the people that had already been named before, but the
Speaker 3: client list was completely redacted. So and people are trying
Speaker 3: to put it out there like that the contact list
Speaker 3: is the client list, and that's not true. The contact
Speaker 3: list is different than the client list. The contact person
Speaker 3: is just somebody that you contact that doesn't necessarily mean
Speaker 3: that they're a client. But the client list was redacted
Speaker 3: because they said that those people are victims, which in
Speaker 3: one sense I understand in a way, But just release it, Broill,
Speaker 3: just release the whole thing, let us see exactly what
Speaker 3: was going on, But they're obvious. But this is supposed
Speaker 3: to be one of three dumps, so maybe we'll get
Speaker 3: something else in the other dumps. Who knows.
Speaker 1: The phase thing just reminds me so much of the
Speaker 1: Twitter files. It's like, why can't we just get a
Speaker 1: WikiLeaks drop on all of it and then.
Speaker 2: We can read it.
Speaker 1: Why do we need a filter of alternative media personalities
Speaker 1: who are all sketchy to begin with to be the
Speaker 1: ones to filter it to us? So yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I didn't expect anything but the Dog and Pony show
Speaker 1: it was something else, and I'm not expecting anything big
Speaker 1: in the other phases.
Speaker 2: So we'll see.
Speaker 3: But I mean, we can have hope. At least he
Speaker 3: has essentially done what he said that he was going
Speaker 3: to do. I mean, you know what I mean. He
Speaker 3: said he was going to release release the files. They're
Speaker 3: going to be released, So I mean, I can't really
Speaker 3: complain because I really don't believe that anybody else would
Speaker 3: have even have brought that up. That would never even
Speaker 3: have been a talking point for any other candidate, right,
Speaker 3: So at least he's sticking to a guns and what
Speaker 3: he said that he was going to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, essentially ross Olbrick being free.
Speaker 2: I never saw that happening ever.
Speaker 1: I mean I was kind of big into that whole
Speaker 1: thing when it went down.
Speaker 2: So yeah, the promise is being kept. I'm all about that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, let's talk about a Clockwork Shining. And I
Speaker 1: guess i'll just ask you because I know that Jay
Speaker 1: Widner did his moon landing thing about Kubrick, can you
Speaker 1: guys briefly touch on that in this movie again? Go
Speaker 1: watch that if you haven't. And what is that one
Speaker 1: called the Kubrick Code or.
Speaker 3: Something like that, Cubric's Odyssey, Cubric's Odyssey one and two.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I was thinking of Jay Dyer or
Speaker 1: Isaac Waisoffer, one of those guys. But yeah, those movies,
Speaker 1: and this is kind of like, from what I understand,
Speaker 1: it's almost like a trilogy now the way that this
Speaker 1: has been put out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this one's like a quasi trilogy to that. So
Speaker 3: the full title, the subtitle is A Cubric's Odyssey three,
Speaker 3: So the full title is A Clockwork Shining in A
Speaker 3: Cubric's Odyssey three. So it's kind of like a quality
Speaker 3: third installment, finishing up those because he was going to
Speaker 3: originally do a third one. I think he was going
Speaker 3: to call it Cubriic The Magician or something like that
Speaker 3: until I came along and I was like, hey, this
Speaker 3: is a new theory and I think that it makes
Speaker 3: one hundred percent sense, and he was like, cool, let's
Speaker 3: do it, and there it is. So we kind of
Speaker 3: made it to wrap up his Kubrick trilogy. So yeah,
Speaker 3: and I think it only made sense to do because
Speaker 3: he's already done two other movies on Cubriic, so this
Speaker 3: one's like the third one. So it kind of wraps
Speaker 3: everything up for him.
Speaker 1: And so you brought this MK ultra type grand scenario
Speaker 1: to him, this is your baby?
Speaker 3: Then yes?
Speaker 2: Nice? All right.
Speaker 1: Well, so then I'll ask you just about Kubrick in general,
Speaker 1: because I think there's three things you could say.
Speaker 2: He was a bad guy.
Speaker 1: He was a tool of disclosure, or he was rogue,
Speaker 1: and maybe it could be a combination of all three.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you have like an overall opinion on
Speaker 1: what you think he was all about because he's given
Speaker 1: us so much, but he also was rubbing shoulders with
Speaker 1: everybody that we call bad guys.
Speaker 3: Well, essentially you do have to rub shoulders with people
Speaker 3: that you necessarily don't want to rub shoulders. But that's
Speaker 3: really how anything works in business, in the movie industry
Speaker 3: and politics and like all of that, right, you essentially
Speaker 3: have to do that. But I think that we kind
Speaker 3: of purposefuvely didn't bring what exactly we thought about Kubrick
Speaker 3: into the movie because it's kind of up for interpretation
Speaker 3: right there. I mean, he's dead, he's passed away. Really
Speaker 3: the only information that we can get is about you know,
Speaker 3: people that knew him before or his family, and it's
Speaker 3: really difficult to dige exactly what was going on with him.
Speaker 3: So we kind of took a step back from that
Speaker 3: and not really commenting so much on what we what
Speaker 3: kind of person we thought Qubreic actually was. And I
Speaker 3: think that that honestly serves the movie the best because
Speaker 3: if we're just speaking directly on qubreak and we're like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: he's he's a one good guy, because you're gonna have
Speaker 3: that division right like that, there's a group of people
Speaker 3: that's gonna think that he's he was like you know god,
Speaker 3: and then there's gonna be the other group of people
Speaker 3: that are like, oh, well, he was a horrible guy.
Speaker 3: He treated everyone badly. You know, he was harassing people
Speaker 3: on set and doing a hundred different takes on any
Speaker 3: given scene, which is fact. He was definitely doing that.
Speaker 3: But he was a perfectionist, right. He was a filmmaker,
Speaker 3: he was an artist, and he wanted to bring that
Speaker 3: realistic nature to his movies. And I think that that's
Speaker 3: we're just trying to stay away from that, because it
Speaker 3: was like, it's exactly like what we were talking about
Speaker 3: with Trump, Like there's going to be a section of
Speaker 3: people that hate him no matter what, and then there's
Speaker 3: going to be people that look at him like a god.
