Friday, 20 November 2015

Is book right or crazy? Amazon censors book on Sandy Hook! Or who did?



Old poster, source unknown

Burning un-"German" books for the state

Amazon has made a legal and, if you have a large view of history, rather inoffensive -- though perhaps odd -- political history book unavailable to you, despite many detailed positive reviews and a listing for about a month. With the recent attack claims in Paris, and questions of all kinds about what to do and what to think about different things, including the events themselves, we should be aware that a different attack claimed by a modern state and the news media has been censored.

That book, as you have seen from the title, is about the Sandy Hook event, officially called a mass school shooting, but thought by some to be the product of the modern state apparatus itself, a drill and propaganda event.

We cannot and will not cover the main book material here, of course. This post is not really about Sandy Hook as an event for discussion here, but rather about whether we are "allowed" to discuss an odd, crazy, stupid or politically important subject at as high levels as we can, considering how different public intellectuals and experts, who could be wrong, discuss it in a particular book.

Saying that censorship is like the Nazis is true, but it wins few people:

- people think the Nazis were "just weird and awful"
- not all things they censored were Jewish
- not all things now are censored with as much fanfare but it is supported (conspiracy of public bullying) by the public
- average people do most of the censoring by not following the issues, calling people crazy or stupid rather than maybe wrong (if so) and assuming others are not censoring but if they do, feeling that any coverage like this is "horrible harrassment of real victims"

Remember, real victims could -- though might not deign to (feel they should) -- give information to prove their case.

That the families or claimed families do not want to give information is actually no proof either way of their sincerity: they could give or not give information if they were real victims and they would not give real information or could not give any information if they are unreal victims.

This is just logic.

Back to the book: 


Thus the issue about Amazon is a separate issue, in a way, than whether Sandy Hook was a fraud -- in any way a fraud -- presented to the public as real news.

The censored book is luckily now available for free, in PDF format:
http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html
And a more personal and longer article is available here:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/11/debunking-sandy-hook-debunkers-5.html

What other books which break no laws does Amazon suppress after a month, with no explanation? Any of them? -- They publish all kinds of things! Why *this* book?

 

Maybe the book was actually good and would change minds. Maybe not but might change some minds. Offhand, it looks like the former may be true. Amazon does not generally behave this way with a current-event corruption case of possible cover-up (also known as conspiracy theory).

Why? Because if the idea itself is dangerous -- is it, if it is incorrect, really? -- does that also mean we should stop the spread of the idea for true discovery of what is being said about the issue? Would we riot or be rendered stupid, all of us, some of us mistakenly thought the idea to be correct if it was not correct? Not likely.

What if this book is right? What if it is wrong? What if it is imperfect but basically right? Are you allowed to think it through? Is it illegal or horrible to know a case, even a wrong one or one socially disapproved of in some people's minds?



As the second link above, to the article discusses, there was a notice after nearly a month of selling the book, that Amazon (CreateSpace) reviewed the book and found something on it or in it to be against guidelines,  when in fact they review everything beforehand, and what is so offensive in saying, among millions or billions of books, that one "odd" claim is too offensive, and no claim of exactly what is so offensive was actually given to the editor to know what is so bad!

Would we riot because it was correct? Also not likely: though we might change our patterns of acceptance for certain events, such as certain wars, debates, voting and what to give our money to, maybe.
Okay, if it is so bad to say maybe there is some evidence toward a contrarian view of some big historical event, scientific physical idea, or other idea, then maybe a lot of books should suddenly not be sold, or could be burned. How would that be? Think of all of the books out there, even on Amazon alone ... many are far more disgusting, with content from all kinds of horrors, and they publish odd, or strange and even bad or crazy works, things which could (and did and do) affect governments and corporations and individuals.

So why one little book? Was it *too good*, too basically complete?
And even if it were bad, would you want Amazon to do this to general questions asked well, really? Where does that become quite dangerous?



The claim in the book about Sandy Hook is that it was not exactly illegal, since laws ultimately allowing propaganda to be presented as news have been changed, but it is immoral to lie to history, to have a federal operation like that, presented as a real event to sway public opinion and dumb down thinking about what are reasonable questions for modern citizens to ask.

Did Amazon do the censoring on their own? Maybe, if the book is correct about Sandy Hook, someone said the book would harm the US and the world, because it would, what, cause people to riot or become stupid in thinking children do not matter? Or maybe they were threatened? Or maybe it it some internal Amazon policy? Either way, the book is now available for free, at the link above, in a PDF form, but censored on Amazon.

Did Amazon believe this book is disrespectful? Or is it too good?!
You *can* decide for yourself. It is now available, again, and for free!

Does the censorship indicate the book is correct? Not exactly, but possibly. There are several Ph.D. holders involved, with many articles to their credit and interest in many areas of science, some of them controversial, some not. There are several experts on certain topics. Are they all wrong, in all details and all overview thoughts?

Even if so ...

How can one book of supposed silliness (silliness according to some people), be dangerous at all?  Is the issue really about evidence and a specific case in hand (Sandy Hook), or is it about what we are allowed to posit and even conclude about ongoing and long-past history?

Burning Beatles records, mid-1960s, US southern states, for religious fears and social unrest concerns

Socrates was murdered by legal decree (capital punishment), for "corrupting the youth" with questions.