Speaker 3: And I don't think any either one of those are correct,
Speaker 3: you know, So I think it lies somewhere in the middle,
Speaker 3: and I think he's he computer back and forth on it,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I mean this thing that just popped into my
Speaker 1: head was the Beef fifty two bomber where he was
Speaker 1: contacted because he made it too accurate, and you got
Speaker 1: into that a lot on I heard you on Ground
Speaker 1: Zero with Clyde Lewis, and he kind of wanted to
Speaker 1: talk about that a little bit, so even more so
Speaker 1: than it was in the movie. But I want to know,
Speaker 1: like when he and this is speculation, probably, but like,
Speaker 1: when was he brought to the attention to these bigger people,
Speaker 1: because it seems like just with Doctor Strangelove two thousand
Speaker 1: and one Space Odyssey, and you mentioned that he had
Speaker 1: a whole list of people that he, you know, was
Speaker 1: acknowledging at the end of Space Odyssey, and it's basically
Speaker 1: just different factions of the Department adjust or the Department
Speaker 1: of Defense. And I mean we talk about Operation mocking
Speaker 1: Bird quite a bit on this show, so just the
Speaker 1: fact that they're still doing it to this day.
Speaker 2: But yeah, even back then, I don't.
Speaker 1: Think anybody had any idea that that kind of stuff
Speaker 1: was going on with military personnel and the overlap with Hollywood.
Speaker 1: But one thing you brought up that I thought was
Speaker 1: kind of interesting and I hadn't heard before, is Kubrick
Speaker 1: did not want to make The Shining and it was
Speaker 1: almost like they handed it to him after he flopped
Speaker 1: with what was the movie? Yes, So I just kind
Speaker 1: of find it fascinating that it is one of his most.
Speaker 2: Popular movies by far.
Speaker 1: I think it's right up there with his best and
Speaker 1: the fact that he didn't want to do it and
Speaker 1: he ended up doing what he did with it and
Speaker 1: how it worked out so well, and what you think
Speaker 1: this overall message he's trying to give to us. It's
Speaker 1: just like a happy accident basically.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes the most sense to me. And with
Speaker 3: Doctor Strangelove, I think that is where it started, like
Speaker 3: this relationship with the intelligence community and the Air Force
Speaker 3: and the military, because it was like you were saying,
Speaker 3: no one really knew this since the inception of movies.
Speaker 3: That's why we have the big Laurel Canyon section in
Speaker 3: the documentary because it shows that the military was involved
Speaker 3: in Hollywood, in the Hollywood, that the military was essentially
Speaker 3: making all of these movies, like thousands of movies that
Speaker 3: nobody knows exactly what they were because they're still classified
Speaker 3: to this very day, like tens of thousands of movies.
Speaker 3: All the footage that we show when we're talking about
Speaker 3: Laurel Canyon is all real footage. That's all real footage
Speaker 3: from Lookout Mountain Air Force Base. Like whenever they're grabbing
Speaker 3: those big barrels of like movie reels, all that's real
Speaker 3: footage from Lookout Mountain.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you had to have like such high level
Speaker 1: of security clearance to even step foot there.
Speaker 3: So it makes sense when Cubri got this help from
Speaker 3: making two thousand and one, and he had he was
Speaker 3: thinking all the intelligence communities, Langley, Virginia Air Force intelligence,
Speaker 3: a lot of government contractors were all in the ending
Speaker 3: credits to two thousand and one A Space Odyssey, and
Speaker 3: someone had to have seen that and they were like, oh,
Speaker 3: you can't have that in there, you know, we can't
Speaker 3: let people know that there's this collaboration regardless of like
Speaker 3: what it is, regardless if it's something nefarious or if
Speaker 3: it's not anything nefarious. I mean, they could have just been,
Speaker 3: you know, giving him things to model the stuff after
Speaker 3: who knows exactly, you know, what it was. But obviously
Speaker 3: it seems like it's a lot more because two thousand
Speaker 3: and one of Space Odyssey was using special effects like
Speaker 3: Jay Weiner talks about with the front screen projection that
Speaker 3: had never been done before, you know, So how was
Speaker 3: he getting all of this really hyper advanced technology to
Speaker 3: be able to a lot of people say that they
Speaker 3: were NASA cameras that he was using. They had a
Speaker 3: special lens on them, and like a special modified lens
Speaker 3: that he shot with. And it seems like someone's seen
Speaker 3: that those credits where he thinked all the people and
Speaker 3: were like, yeah, you got to take that out because
Speaker 3: we also show documents within the movie of you know,
Speaker 3: intelligence communities involvement with films that have come out you
Speaker 3: know since then, like the Transformers movie that was all
Speaker 3: got through four year requests, Like people send it for
Speaker 3: four year requests and it would come back and be like, yeah,
Speaker 3: the military and the CIA tomorrow will never die. Some
Speaker 3: of the James Bond films, uh, you know had collaborations
Speaker 3: with the intelligence community and the military. So if you
Speaker 3: didn't already know about that, it's still important to see
Speaker 3: in a movie. And for the people that didn't know
Speaker 3: about it, I'm sure that they were, you know, kind
Speaker 3: of shocked about it because you know, that's a really
Speaker 3: important thing and they definitely wanted to take that out
Speaker 3: and you know, make that a reveal for later on
Speaker 3: in the future when people really don't care about it anymore.
Speaker 3: Because that's another thing about these types of documents and
Speaker 3: things that are you know coming out, is normally they don't.
Speaker 3: I mean, the JFK Files has been a really long
Speaker 3: time you know since it happened for them to be released,
Speaker 3: but you know the Epstein files are different that when
Speaker 3: that was like twenty and sixteen seventeen, right in that area.
Speaker 3: And that's one that's really recent that, which is surprising
Speaker 3: that they're even going to release because it's normally they
Speaker 3: wait a really long time in between the event happening
Speaker 3: and then them releasing any kind of real information about it,
Speaker 3: so by the time that it's released, people no longer care.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this has been that I're responsible or probably fucking long.
Speaker 3: Dead exactly so. And I think the the twenty twenty
Speaker 3: files right won't be released until like twenty sixty or
Speaker 3: something like that. They already put a date on those,
Speaker 3: but they should release the freaking nine to eleven files.
Speaker 3: Why not release the nine eleven files? You bring those out?
Speaker 3: Has been what twenty twenty four years, Like, release the
Speaker 3: freaking nine eleven files.
Speaker 2: That'd be nice.
Speaker 3: Let's find out about building seven, bro. We all need
Speaker 3: to know about building solving.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I just wanted to throw in there. Anybody
Speaker 1: who's a fan of the Marvel movies, Disney is.
Speaker 2: The Pentagon Slash CIA and.
Speaker 1: The Pentagon, And you can find these some documents like
Speaker 1: what he's talking about here. They put hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars into the Iron Man Iron Man franchise alone,
Speaker 1: which you gave Elon Musk a little cameo in the
Speaker 1: second one Tony Stark himself. But yeah, let's get into
Speaker 1: the shining because the first thing that you brought up
Speaker 1: that kind of opens this mk ultra theory is she's
Speaker 1: reading Catcher in the Rye at the kitchen table before
Speaker 1: they even go up to the hotel.
Speaker 2: And Catcher in the Rye.
Speaker 1: I think you mentioned this and it might have been
Speaker 1: on The Occult Rejects, and I never even thought of this,
Speaker 1: Like at the time that that movie was filming, those
Speaker 1: assassinations hadn't even happened yet with you know, John Lennon
Speaker 1: and Reagan, Yeah, Mark, David Chapman and John Hinckley Junior.
Speaker 3: And then there was another one that was brought to
Speaker 3: my attention by William Ramsey. I had him on my
Speaker 3: show recently. And there was another one that happened that
Speaker 3: involved Ketcher in the Rye, which I think was I
Speaker 3: think he said early eighties or somewhere around there, not
Speaker 3: one hundred percent sure all the time, but her name
Speaker 3: was Rebecca Schaeffer and it happened in Hollywood, and Catcher
Speaker 3: in the Rye was involved in that murder slash assassination
Speaker 3: as well, so there was three. But yes, Catcher in
Speaker 3: the Rye he had it, Windy is reading it in
Speaker 3: the very beginning of The Shining Qubriic had it in there,
Speaker 3: and the movie was released a year before the two
Speaker 3: assassinations which happened almost back to back, which what you
Speaker 3: just mentioned John Lennon and the attempted assassination on Ronald Reagan,
Speaker 3: And how did Kubrick know to have that book in
Speaker 3: there and have Wendy reading it? And then when you
Speaker 3: think about it, you're like, oh my god. This book
Speaker 3: has been involved with, you know, the two major assassinations
Speaker 3: that everyone knows about, but a third one with Rebecca Schaeffer.
Speaker 3: And people have theorized that this book as some sort
Speaker 3: of mk Ultramanchurian Canada style trigger for these assassinations. And
Speaker 3: what is Jack doing throughout the entire Shining movie. He's
Speaker 3: attempting to kill his families, attempting to kill Danny and
Speaker 3: kill Wendy. Right, So you put that together, you're like,
Speaker 3: holy shit, this is what it seems like. And then
Speaker 3: you see how he is being you know, made to
Speaker 3: write the same sentence over and over and over and
Speaker 3: over again, which is exactly like Sir Hans Sirhan did
Speaker 3: whenever he supposedly assassinated RFK. He's writing the same thing
Speaker 3: over and over, RFK must die, RFK must die, which
Speaker 3: is psychic driving, which was created by human Cameron in Canada,
Speaker 3: which was to implant certain thoughts and ideas to change
Speaker 3: the person's behavior on things that they normally wouldn't do right.
Speaker 3: And that's a real MK ultra technique and we have
Speaker 3: the real life evidence of that with sir Han Surhan,
Speaker 3: and Jack is essentially doing the exact same thing the
Speaker 3: sir Han Sirhan was doing, just in his own way,
Speaker 3: you know all working to no play makes Jack a
Speaker 3: dull boy. It's the exact same type of programming. And
Speaker 3: then when Wendy comes in and realizes that he's not
Speaker 3: writing a novel, he's just writing the same phrase over
Speaker 3: and over and over again, he then becomes triggered and
Speaker 3: then he does then he tries to essentially kill Wendy. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it goes from Danny to Wendy. So first off, it's
Speaker 3: it's Danny. Whenever Grady is talking to Jack in the bathroom,
Speaker 3: he's the focus is on Danny. He's like, the boy
Speaker 3: is a problem. You need to correct correct him, sir,
Speaker 3: like I corrected my two daughters, you know. And the
Speaker 3: focus is on Danny. So then it's not on Wendy.
Speaker 3: But then when Wendy comes in and essentially triggers Jack
Speaker 3: by finding out that he's not writing the novel, right,
Speaker 3: then the focus is on her. And then when Grady
Speaker 3: is then talking to him outside of the door in
Speaker 3: the storage room, it shifts focus from Danny to now Wendy,
Speaker 3: and Grady says that Wendy is stronger than they had thought.
Speaker 3: Those aren't the exact words, but it's essentially like, Wendy is,
Speaker 3: you know, stronger than we had thought. And what he
Speaker 3: means by that is that she's stronger mentally. She's obviously
Speaker 3: not strong physically, she's you know, a super skinny woman.
Speaker 3: So she's stronger mentally in her head. She's harder to crack,
Speaker 3: she's harder to break down, she's harder to mind fracture
Speaker 3: than Jack was. Because Jack had already you know, gone
Speaker 3: through trauma, he'd already had the he was already an alcoholic,
Speaker 3: right and Danny had already been through the trauma as well,
Speaker 3: with Jack coming in and essentially abusing Danny when he
Speaker 3: came home and his papers were all over the floor
Speaker 3: or whatever, and he yanked Danny out by his arm
Speaker 3: and broke his arm, well, injured his arm, is what
Speaker 3: Wendy said. And then that's when Danny started receiving his abilities. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's all from the movie. That's what the doctor talks
Speaker 3: Wendy about in the in the beginning of the movie.
Speaker 3: So Jack has already been traumatized, Danny has already been traumatized.
Speaker 3: That means that they are way more susceptible to MK
Speaker 3: ultra style mind control programming. But Wendy isn't. Wendy hasn't
Speaker 3: had the trauma yet. So whenever Jack comes in and
Speaker 3: tries to, you know, break down the door with the
Speaker 3: with the axe to get her, she's starting to get
Speaker 3: it because that's the traumatic event, right, And then whenever
Speaker 3: she goes downstairs, and whenever Jack goes after whenever he
Speaker 3: hears Hollarin pulling up in the snowmobile, the snow cat,
Speaker 3: he goes downstairs and Hollarin comes through the door, and
Speaker 3: then he comes through and hits Hollarin in the chest
Speaker 3: with the axe, kills him. Then he goes after Danny
Speaker 3: downstairs in the uh. Then they go outside into the maze,
Speaker 3: and the maze is a maze of the mind. I
Speaker 3: hope I'm not losing people here too much and kind
Speaker 3: of just going on and on. So he goes out,
Speaker 3: and the maze is a metaphor for the mind. So
Speaker 3: and then Danny has to retrace his steps in the
Speaker 3: maze in his mind to escape Jack. And then Jack
Speaker 3: is lost in the maze because he's like catatonic. He's
Speaker 3: succumbed to the ultra pro style programming. But Wendy whenever
Speaker 3: she comes downstairs and she sees Hollarin dead on the ground,
Speaker 3: that's another really traumatic event. And then after she sees
Speaker 3: Halarin dad on the ground, but one she's not expecting
Speaker 3: Hollarin to even be there. Two he's dead, very traumatic,
Speaker 3: and she had just been tried to be killed with
Speaker 3: an axe by Jack. So after she comes downstairs, all
Speaker 3: that stuff happens to her. She sees Hollarin dud on
Speaker 3: the ground. That's when she starts experiencing her what the
Speaker 3: audience has led to believe as hallucinations. She sees the
Speaker 3: skeletons in the in the room. She turns around and
Speaker 3: sees the guy with his head split that's holding the glass.