Do you want a thought police? Do we need that for the modern world? Maybe, but what would that involve? Do you believe modern intelligence drills going live for propaganda is worse as an odd sounding idea than not asking? Are such things are going to scare too many people and create a riot? What? Do we go crazy by finding a public lie, if we find one?

What is really worse, people who shoot at schools, people who kill people or burn ideas for a state, people who discuss any idea and gain only the converts to it who discuss all ideas? Or is the issue that somehow a massive public dupery by this book could occur, where everyone would not understand whether it was a good argument and would riot in the streets?

Socrates was killed by the state, an enlightened modern state in many ways we would generally want, because they thought he was corrupting the youth with questions.

Questions. And a few ways to know answers thereby.

Death of Socrates by his fellow citizens using state power, because he was the annoying one who asked questions people did not always like


Detailed reviews of this book were done with 5 stars, but people with short comments and even admitting they had not or would not read the book, were flocking to give 1 star. That does not mean a book should be pulled, does it?

Was Sandy Hook an actual drill, or Boston? Is not that set of questions more important than not asking, or is it just too silly? Of course not: any question and argument is something to discuss, even an odd one or one of low merit, if you have the time. Why? Because one can tell better what is going on with others who read, and others who have half impressions of the idea, as well as sometimes we are wrong initially and something really does have merit, we discover.


As an acquaintance of mine said: "What we need for the general public to come around to seeing it this way, even temporarily enough to look at the whole-case picture (storyline, argument) are facts that point to questions that for whatever reason. Of course people need to draw their own conclusions. But the questions are never answered by those in authority and who have the duty to answer them, in cases such as these.

"Staying low key and objective, while pointing out the money, the sealing of documents, the lack of the chain of evidence, no surveillance videos being released, the man in the police car who was never heard from again and all the anomalies and conflicting stories and evidence, should win anyone objectively to ask questions of why there are no answers which fit all details of those areas of questions and others"


Remember the Pentagon Papers: released 40 years later, regarding Vietnam and military (though it was, itself, a whitewash of the CIA involvement).

All right, that was a real and serious leak, reported formally at the time, so Sandy Hook does not compare.




Or does this book, which is Sandy Hook's most complete treatment as a drill event, compare to the suppression of the Pentagon Papers?

Sandy Hook is not about a total war, it is true. But we have public work (thinking, evidence assessment and so on) which shows the Sandy Hook events were (or could very well be) untrue, and that includes the work in this book which was suppressed ...

And we also have a commentary in an interview on radio, by Robert David Steele. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer. He is used to clandestine operations and drills, and he and many of his colleagues, he says, are convinced that Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon events were fraudulent -- and though Boston is not our topic here, he says the Marathon event claimed as a bombing was done for lockdown of the city, in Boston's case.

What else? To lock down subject matters for the mind.


Below, we will link to his interview.


Even if they believe it is disrespectful, is it a good book? What if even asking, is not disrespectful? Or are we allowed to ask things, even if we are wrong or being disrespectful?

Did someone give them a call? If the operation was a federal operation, not exactly illegal to do as a lie on the news, now, by the way, and was done to shock the nation with a lie -- though it is an immoral issue and should be illegal -- Amazon could also be threatened to be hauled into court or behind closed doors threatened if exposing "state secret" operations.

Again, the issue about Amazon is a separate issue, in a way, than whether Sandy Hook was a fraud, as presented to the public as real news.


The way things are going, there are too many loopholes for lies to be turned against you, not only in the USA.


Again, the public work (thinking, evidence assessment and so on) which shows the Sandy Hook events were untrue, includes this book which was suppressed, but we also have a commentary in an interview on radio, by Robert David Steele. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer.

Known for his promotion of  open source intelligence, having founded and published a blog called Public Intelligence Blog, he was even a candidate for the Reform Party's nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 presidential election.

Whatever you think of his formal politics, he was the kind of person who would know what drills are and be willing and able to say there was one as a clandestine operation gone live.


In a recent interview with Alex Jones of InfoWars, below (and at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYPrt4Hr8BI) Steele confirms, in gist, everything said by the authors in the book, about the Sandy Hook school massacre on December 14, 2012 (and the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013 — that they were false flag events).



(For his biography and media appearances, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele#Bibliography,
for his background information and information on his intelligence work, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_intelligence,
for his candidacy see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America,
and for his blog go to: http://www.phibetaiota.net/about).


But what makes him say this about Sandy Hook, at least? Is he mistaken? Read for yourself, for free now, at http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html!

Here is the book cover:









Thursday, 19 November 2015

Paris Attacks, Paris Schmattacks. Not every big event is a drill, but some are.

There was an exact drill taking place in Paris, France, the same day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8U0ymS2aKE
"The exact same scenario"

We will see that Wikipedia had a complete article within 2 hours when little information was available and most were not writing up coherent versions of it. A Twitter bot which mashes titles from different things came up with that event 2 days before. The blood was mopped (dragged in a roller-like, rectangular consistent thickness and in a somewhat similar way, around two groups of claimed dead), and the dead themselves show tell-tale suggestions that they were dummies. Silly idea? Not really now.

Check out the mopped blood, below.
No, really. Do. I won't put it here so you can actually continue reading all the rest of the info, even if the weird blood were not there, with other problems.