Speaker 3: It's a great party, isn't right. That's the symbolization because
Speaker 3: he has a streak of blood coming down the center
Speaker 3: of his forehead. That's symbolically referencing the mind split, the
Speaker 3: mind fracture, And she's starting to succumb to the mk
Speaker 3: Ultra style mind control programming. She didn't experience any of
Speaker 3: this stuff throughout the entire movie until she was traumatized
Speaker 3: by Jack.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you pointed out too that Jack and Danny
Speaker 1: who hallucinate after entering room two three seven. So you
Speaker 1: want to talk about that a little bit because I
Speaker 1: found that whole theory to be I mean, you can
Speaker 1: look up the mk Ultra disclosure files for yourself to
Speaker 1: see the kind of stuff they were doing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so Jack is he goes into meet with Lloyd
Speaker 3: the bartender. We believe that Lloyd is a real person.
Speaker 3: We believe that all the people in the hotel are
Speaker 3: real people.
Speaker 4: They're actors that are.
Speaker 3: There like playing a role play. They're essentially they're playing
Speaker 3: a lart. They're LARPing. It's like Shutter Island, right. Have
Speaker 3: you seen the movie Shutter Island with Leonardo DiCaprio, where
Speaker 3: essentially the entire freaking psychiatric facility, all the workers and
Speaker 3: everything are LARPing their positions at the end of the movie.
Speaker 3: They're actors playing actors in an acting movie. So that's
Speaker 3: essentially what all the people at the overlook are. They're actors.
Speaker 3: They're not ghosts. They're actors there to play a role
Speaker 3: to essentially see what they can get Jack to do
Speaker 3: to his family. It's an experiment. It's a giant experiment.
Speaker 3: So Jack walks into the gold room, meets Lloyd. Lloyd
Speaker 3: gives them an alcoholic drink. It has been well known
Speaker 3: that the CIA has spiked alcoholic drinks with some form
Speaker 3: of health hallucinogenic. This has happened time and time again.
Speaker 3: Even an LSD aerosol has been sprayed. There's documentation on
Speaker 3: all this. You can get on and look at the
Speaker 3: mk ultro files or look up stories of.
Speaker 2: Operation Midnight Climax.
Speaker 1: They were trying the air isolation and kind of ended
Speaker 1: up going with the drinks because it was easier to control.
Speaker 3: Yep, and so Lloyd gives Jack his first drink of alcohol.
Speaker 3: Then Wendy comes in and Wendy is like, Danny was
Speaker 3: attacked by a woman in one of the upstairs bedrooms,
Speaker 3: so he goes up there, then he encounters the woman.
Speaker 3: And then later on whenever he goes up to the
Speaker 3: apartment that they're staying at, Wendy said, Whendy asked him,
Speaker 3: he's She's like, did you see anything? It's like, I
Speaker 3: didn't see a goddamn thing up there, which is synonymous with.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 3: You know, you've essentially been drugged, right, Like you if
Speaker 3: you experience something that's not there, like the only thing
Speaker 3: that you can think of is like, oh, well, you've
Speaker 3: you've been drugged. So it's a combination of drugs and
Speaker 3: like actors. And then also with the aerosol, it's very
Speaker 3: apparent that it's either an aerosol that's in room two
Speaker 3: thirty seven LSD drug aerosol that's in there, because when
Speaker 3: Danny goes in, that's how he could have experienced that
Speaker 3: as well. So they sprayed the aerosol on Danny and
Speaker 3: then they had Jack drink the laced alcohol with LSD
Speaker 3: and that's how he experienced it.
Speaker 1: And to just backtrack a little bit to just lend
Speaker 1: more credence to what you're saying. When they're having the
Speaker 1: meeting at the beginning talking about him going up there,
Speaker 1: they keep mentioning our people in Denver, and you have
Speaker 1: some theories about what that could mean.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's something that I really found odd when I
Speaker 3: was watching it. Several times, I was like, why do
Speaker 3: they keep mentioning these people in Denver right there? Over
Speaker 3: and over again. It was at least we put a
Speaker 3: compilation of it in the movie, and I'm pretty sure
Speaker 3: it's at least five or six times that either Jack
Speaker 3: or Almond mentions our people in Denver.
Speaker 2: Another JFK connection there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which Olman looks striking lean similar to JFK's. And
Speaker 3: we've got the American flag thing on his desk. And
Speaker 3: Bill Watson, which we didn't really get into it in
Speaker 3: the movie a lot because it was difficult to find
Speaker 3: photos of Sydney Gottlieb, but we're essentially relating Bill Watson
Speaker 3: as the the main person behind the entire operation. He's
Speaker 3: the silent partner, right, He's actually the main guy that
Speaker 3: the front is that it's Alman, but it's really Bill
Speaker 3: Watson that's running the whole shindig, right, you know how
Speaker 3: that's happened. Sometimes like you'll get that front person, but
Speaker 3: the person that's really behind that person is the one
Speaker 3: that actually makes all the real decisions and is in
Speaker 3: charge of the operation. Yeah, that's that's how what's going
Speaker 3: on here. And we didn't really bring it up within
Speaker 3: the movie because it was difficult to relate Bill Watson
Speaker 3: to Sydney Gottlieb, just because there's very few photos that
Speaker 3: you can find of Sidney Gottlieb. So but but they
Speaker 3: do resemble each other in the the way that they
Speaker 3: dress and the way that they look, and even they're
Speaker 3: like their facial structure. Yeah, experi similar to each other.
Speaker 1: I got my hand on a paperback several years ago.
Speaker 1: It's called Poisoner in Chief and it's about Gottlieb. And
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember if you can. You know, most
Speaker 1: paperbacks have the little thin section of like glossy printed
Speaker 1: photos in the middle. I don't remember if that one
Speaker 1: did or not, but yeah, I haven't heard that. I'm
Speaker 1: looking into that one as soon as we get off here,
Speaker 1: because that's interesting. So, yeah, the people in Denver and
Speaker 1: You've mentioned how Denver is kind of maybe a hub
Speaker 1: for intelligence because it's in the center of the country
Speaker 1: and they're just overseeing this project up in the mountains.
Speaker 1: And yeah, you don't think this is the first time
Speaker 1: this has gone on, right, This is like Jack might
Speaker 1: be whatever number in a series of experiments they're doing
Speaker 1: up there.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what I believe that the scene of the
Speaker 3: shining is depicting. It's not depicting anything like reincarnation. When
Speaker 3: it pans down on July fourth, nineteen twenty one, does
Speaker 3: have anything to do with reincarnation or spiritual things. It's
Speaker 3: a date marker for how long they've been running some
Speaker 3: sort of operation up there at the Overlook Hotel. They
Speaker 3: do it every year, and they get different kinds of
Speaker 3: scenarios every single year. And when you think about it,
Speaker 3: it's like the perfect place, right because no one's up there,
Speaker 3: it's the middle of the winter, it snows a lot
Speaker 3: up there, you get snowed into the hotel. It's honestly
Speaker 3: a perfect location to run some sort of operation up there,
Speaker 3: some sort of experiments, some sort of mind control type
Speaker 3: of scenario, and they do it every single year. And
Speaker 3: that's what makes the most sense to me, and some
Speaker 3: of the experiments work out, some of them don't. Some
Speaker 3: of them go a rhyme. For sure, the Grady one
Speaker 3: went awrye. But I think that that kind of like
Speaker 3: became the goal. It became the goal to see if
Speaker 3: they can actually get the person that they're experimenting on
Speaker 3: to kill people, to murder people.
Speaker 1: Especially if you would murder your own family, Who wouldn't.
Speaker 2: You murder.
Speaker 3: Exactly, and then shown the original ending of the shining
Speaker 3: It really makes all the sense in the world because
Speaker 3: Almond comes into the hospital when Wendy is there, Danny
Speaker 3: is there as well. Almond comes in, talks to Wendy
Speaker 3: and is like, everything that you said to the police
Speaker 3: and the staff here at the hospital, we can't find
Speaker 3: any evidence of there's no evidence of anything that you said.
Speaker 3: So that means that they essentially went in and cleaned
Speaker 3: up the entire operation, like get rid of Jack's body,
Speaker 3: get rid of how and get rid of the weapons.
Speaker 3: But it can double as somebody that's looking at it
Speaker 3: on like the surface level, on the you know, the
Speaker 3: main level, as that it was just ghosts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because you've pointed out before that essentially Kubrick made
Speaker 1: this a psychological thriller.
Speaker 2: He didn't really have paranormal stuff in there.
Speaker 1: But yeah, if you just look at the bar scene, like, oh,
Speaker 1: those are ghosts or the hallucinations in your room two
Speaker 1: three seven is like ghosts or possession. But it's not
Speaker 1: your typical paranormal movie and it's not like the book
Speaker 1: in that way at all.
Speaker 3: It's not and that I believe that that is why
Speaker 3: Qubriic made it that way, because he's he's trying to
Speaker 3: tell you an underlying story. He's trying to tell you
Speaker 3: a history of these types of operations and these types
Speaker 3: of programs, and that it involves MK ultra and mind control. Right,
Speaker 3: because the anything that is that it seems to be
Speaker 3: on the surface level being paranormal, can also be real,
Speaker 3: like real physical people. There's nothing other than when the
Speaker 3: woman turns from a very hot, attractive woman into an
Speaker 3: elderly lady, which that can be explained by Jack being drugged.
Speaker 3: Everything else can be real physical people. So he's kind
Speaker 3: of codd it in there, as it can go either way.
Speaker 3: So if you're just looking at him on the surface
Speaker 3: level of it, then okay, it's all just you know,
Speaker 3: it's just paranormal. Lloyd the bartender is a ghost but
Speaker 3: somehow has alcohol and is like a physical thing and
Speaker 3: is able to move things around. All the people that
Speaker 3: were in the party in the gold Room are somehow
Speaker 3: ghosts too, but that doesn't make any sense because they
Speaker 3: all look super real. Grady bumps into Jack with the
Speaker 3: tray and hits him and then has a full blown
Speaker 3: on conversation, and Grady doesn't ever admit that he that
Speaker 3: he's a ghost, right, He says, oh well, I don't recall, sir,
Speaker 3: So whenever Jack is like, weren't you weren't you the
Speaker 3: caretaker here? Which is another really strange thing within the shining.
Speaker 3: He goes by two different names, Delbert Grady and Charles Grady,
Speaker 3: so Alman calls him Charles Grady and then he refers
Speaker 3: to himself while talking to Jack, is Delbert Grady. So
Speaker 3: two different names in there. But he never once implies
Speaker 3: to Jack that he's a ghost or that he's paranormal.
Speaker 3: He's like, oh well, I don't recall, sir, yea. So
Speaker 3: all the things that seem to be paranormal make more
Speaker 3: if they're real people, if they're LARPing the entire thing.
Speaker 3: That's how Jack gets let out of the storage room. Right,
Speaker 3: a ghost. It's Grady outside of the storage room that
Speaker 3: unlocks it. Alman was the one that rolled the ball
Speaker 3: toward Danny. Okay, because at the end of the movie
Speaker 3: in their original ending, the Stanley Kubrick got in there
Speaker 3: that he cut out after the test screenings. Almond whenever
Speaker 3: he goes in to talk to Windy and says that
Speaker 3: nothing that she has said had ever happened there. He
Speaker 3: also throws the tennis ball that Jack was bouncing off
Speaker 3: the wall before he goes and looks at the model
Speaker 3: of the maze, and also is the tennis ball that
Speaker 3: inconspicuously rolled toward Danny to make him go into room
Speaker 3: two thirty seven. Right, So how did he know about
Speaker 3: the tennis ball?
Speaker 2: That's a good point.
Speaker 1: Did you talk about that in the movie about him
Speaker 1: rolling them the ball?
Speaker 3: Yes, we did, and whenever we were showing the footage
Speaker 3: from the pictures in the script from the original ending, Okay,
Speaker 3: that's right. Yeah, I mentioned that all men hands the
Speaker 3: tennis ball to Danny watches the exact same tennis ball
Speaker 3: that Jack was bouncing off of the wall. And it's
Speaker 3: also the same tennis ball the rolls toward Danny.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, I want to talk about Jack Nicholson
Speaker 1: a little bit because my girlfriend does a podcast and
Speaker 1: she's into like Dave McGowan a lot, and not just
Speaker 1: the Laurel Canyon stuff, but the program to Kill Shit With.