Fake event entirely, then? Merely a falseflag (lie) with people dead, but also real patsies? ISIS/related groups acting on their own but allowed to? ISIS/related groups acting on their own but with their ties to US and Turkish, Saudi, Qatar, UK and Israel, are they not still functioning in a convenient way for anti-Syria warmongering? Or none of that and just natural, from supposedly complete fanaticism?


Even if they were not falseflag events, we have to understand the background of what France is now hostage to, with Internet Censorship, civil fears and Islamophobia, plus warmongering for a

Who gave the matching Toyota convoy to ISIS/ISIL? And why was the convoy not bombed right away by drones? Right. Now we are talking. We know ISIS/ISIL is a splinter group from Al Qaeda, which itself contains dupes, fanatics and patsies as well as agents directly knowing of the agendas they are sent to radicalize. Okay, so the world is messy, and "we", with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, etc., all want to get Assad. He's the big bad guy of the world, right?


If ISIS/ISIL are funded and protected by "our side" for some reason, that is one thing http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-saudi-arabia-turkey-qatar-uk-france-usa/5490271. But even if so, they could have done the events in Paris directly, right?

France has been taken hostage by foreign wars, it seems. The events of Nov 13, 2015 will be famous. But what are the events? This article handle the main points of whether this was a falseflag without faking, a non-falseflag but how the groups blamed are controlled opposition, protected in a sense and whether as some have asked, it was a fake set of scenes in a city-wide spot-location drill. We will give a bit on each, and also remind people not to delve into grand inaccuracies about people where bigotry, hate arise.

And what was the event co-inciding with? Henry Kissinger's visit to Washington DC to promote the Free Trade (not Fair Trade) agreement called TPP or TPPA, and they kind of bumped that news item, did they not?

.

But I have veered into something away from the attacks themselves exactly, whatever they were.

What are bigotry and hate? They always seem justified, for one, when people begin toward the tendencies. But it's a lack of total perspective using one perspective only: we need to look at each person as being a mix of moments, reactions, training, ideas, abilities and changeable circumstances. Yes, certain texts in all religions -- just as science sureties -- can make a person stuck on one concept about a concept. So can economic situations and choices along the way in life. But really, most people are a mix of reactions in a lifetime, and not categorizable completely.

When we use sometimes-useful ideas to over predict what people are capable of becoming, limiting them, then we are being bigoted. We want to be aware and wise about them ... no matter what we do know about tendencies they probably have under some circumstances, from an upbringing we know about.

So, what  about those foreign wars and considerations? An excellent commentary is here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189300.html


However, here, we will have to cover not only some of what that author discussed, but motor on, understanding more and more about the events themselves.


Okay, if they were real events for a moment:

5 Myths Regarding the Paris Terror Attacks

As usual, the politicos and talking heads are all talking their own book, using the Paris terror attacks to push their own agendas.
As shown below, they’re spouting nonsense.

Mass Surveillance Won’t Help

The NSA and other spy agencies are pretending that the Paris attacks show that we need more mass surveillance.
But the New York Times correctly points out in a scathing editorial that mass surveillance won’t help to prevent terrorism:
As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.
In fact, indiscriminate bulk data sweeps have not been useful. In the more than two years since the N.S.A.’s data collection programs became known to the public, the intelligence community has failed to show that the phone program has thwarted a terrorist attack. Yet for years intelligence officials and members of Congress repeatedly misled the public by claiming that it was effective.
In reality, top security experts agree that mass surveillance makes us MORE vulnerable to terrorists.
Indeed, even the NSA has previously admitted that it’s collecting too MUCH information to stop terror attacks.

Encryption Isn’t What Made Us Vulnerable

The spy agencies are also pretending that encryption made it impossible to stop the attacks.
But Tech Dirt notes:
Most of the communications between the attackers was conducted via unencrypted vanilla SMS:
“…News emerging from Paris — as well as evidence from a Belgian ISIS raid in January — suggests that the ISIS terror networks involved were communicating in the clear, and that the data on their smartphones was not encrypted.
European media outlets are reporting that the location of a raid conducted on a suspected safe house Wednesday morning was extracted from a cellphone, apparently belonging to one of the attackers, found in the trash outside the Bataclan concert hall massacre. Le Monde reported that investigators were able to access the data on the phone, including a detailed map of the concert hall and an SMS messaging saying “we’re off; we’re starting.” Police were also able to trace the phone’s movements.
The reports note that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the “mastermind” of both the Paris attacks and a thwarted Belgium attack ten months ago, failed to use any encryption whatsoever (read: existing capabilities stopped the Belgium attacks and could have stopped the Paris attacks, but didn’t). That’s of course not to say batshit religious cults like ISIS don’t use encryption, and won’t do so going forward. Everybody uses encryption. But the point remains that to use a tragedy to vilify encryption, push for surveillance expansion, and pass backdoor laws that will make everybody less safe — is nearly as gruesome as the attacks themselves.

7 of the 8 Terrorists Were Known to U.S. or French Intelligence Agencies

Just as with 9/11, the Boston marathon bombings, and other recent attacks, governments are pretending “it wasn’t foreseeable”.
But CBS reports that law enforcement sources say that 7 of the 8 terrorists were known in advance to U.S. or French intelligence services.
The New York Times confirms:
Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers lived only hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists.