Speaker 1: You can get into Ted Bundy. But we kind of
Speaker 1: stumbled upon something and I kind of started thinking in
Speaker 1: a weird outside the box way because Jack Nicholson and
Speaker 1: Ted Bundy they almost have the same exact story as
Speaker 1: far as do you know about Jack Nicholson. He's basically undocumented,
Speaker 1: there's no birth certificate, and his mother who he thought
Speaker 1: was his mother or is his grandma and his mom
Speaker 1: is his sister.
Speaker 2: Same thing with Ted Bundy.
Speaker 1: But there's some stuff in the shining with the yellow
Speaker 1: beetle and he replaced the red beetle as you pointed out,
Speaker 1: But it was almost like a Ted Bundy thing where
Speaker 1: I just think there's so many parallels between him. And
Speaker 1: then we watched this interview footage of Ted Bundy and
Speaker 1: I think it was when he was in All Places, Colorado,
Speaker 1: and I swear to God that was Jack Nicholson.
Speaker 2: It looked like him.
Speaker 1: It sounded like him, and Ted Bundy was like a
Speaker 1: chameleon because he never looked the same. There's witness testimony
Speaker 1: of Yeah, he looked like a different person every time
Speaker 1: I saw him. And it's almost like Ted Bundy was
Speaker 1: an operation, and I got to think that Jack Nicholson
Speaker 1: was a part of it somehow after a a that.
Speaker 1: I'll have to send you the video because it just
Speaker 1: seems like Jack Nicholson wearing a little bit of makeup
Speaker 1: or a prosthetic face or something, And I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's just something I wanted to throw at you since
Speaker 1: we're talking about Jack and the shining.
Speaker 3: That's really interesting. Definitely send me the video. I would
Speaker 3: like to check that out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I will, because the voice and the eyebrows and
Speaker 1: the smile, the mannerisms, it just I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: Ted Bundy was never really one person and it's just
Speaker 1: like another type of operations. So do you think that
Speaker 1: Kubrick was privy to this kind of shit going on
Speaker 1: and he was trying to disclose it to us? So
Speaker 1: do you think it was just like a theory he
Speaker 1: might have had.
Speaker 3: He definitely had to be privy to it, because just
Speaker 3: based on the fact that he made a clockwork orange
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy, right, that's I mean, he had to
Speaker 3: know that was going on in some kind of way,
Speaker 3: or I don't think that he could just bring a
Speaker 3: clockwork orange out of his imagination because it's very similar
Speaker 3: to what they were really doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's also based on a book, and he
Speaker 1: took a lot of fucking liberties like he like he
Speaker 1: did with The Shining And I mean I tried to
Speaker 1: read the book. I think I might have got about
Speaker 1: halfway through. It is just so hard to read. Have
Speaker 1: you read it.
Speaker 3: I have not read the book.
Speaker 2: It's hard, man.
Speaker 1: If you can get through it, let me know, because
Speaker 1: it's just it's almost like another language, Like you know,
Speaker 1: the language they speak in the movie.
Speaker 2: The book's written like that, so you kind of almost
Speaker 2: got to.
Speaker 1: Like learned code the way it's written. So do you
Speaker 1: what about Eyes White Shut? What's your take on that
Speaker 1: whole thing?
Speaker 3: Well, it's a really interesting one, and there's a lot
Speaker 3: of theories and speculation on that one as well. The
Speaker 3: people have theorized that there was twenty minutes of the
Speaker 3: movie that were cut out of the end when he
Speaker 3: showed it to Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers asked him
Speaker 3: to cut some scenes out of the movie. He didn't
Speaker 3: want to do it, and then you know, it turns
Speaker 3: up dead of a heart attack. But we don't really
Speaker 3: have any I think the only people that would know
Speaker 3: would be the executives at Warner Brothers and the main
Speaker 3: actors that were in the movie, because I'm pretty sure
Speaker 3: that he invited the main actors to view the movie,
Speaker 3: and so of course Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise, they
Speaker 3: would have had to have seen it, so they would
Speaker 3: be the only ones that would be able to verify
Speaker 3: if I if there was something different from Kubrick's original
Speaker 3: cut and what everybody else saw.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was listening to Uh.
Speaker 1: It was a Joe Rogan episode probably a few months back,
Speaker 1: where Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avery that helped him write
Speaker 1: the stories for Pulp Fiction. Roger Avery said that he's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure, and I mean he knows a
Speaker 1: lot of these people in Hollywood that we didn't get
Speaker 1: the cut Kubrick wanted to put out. And usually when
Speaker 1: I hear people say that, it's like they're guessing. But
Speaker 1: he sounded really sure about it, and I mean I
Speaker 1: got to lean that way myself. A gun to head
Speaker 1: had to take a guess. But do you know who
Speaker 1: Sean McCann from Wake the Dead is.
Speaker 3: No, I don't.
Speaker 1: So he's got this theory you should look into it
Speaker 1: where he plays the movie against itself.
Speaker 2: So he starts he.
Speaker 1: Just starts the movie like normal, and then he has
Speaker 1: a time code where he starts it again and then
Speaker 1: movie almost talks to itself and answers questions, and he's
Speaker 1: convinced that he's stumbled upon a code that Kuber intentionally
Speaker 1: put out there. And I mean, it's compelling. I would
Speaker 1: definitely check it out if it is you. And I
Speaker 1: know he went on William Ramsey and talked.
Speaker 2: About it if that might be a good place to
Speaker 2: look at it.
Speaker 1: But now he's doing all sorts of things where he
Speaker 1: plays eyes wide shut, starts the Shining, and there's just
Speaker 1: this whole I mean, this guy's got a lot of
Speaker 1: time on his hands. And it's kind of like when
Speaker 1: you used to like start Dark Side of the Moon
Speaker 1: with a Wizard of Oz kind of thing.
Speaker 3: But you know, you can also do that with The Shining.
Speaker 3: You can play it forwards and backwards at the same time.
Speaker 2: Really, have you done that.
Speaker 3: I've never personally done it, but I've seen it done
Speaker 3: and it's online and pretty much everything like lines up
Speaker 3: interesting And that's what they say about like per perfection, right,
Speaker 3: something as per You can do it both ways right
Speaker 3: and watch your forwards, you can watch your backwards and
Speaker 3: it's still creates the same story.
Speaker 2: Are you a David Lynch fan?
Speaker 3: I do like David Lynch.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It kind of reminds me of the way he
Speaker 1: hired that little dude to do the Lions backwards and then.
Speaker 2: He would play him.
Speaker 1: He the guy talks backwards so that when you play
Speaker 1: it backwards, he's talking normally and.