Escalating War Against ISIS Is Not the Only Option

I’m all for killing members of ISIS.
But given that the U.S. and its close allies – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Bahrain – are massively supporting ISIS, stopping the arming, feeding and logistical support is even more important if we want to stop these crazies.

None of the Terrorists Were Syrian

None of the Paris terrorists were Syrian. All of them were European nationals.
The German Interior Minister suggests that the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terror attacks was a “false flag” by ISIS meant to force countries to seal their borders against further refugees.
Why would they do this? Numerous security experts suggest that refugees fleeing ISIS’ “Caliphate” is a PR disaster for ISIS. After all, happy fundamentalist Muslims wouldn’t flee utopia, would they?
But we do take the risk of infiltration of refugee groups by terrorists very seriously. Indeed, the Telegraph reports today:
The mastermind of the Paris attacks was able to slip into Europe among Syrian migrants, it emerged last night, as police on the continent admitted they are unable to monitor thousands of suspected jihadists.
***
It has emerged that Abaaoud, and at least two of the Paris terrorists took the migrant route via Greece, intensifying fears that terrorists are able easily to exploit the refugee crisis to get to Europe.
Specifically, many of the Paris terrorists were European nationals who went to fight for ISIS in Syria, and then they slipped in with the refugees coming from Syria to get back into Europe.
So those saying that the civilians fleeing war and mayham in Syria are all terrorists are wrong … but so are those saying that the massive refugee flow poses no danger.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/5-myths-regarding-the-paris-terror-attack.html#more-51371



Yet we are here to present some indications that the event was not real, as in, it was not even some organized plot from abroad, though persons linked now to it in some way -- part of a drill or knowing, or just inconvenient or caught in the police intensity of blame.

What if they were a falseflag event just because ISIS is in some sense created and supported in some ways by outsiders?

"Bandera Falsa means False Flag in Spanish and Benderas Verda means True Flags in Spanish. The history of ISIS is outlined on the left. Image credit here: https://terlinguatradewinds.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/isis-bandera-falsa-banderas-verdaderas-false-flag-true-flags

The important article on this issue, with the text (especially if you are not English and need to get a public translator service to translate it), is http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-saudi-arabia-turkey-qatar-uk-france-usa/5490271

Okay, that is one option for the Paris attacks, that they were real, from ISIS, but ISIS is in a sense unreal. But then the participants could be real radicals from ISIS, without full knowledge of what their higher-ups are tied to. And the people shot now as part of the ring would be still not in the know, necessarily.

Or they could be, literally, drills, while some participants could be real radicals.

Mopped "blood":

One thing we will show is that the claimed blood was mopped or rollered around the bodies in nice neat swathes, on the concert hall floor.


Another is that bodies show possible incongruities in the right ways to be dummies on that floor. Also, a cafe shooter scene seems too neat outside, maybe. Plus, Wikipedia had extensive articles (one main article was captured) shortly after the events, whatever they really were, even as news agencies were still scrambling for some basic information! And a Twitter "bot", or automatic news feed picked up something, it seems, from some early source for the drill, if it was a drill, gone live. Finally, we can mention once, for an interesting correlate piece of evidence to marshal toward the idea, that we might also want to remember how nicely symbolic the events of November 13, 2015 were: they were a Friday the 13th event and the number 11/13 is quite handy for those who like so-called occult number usage.

Don't those blood smears seem odd?! Just as one item, would that not make you wonder, if you were open to wondering at all?

And does this look real to you?




Okay, it's low resolution. But have you seen people look like this, really, in photos? Don't they usually look inexplicably different? It's not something one can put into words, exactly. Nor is any piece of evidence exact in a case -- remember, we have to accept evidence as factual or part of a case because of the rest of the case, each part accepted for a moment.

But ... if the event was really a complex set of false flag behaviour *and fake* (not all false flags are entirely without dead) ...

... we are then beginning to make a wild, flaky claim, right? Or are some people quite capable of sniffing out a problem before others do? Both could be true, depending on the case, so we will have to see in this case what crops up.


We might want to look at whether there is a motive to fake the event.


First:

Just for a moment, remember that for those who really do believe in terror as a major threat to "The West", and who want to manage assets for the rich, there really is a motive to change public opinion and get in "mob control" laws, lowering people's general civil freedoms.

Former CIA directors talk openly about this, below:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-cia-directors-talk-terror-threats-in-showtime-documentary-spymasters

Of course, that does not mean a particular event is or is not a set-up affair, especially one which does not maybe kill anyone at all at first.

Nor is that discussion above something which is presented with doubts about the threats at all, under any circumstance created by them. But the idea that there would have to be more to move public opinion, naturally, let us say, is in there.

Wait, you may say -- if you are new to this kind of thing. Hundreds of people cannot be faked and even if they could, the amount of people who would have to know and families disrupted and so on is utterly ludicrous? Well, no, it actually breaks down into manageable items to think about, if you bother. So the real issue would be whether the evidence that it was fake, actually is piling up. We will get to your possible worries about numbers of people paid off, in witness protection, killed or names fake, later.

Second, some background on ISIS, Assad, Muslim terrorism as a huge grouping rather than smaller and local fanatics or nationalists, and intelligence services.


Did he murder all of his people with gas as they said? No, that was Saudi radicalizers and spy chief, with a little help from their friends. Before you balk, go look into it. (http://tarpley.net/docs/20130915-ISTeams-Ghouta-Report.pdf). Is Assad's regime great? No. But do they (or did they) have the most tolerant largely Muslim nation in the region? Yes. Are they (or were they) developing? Yes. And do they have a natural route for pipelines and many natural resources to steal, if possible? Yes.

More information on how ISIS was created by funding and still received bombs this year, 2015, for some of its escapades, will follow the information on Paris. But it is worth knowing that in a sense, though there are fanatics, dupes and patsies in the major groups (such as the bunch called Al Qaeda), who are bussed in for events and really do fight, that in another sense they do not exist, on their own. They are controlled, funded, arranged in their major groupings. Even the UK former British Foreign Secretary, who has to know some things -- though he would not know all -- said so. But we can know in other ways, too.


He died a week after giving this speech.

Anyway, even if there were really some major threat which was totally, completely indigenous to Muslim world politics, we have Paris to get to.

So, we are back to the issue of getting Assad.


Assuming the events were real, or not, we can begin to understand the situation in Paris as a co-ordinated or at least used event, because of the following agendas discussed beautifully here:



Someone should translate that into French.

And here is something on the "Charlie Hebdo" events:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/je-suis-cia/5425118


Are the Syrian leaders in general, pan-Arabists, that is, modernizers as much as possible, yes, given what goes on in the general area around them. But Saudis are not: they are the most reactionary regime. Why not go after them?

Again, yes, the world is messy, but isn't it messier to give over to those who plan it all for their own benefit and dupe their intelligence services, or use bigotries within those services, to do geopolitical lying and deflection from their own stealing? Yes. As such, Senator John McCain supports radical groups (including ISIS leaders) but then they go "wild", right? Not really. Maybe a bit. But they're tied to support.






Okay. We are on the same general page now, of what may be going on in the region, just may be going on, despite actual backwardisms among some people of Muslim or other religions around the world?



Now on to the Paris events:





Of course some people will say the detailed reports of Twitter and Wikipedia below are the fakes, or because they can think up some doubt, that doubt fits fully. But have a look below.


And what of the wide, smeared blood on the theatre, concert hall floor? Is that from dragging a body? If there were that much blood for real, where is the massive pool of it? And why so perfect? Don't legs drag differently and arms, and so on?

Or the fact dummies fit the look of the bodies there, even if not exactly determinable from the photos?

Here's a "taste" of the issue.
Oh and remember: no scenes are available of the Sandy Hook victims or even the classroom shooting area, or Osama Bin Laden's body (the one available is truly widely known as a fake: the crop line between Osama's face and a slightly decomposed corpse body is quite clear if you look). But I digress.



The mopping or spreading or dragging of supposed blood is around both little groupings in the top center. Why move people all around? Why are other large smears not there if they could ever be natural?

Yet there is more. (See point 2 below.)


Does that mean the victim names are all fake? No. Exaggerated name list would be used, but some real ones could go into a Witness Protection program all for the good of "getting Assad and ISIS" in Syria, and others could have -- just could have -- been killed as a convenient aspect to get rid of a few that "the government" did not like, or contractor businesses, or banking money laundering drug and arms dealers, or whatever.



1.
Wikipedia and Twitter

You and I know (don't we?) that for a drill, things go out before sometimes, and there was no problem until someone decides to pretend the thing is real.

Wikipedia had an article up within 2 hours which was extensive.


Not only that, but we now have that mopped or rollered blood, so an early, detailed, nearly complete Wiki page when most news services didn't know what was going on yet fully, is more than fishy. In fact, without the blood and the rest I will cover here, it still was higly improbable or even impossible to have such a wonderful Wiki page up.

In fact, though there is not outside proof right now (unless the ISP and version links are still working when you click on them in the article below), the author of the following article commented on all the previous versions of the article, some of them quite early, and has traced the server identification (ISP) of the author of that article, to a company in the UK.

For a drill and/or a lying terror plot -- even when using dupes or patsies for real harm -- many persons are involved professionally, some of them believing in the cause. So we need not worry about how "so many would help". Also, this is true inside intelligence services, which are themselves embedded into industries and which run shell company industries. Let us not stumble on why a large group would help, be trained, be confused as well through compartmentalization, and agree or be scared later to say something.

It is not a fair objection though it seems always like a good one to start.

Twitter, too, has a bot which picked up a news-feed, it seems, a day early.

http://bosniapress.info/index.php/news-in-english-articles/2459-paris-attack-reported-on-wikipedia-and-twitter-before-it-happened


This Twitter tweet was still up when I checked it also on the 18th. People had replied but no-one had gotten back to them. It turns out the account is a "bot", a "newsfeed". If someone had planted this to make conspiracy theorists look bad -- I mean no pejorative in the term "conspiracy theorists", but just a technical description of those who study corruption and possible corruption by two or more persons, and thus explain it, with a case theory -- then yes, it could have been back-dated. However, as a bot, it also would have picked up an early and mistaken drill notice which would have been taken down elsewhere. The item is not conclusive, but it is highly suggestive, thus, evidence toward the idea of a drill.




2.
The Concert Hall event:

The concert hall, with a roller or mop shape, having smeared the blood. We saw that but let us refresh our memories.