Speaker 2: It's just like he said, it wasn't even that hard
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 1: He's like, when, yeah, when you're starting something back and
Speaker 1: it should make as much sense.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but yeah, I mean that's.
Speaker 3: Some martial arts like like the masters will tell you
Speaker 3: that whenever you're performing like a you know, taekwondo in
Speaker 3: Korea they call forms, and in karate they call it katas.
Speaker 3: You become a master when you can perform those forms
Speaker 3: or those kadas in reverse, so you learn the former
Speaker 3: kada front words and then but you really learn it
Speaker 3: when you can do it backwards.
Speaker 2: Interesting.
Speaker 1: So Laurel Canyon, that's probably my favorite topic.
Speaker 2: And you got a.
Speaker 1: Guy in there as man his I wanted to remember
Speaker 1: his name, It's Mark Devlin. Yes, that he's like a
Speaker 1: British dude, right, and man, what a find that was.
Speaker 1: And to get his input on all that stuff, because
Speaker 1: you know, all we really have is McGowan and people
Speaker 1: who have uh kind of taken his researcher and I
Speaker 1: ran with it. But it seems to me that the
Speaker 1: fact that you could put Laurel Canyon and the Beatles
Speaker 1: and all of this and it all ties to the Shining,
Speaker 1: I just intrigues me because the more research we do
Speaker 1: and you see that it's pretty much all connected. I
Speaker 1: mean I was stoked when you said you're gonna put
Speaker 1: Laurel Canyon stuff in this movie, and as like trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how it would work out, but it
Speaker 1: just it really flows into it, just as well as
Speaker 1: you know, all the Kubrick stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Laurel Canyon section was very important because Kubrick
Speaker 3: lived in la for a couple of years too, so
Speaker 3: and I'm pretty sure that everybody during that time was
Speaker 3: at least aware that the military had a freaking movie
Speaker 3: studio on top of Laurel Canyon. I mean several actors
Speaker 3: had top ranking security clearance for it. Ronald Reagan had it,
Speaker 3: Marilyn Monroe, Carrie Grant, James Stewart, and the list goes
Speaker 3: on and on and me yep, Walt Disney had the
Speaker 3: had the clearance there as well. So it's like, exactly
Speaker 3: what what were they doing up there? But we do
Speaker 3: know that that's where the the nuclear testing footage was done,
Speaker 3: and all the nuclear testing footage was done on miniature sets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because the official story is that they developed the
Speaker 1: test footage there.
Speaker 3: It's like, no, you shot it there, Yeah, you can't
Speaker 3: explode it a supposed nuclear bomb and the camera still survived. Bro,
Speaker 3: give me a break, dude, not going to happen. You're
Speaker 3: telling me that a big, giant, bulky camera, because that's
Speaker 3: what they were back then, right, They're the big freaking
Speaker 3: shoulder cameras that you had to look through a freaking
Speaker 3: viewfinder to know exactly what you're shooting, which makes zero
Speaker 3: sense for the moon landing footage. You're telling me that
Speaker 3: they that they brought a giant freaking video camera up
Speaker 3: on a space shuttle and went to the Moon and
Speaker 3: was able to look through the viewfinder to get a
Speaker 3: good shot through a space suit, through a space helmet.
Speaker 3: They were able to know exactly what they were filming. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and I don't know if you've ever messed around with
Speaker 3: one of those old cameras before.
Speaker 2: I've held one. I wouldn't. I've never used one.
Speaker 3: They are old, they are bulky, and they're inconvenient.
Speaker 1: Yeah, most of them were hand cranked too, like especially
Speaker 1: in the forties.
Speaker 3: Probably the smallest sized one, I don't even have anything
Speaker 3: for reference.
Speaker 4: I guess this this, this Egyptian photograph here would probably
Speaker 4: be the smallest type of camera that they could possibly have.
Speaker 3: So it'd have a a lens here, and you would
Speaker 3: be holding it like this in order to film, like
Speaker 3: up on your shoulder because it's heavy, and the viewfinder
Speaker 3: would like be here, so you would have it would
Speaker 3: have to be out like this. You wouldn't be able
Speaker 3: to be looking through a viewfinder with a giant freaking
Speaker 3: space suit on. You'd have no idea what you're shooting.
Speaker 3: It would be all like this. You'd be like, you
Speaker 3: wouldn't have any idea you couldn't keep it still because
Speaker 3: it's so heavy.
Speaker 1: What about I'll just ask, do you think that nuclear
Speaker 1: bombs even exist?
Speaker 3: Oh? Man, you have to bring that question out?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't, so if you don't, if you want
Speaker 1: to not feel embarrassed, if you feel that way too.
Speaker 1: But I'm not afraid to say it anymore. I just
Speaker 1: think there's enough evidence that they faked. I mean, they
Speaker 1: did fire bomb the fuck out of Japan, sure, but
Speaker 1: they also did that in Vietnam.
Speaker 2: It wasn't nukes there.
Speaker 3: I honestly don't know. I haven't done enough research into it.
Speaker 3: It's not really something that that interests me to the
Speaker 3: point that I would like need to look into it
Speaker 3: that heavily. But I do know about the uh, the
Speaker 3: one what was the one guy that he did like
Speaker 3: an experiment with nuclear radiation or something where you went
Speaker 3: and like touched it or like ate it or something.
Speaker 3: I don't know what he did, but it turned out
Speaker 3: to be Okay, I don't I don't know. I don't
Speaker 3: really have an opinion on it, And really I don't
Speaker 3: think that it it really even matters that much if
Speaker 3: like they're not or if they are. I don't think
Speaker 3: that it changes our reality at all. Like, I'm still
Speaker 3: gonna have to wake up and do mine normal shit
Speaker 3: every day and go to the grocery store and do
Speaker 3: everything that I gotta do. You know, doesn't really make
Speaker 3: a difference to me if they're real or if they're
Speaker 3: not real. I mean, and well, we might find out, dude,
Speaker 3: I don't know that might find out.
Speaker 1: That's part of the reason I think that they're not
Speaker 1: is because if they've only been used twice in a
Speaker 1: three day period, all these world leaders that supposedly have them,
Speaker 1: I just can't imagine that they wouldn't have been used,
Speaker 1: since I do think they might fake it a project
Speaker 1: nuke being kind of thing, because there's an awful lot
Speaker 1: of talk.
Speaker 2: Of nukes as a result of like certain.