Wild. But there are also some things about bodies and dummies one should know. We also know that dummies can sometimes look fine, and humans, contrarily, look odd, when thrown, broken or beaten. Yet there are some again detailed reasons to suspect dummies are in the concert hall. -- This comes in a context, though, of course: the general reasons to suspect a terror drill and cover-up, plus the more direct evidence marshalled, in spite of objections, that the blood was smeared implausibly, plus the quick Wiki and the odd identity of the poster on Wiki, and the Twitter bot, in addition to a rather okay-looking cafe scene.

Here's someone pointing out that though people go into odd positions when blasted, all persons and some legs (flat) specifically look fake, and one face:
http://nodisinfo.com/dead-people-france-concert-theater-dummies-not-real-humans

We get a close-up face shot suddenly, when in other events we generally do not? And how does it look? Compare the dummy above with the claimant for a victim head at the event?




The next dummy is not bad, except those flat legs, right? Hands don't quite do the trick. Then look at many of the legs in the claimed victim scene -- some (not all, of course, since angles of view and happenstance of clothing and position can make a dummy look less or more realistic).




The first there looks pretty flat. So does the one just above this text. Okay, so maybe we have dummies. But here is another oddity: the pelvis. Yes, legs get thrown, yes, upper legs can break. But then would there not be some who lost their limbs? Remember Boston Marathon -- oh pardon me, no, don't, since a tiny bomb was supposed to have gone off, complete with schrapnel but nowhere near these amounts of dead, nowhere near this blood, not quickly or shooting from the bodies. I digress.


Yes I do understand that a) dummies can look natural, and that b) humans can look somewhat unnatural. But these claimed victim people and their neat swathes of supposedly dragged blood, just do have the features of dummy use, within even higher probability, given the blood weirdness and the type of event we know this could be.




 


3.
The subdued-looking Cafe Scene event:
Here's a good video on the rather fake-looking, or possibly fake looking cafe scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_QH0WkBeP0


The Russia Today coverage had it originally as an event from a "suicide bomber" and now has been downgraded to "shooter". The videomaker did not know that at the time. But even chaos from a shooter would not likely leave such neatly overturned chairs outside, though, with a few pieces of clothing, no major damage to coffee cups: the thing *looks* fake. Is it?

The scene looks at least highly implausible even for the shooter idea.

Russia Today originally got the information it was a suicide bomber and reported it as such: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1466416557&feature=iv&src_vid=t_QH0WkBeP0&v=9dqiTMP_mQk

The chairs and non-chaotic external look are far from normal for even such an event where 4 people supposedly died, many would have rushed out and so on. Only a few neat clothes are strewn and a couple of chairs are overturned outside, not even messily. Coffee cups and the table are fine at the end of the restaurant. Yes it is not by the door, so had people left their coffees before the event? Moreover, had no-one rushed by the table to break a cup? Not certainly, but initially it might be more likely that people would have upturned those at some point?
The general impression is not one of chaos. Given the Wiki quick article which was so thorough, tied to a UK company ISP, and the concert hall "blood" and "bodies" questions, even a Twitter bot's picking up of a news item early, supposedly, and the general "need" to have such things to move mass opinion, I think the cafe scene, though not conclusive, is evidence toward the hypothesis conclusion.





Chairs were neatly stacked but upended, on one side and this side is so neat and tidy. Of course that's outside. And from the angle where, though bullets went flying, people had a nice easy time leaving their coffee cups here without upending tables. And no-one later happened to throw them over. This is possible, actually, but less likely given the context.

The videomaker points out the forensics team -- which might really be one, in training, by the way, even if this were a drill -- is chewing gum and smoking ... but that's actually outside. Sure, they do not look too busy, in general, but it's been only a few hours since the event. I'm sure there is no rush, no panic, no emotion for anyone. Heck, there are not even that many people freaking out, looking around, etc., waving people away. Yes, there was officially a lockdown, but come on: are there ever totally calm streets?

Again, yes, there are, sometimes. In very commercial districts, where no-one lives, or even on some streets where people live, all is quiet late at night. But not with true terror going on.

Not generally, I would think.

The overall event just doesn't feel right, after that mopped blood and early, detailed, nearly complete Wiki pages when most news services didn't know what was going on yet fully.


Oops!


------------------------

Okay, here is some more summary detail on ISIS, through images:




Corey Haim and Corey Feldman: exposing VIP Pedophiles in US Hollywood


I write to expose issues of controversy.

In order to expose pedophile networks and isolated pedophiles in any industry, we need to acknowledge the ways people do and do not get named or exposed, so to speak. That is what conspiracy theory tells us: the explanatory theory of human cover-up of corruption, or positing that there is one when there is no official bold statement to confirm it (even when there are officials who do, without fanfare).

Hollywood examples of abuse using sex (or money, drugs, threats) are one set of example. Also, I briefly knew Corey Haim in Junior High School, where he was still going between school and the Hollywood industry, though he did not stay in my school after that. I knew and liked him and from that, some bullies put him up to something which was probably not serious and mean from him, but which affected me badly, as part of a general problem from the others (social abuse). Anyway, I knew him for a few months. RIP Corey and all other abuse victims of all kinds who have died.

I have been wanting to post for some time on the issue at hand, that of Hollywood pedophiles of all kinds and levels of power. I will also cover, below, some other pedophilia issues from Hollywood and elsewhere which are written about well. However, a woman who goes by a pseudonym from a Donovan song, made an issue of the Haim and Feldman case the other day on Facebook. It reminded me of the issue and also pointed me to a photo I had seen but not remembered at the time, nor thought about. She wants credit for that, so though I originally thought she didn't, I am adding this paragraph now. She also believes as some people have for some time, https://www.datalounge.com/thread/13852083-that-rumour-about-charlie-sheen-fucking-corey-haim-on-the-set-of-lucas-, that Charlie Sheen may have been the one to start the abuse effects for Corey.

Even if that is not so, and it was a casting agent or whatever, on the film set, the issue is one which involves power and abuse.

So we will look at this particular case for a moment, and give some general links (for the US, not Britain or elsewhere, right now).

Corey Feldman came out about multiple abusers in Hollywood, and specifically about the horrors his friend Corey Haim went through, and he himself went through. He now says others want him dead. The National Enquirer and other places in the more "mainstream" mass news media did not ignore the story, and yet do not name the "main" abuser of Corey. Where is the court trial? Indeed.

I study conspiracy; that means of all kinds: corruption and cover-up as cases, potential or determinable, but usually socially denied, or denied by the courts. This means I am interested in spreading more awareness of how such things work.

In Haim's case, the mother officially got angry about the revelations. She claimed it was "too personal", causing it to be even easier for the news media to comment in some places that maybe the public is not ready, but some of them still compiled a few cases from courts, at least. Was she "to blame" for the reluctance in the media? Not exactly, no. But wishful thinking is easier when a family member, innocently having privacy feelings or knowingly, fearfully, does not want something to come out.

Was Haim's mother more fearful than private? One line of reasoning suggests as much.

Again, it is said that Haim's mother did not want Feldman to talk of the abuse Haim underwent, for she said so and she kind of put down Feldman in the news media.

Actually, the opposite may be true.

Maybe she was on board with Corey Feldman's writing the book and that Corey Haim, himself wanted Feldman to write the book on his behalf? Could Judy Haim, Corey's mother have wanted Feldman to stop the process of the book only because she feared for her own life -- just as now Feldman has said he does, too, fear for his own life?


This picture was posted here: https://twitter.com/Corey_Feldman/status/375190567157637120/photo/1 in a Tweet in Sept 2013.

The actual date of the photo is unknown but the context of his tweet message was that someone asked him if he had been to the grave recently. The question was from a Lorrie Singleton (identification address: @lorrie7794) on Sept 4th, 2013. The reply was on the same day.





Reply date seen at bottom of tweet by Feldman, below.



And a final note about this tweet, only tangentially: on the Twitter account itself, we can see that now, at least, in November of 2015, Feldman allies himself with "Truth Movement", of some kind. In today's general jargon, clearly that means conspiracy truth, which he has dared somewhat to speak out about, at least about pedophiles and that particular cover-up, or shall we say, fear and abuse.




The book would have come out just under two months later, at the very end of October, as we see below from the Feldman Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_Feldman (in the "Later Life" section). See the second paragraph shown in the image below.

If the visit to the grave was from within a year before the posted tweet, he would have been working on -- or even finished -- the book when the photo was taken. Did she know the contents? Maybe so.



It was months before the book was to be released. So the mother may or may not have known the contents of the book, I have to say (from my lack of direct knowledge of the situation, or direct evidence from any place), and if the picture was after the book came out, her anger -- feigned or real -- was then obviously not enough to stop a reconciliation. I have to be complete in my reasoning here, since my purpose is not slander or total conjecture, but to present the issues I have been made acquainted with.

Is Haim's mother no angel herself, allowing her son to be molested and do nothing about it? Or did she not know until later?

Officially she was shocked at the book, though either way, in the end truly, the mother of Haim just didn't want it out. Had she really felt that Haim's secret should not come out, it still remains true that Feldman was trying to expose Hollywood pedophiles, not his friend, personally. But the closeness shown above, between Feldman and Haim's mother suggests that maybe she knew of the book and approved. Technically speaking, however, we can only conclude at least that she may have known of the contents or not. The following report is of her statements about the book, her disapproval of it, at least officially, and whether in fear or in true disgust as she indicates publicly she felt, the article does cover her statements.

http://globalnews.ca/…/corey-haims-mother-lashes-out-at-cor…
Corey Haim’s mother lashes out at Corey Feldman and his new memoir.





Article with multiple Hollywood known pedophiles listed, though the list is completely incomplete.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/…/hollywood-child-sex-abuse… One person was "exposed" here. No naming so no criminal inquiry to push for publicly. Yet they can say "anything about anybody". Ha.

Hollywood Child Sex Abuse Cover-Up Exposed! - The National Enquirer

And Feldman claims he was abused, too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Corey-Feldman-claims-molested-…
Corey Feldman said abusers want him dead

Feldman's original video interview did not say he was molested, just that Haim was, and he did not name names ever, I understand.


And I knew Corey somewhat in Junior High. He did not go to High School, but in Junior High, he was going between school in Canada and a show in Hollywood. He was a bit older than I was. RIP Corey.


Again, in order to expose pedophile networks and isolated pedophiles in any industry, we need to acknowledge the ways people do and do not get named or exposed, so to speak. Hollywood examples are one set of example.