Speaker 1: World political things going on right now.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I just was curious, and well, I mean,
Speaker 3: if you think about it, like they could be, I
Speaker 3: don't know. I mean, the reason that they wouldn't do
Speaker 3: it again is because if they are real, they CAUs
Speaker 3: way too much destruction. They wrecked too much stuff, right,
Speaker 3: And you don't want to go in and completely destroy
Speaker 3: an entire freaking country, right. That's not conducive to anybody
Speaker 3: that doesn't help anybody. You want to go in and
Speaker 3: you want to take it over while everything is still standing,
Speaker 3: because you want to you want to use everything that's
Speaker 3: already there. So it makes sense that they would have
Speaker 3: done it during World War two. If they are real,
Speaker 3: drop them so then people would be like, oh shit,
Speaker 3: you know, we gotta you just wrecked everything. You know,
Speaker 3: we got to take a step back and not mess
Speaker 3: with this anymore. And that's probably a big reason why that. Again,
Speaker 3: if they are real, that they're never used again because
Speaker 3: it causes too much destruction. And then if you throw
Speaker 3: in the alien narrative, right, the extraterrestrial narrative. So whenever
Speaker 3: we drop the nukes, the ETS came down and was like,
Speaker 3: oh well, we got to disarm all these nukes. We
Speaker 3: can't have all the people of the world having the
Speaker 3: access to all these nukes. They'll blow each other up.
Speaker 3: And you guys down there on Earth are a whole
Speaker 3: giant experiment down there. We use your your souls to
Speaker 3: power our ships, and we chop off your nutsacks and
Speaker 3: use it for fuel for our UFOs. You can't all
Speaker 3: be killing each other with these nukes. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: been a common theory for a really long time. That's
Speaker 3: what they all love to talk about, like all the
Speaker 3: whistleblowers that don't say jack shit about anything. I go
Speaker 3: up there.
Speaker 4: They're in our nuclear test SARTs, they're shutting.
Speaker 3: Down on nukes. They have the ability to turn on
Speaker 3: and off our nukes, and they got the ability to
Speaker 3: do that, they can.
Speaker 2: Probably launch it.
Speaker 3: This is national security at risk.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I also got to think that if I
Speaker 1: was gonna think they're real, just the chain reaction it
Speaker 1: would set off of the mutually assured destruction kind of
Speaker 1: thing where if Won drops, yeah, we're just gonna it's
Speaker 1: just gonna be everybody shooting everybody with him if it
Speaker 1: just ever happened. I mean the Cold War where it
Speaker 1: was like we were this close many times and for
Speaker 1: whatever reason they decided not to do it. But anyway,
Speaker 1: we're kind of getting off there on a tangent. But
Speaker 1: uh yeah, just the Laurel Canyon thing with the lookout
Speaker 1: Mountain Air Force Base, how you kind of shone like
Speaker 1: maybe Kubrick was kind of wanting us to look over there,
Speaker 1: because he made the overlook look quite a bit like it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he really did. And a very similar name as well,
Speaker 3: the uh No Overlook lookout, you know, they very similar,
Speaker 3: and then looked out, I'm on. Air Force Base also
Speaker 3: had a hotel that set on the exact excuse me
Speaker 3: location of where the Air Force base came in and
Speaker 3: was built, and that hotel burned to the ground. Now,
Speaker 3: at the end of Stephen Kings book, the shining the
Speaker 3: hotel burns of the ground didn't happen in Stanley Kubrick's
Speaker 3: rendition of the movie, but in the sequel Doctor Sleep,
Speaker 3: the hotel burns of the ground, so they finally pay
Speaker 3: that off. I don't know if that's it might just
Speaker 3: be a coincidence, but a very strange coincidence at that.
Speaker 2: That Actually never read the book.
Speaker 1: I did see the movie, and it would be weird
Speaker 1: if it's in the book, because then it would have
Speaker 1: burned down twice.
Speaker 2: But I kind of want to know now.
Speaker 1: But yeah, do you have anything else you want to
Speaker 1: say about about your movie or the just anything in
Speaker 1: general we've talked about.
Speaker 3: Uh, just please support the movie. If you haven't seen it, Yeah,
Speaker 3: please go out there give it a watch. If you
Speaker 3: don't want to, I recommend buying it because you're gonna
Speaker 3: you're gonna want. There's so much information in there. It's
Speaker 3: like packed all tightly in there. Some people that that's
Speaker 3: watched it, they're like, man, I don't even have any
Speaker 3: room to breathe on this freaking thing. It's just like
Speaker 3: constantly hitting you. But that's it's a long movie. It's
Speaker 3: almost two hours long. So and that was that's a
Speaker 3: shortened version of what we could have made. It could
Speaker 3: have been way longer than that. It could have roughly
Speaker 3: have been like three hours long, but that would have
Speaker 3: just been a total freaking nightmare for me to edit
Speaker 3: and put together an entire three hour long movie. The
Speaker 3: almost two hour long one was enough for me. So
Speaker 3: please go out there support it. And if you're not
Speaker 3: you're listening and you want to watch it, and you're
Speaker 3: not in the United States or in the UK, you
Speaker 3: can watch it on Vimeo as well. You can rent
Speaker 3: it or buy it on Vimeo. So if you're in Canada, Australia,
Speaker 3: any other country that you may live, in, Mexico wherever,
Speaker 3: you can watch it on Vimeo. And thanks for having
Speaker 3: me on. Really appreciate it. Was a fun, fun shot
Speaker 3: and I'm really happy that you watched it, and I'm
Speaker 3: really happy you enjoyed it, and you know it's important
Speaker 3: to support independent filmmakers. This was independent film and a
Speaker 3: lot of blood, sweat and tears went into making this.
Speaker 3: So please tell your friends. Share it in the Facebook group,
Speaker 3: share this video, support this man, support this channel, hit
Speaker 3: the thumbs up or leave a comment that helps out
Speaker 3: repost it, share it in Facebook groups, Instagram. This is
Speaker 3: how we defeat this gigantic industry that has been created
Speaker 3: just for the special people and.
Speaker 2: Your show as well. What is it? Is it raised
Speaker 2: by giants?
Speaker 3: Yes, raised by giants on YouTube and Indy and all
Speaker 3: podcast platforms.
Speaker 1: All right, man, Well it's been a pleasure as always.
Speaker 1: I hope you you're gonna take a little break, but
Speaker 1: I do look forward to whatever you take on next.
Speaker 2: You're a young guy.
Speaker 1: You've already got some masterpieces under your belt, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure they're just gonna get better. I will email you
Speaker 1: or send you a thing on X that little snippet
Speaker 1: of Ted Bundy, and you can let me know what
Speaker 1: you think. But all right, brother, I have a glorious
Speaker 1: rest of this Tuesday, March the fourth.
Speaker 2: I didn't even know it was March fourth.
Speaker 1: All right, buddy, Until next time, be well.
Speaker 2: Everybody