For better information on Hollywood's link to murder and pedophilia and other sex crimes and crimes, see David McGowan's work on Laurel Canyon. The whole original Website pages are cached here (in a mirror site), with pictures.
http://informationfarm.blogspot.ca/2010/04/rue-story-of-laurel-canyon-and-birth-of.html

Support Dave by buying his book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122

And here is his amazing work about Serial Killers as a largely false stereotype, with Intelligence Services and other people's agendas playing into the killings and/or the cover-ups (also a book), for free. Note: though the title and the first chapter or two cover mind control programming, the main substance is not exactly about that. Terror (serial killers or otherwise) as a propaganda plot, that is, as a managed set of events, in some circumstances -- not always mind control for the direct victims, though that too, in some cases, plus slavery, pedophilia, rings of drug and money power -- again, terror is the main mind control here under discussion:
http://api.ning.com/files/a*iJ4*yS1qwASsL-kTZPqaZXpwdunGy2ikjpqYmLLZGrbcAtcBgltwBImv5haO*U2D*Iq0MtRT5tfwXPakb7a5*MqLx6BrdW/DavidMcGowanProgrammedtoKill.pdf

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Paul is Dead and Kubrick's The Shining, plus Clockwork Orange

Kubrick's (and King's) "The Shining" as the Largest Artistic Tribute to the idea of the Death of Paul McCartney,

and "A Clockwork Orange" film as having a scene related to the rumour for the case for Paul is Dead

Paul McCartney of the Beatles is dead, has been dead since late 1966, according to the most famous mystery in rock and roll history.

For whatever reason, the rumour originated early and in the right place for a real death. Was it then a hoax from the Beatles, but early, or a real death? We do not need to know for sure, to continue with this article.

Though some people have for some time noticed something about PID (Paul is Dead) is in "The Shining", they missed that it is, in large part about PID, and was, too, in the novel (though with differences in portrayal and in how other themes weave in).

------------------------------------

Dedication:
To Jonnys53, magnificent unofficial scholar of "The Shining" film, whose main blog article I reproduce below, in tribute and for scholarly comparison, as well as a kind of archiving. He gives too many things for me to make mention of, in my main thesis, but which flesh out the main point here (as well as some other very interesting things).
&
To the several forum posters listed in my article, for drawing my attention to the hidden car and thus prompting me to look up the film scholarship, find Jonnys53's work, and be able to assess the whole film, rather than one scene. Also interesting is some of the material at http://overlaphotel.blogspot.ca/2013/06/stanley-kheprik.html
&
Rutheria Matheos, whose comments on "A Clockwork Orange" film gave additional interest to this article.





The 1977 Stephen King novel (and from it, the 1980 Stanley Kubrick film) "The Shining" was, at least in *some way*, and at least in the title, inspired by John Lennon, the leader of the band "The Beatles". The title comes from ruminations on "We all shine on/ Like the Moon and the stars and the Sun" in Lennon's 1970 "Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)" song. Stephen King discusses this about his novel, in Underwood, Tim; Chuck Miller (1988). Bare Bones: Conversations in Terror with Stephen King'. McGraw-Hill. p. 125. ISBN 9780446390576.

Even on the surface, on the face of it (*prima facie*), this makes little sense without the idea that something in Beatles history -- even a rumour as part of the history -- was playing on the mind of the novelist. Why?

*Who* shines on? Who is a ghost who continues? The boy? The father? Maybe in a sense, both. Who? Of course "shining" is several things; it differs significantly between the novel and the film, the main student of the film discovered. His name is Jonnys53, and he is not accredited but should be. He compiled -- without Paul's death as a theme -- a mountain of evidence that the film is not only about alcoholism, craziness, etc., but is primarily,if often subtly ("hidden"), about:

a) doppelgangers (a projection of self through telekinesis as well as ESP), not ghosts and a haunted hotel, as was in the novel (though the novel raised the idea of doppelgangers and double VW Beetles), not merely of the famous "twins" who were added to the film and were not twinned in the novel
b) mistaken identity and time confusion (in the final imagery)
c) apocalypse in culture and in mass manipulation
d) strange number usages, particularly of mirrored and doubled numbers, those being 12, 24, 21, 42, doubling also appearing as 1 in 2 and 2 in 1, and other numbers, particularly 4 three times and three VW Beetles, not two, unlike in the novel and in most of the rest of the film, which is almost obsessive about doubles in every way, so 3 Beetles seems to be significant, though Jonnys53 does not know why
e) inversion, a reversal, change in every area of the novel versus the film, at least wherever the novel's themes could still be maintained overall
f) reality versus unreality as a theme (including in the deleted scenes, which seemingly were taken out not because they were *bad* but because audiences seemed to scoff at the manner of the liar character in the scene)

What is "shining" in the novel? It seems to be a hauntedness, a ghostly situation, plus alcohol addiction as taking away from a true nature of a person. (King suffered from alcoholism himself and worked it into the story.) But what is the idea of the novel? A murderous person, yes, but also a connection between a boy and his father, where the father and he almost switch identities. The boy dreams of an accident his father was in, but the mother assures the boy that no such accident occurred. The boy is "faceless" -- in a clever way -- in the mother's memory of him, yet also he has intense abilities of some special kind and a deep connection (emotional, plus even identity wise), to his father. The family travels in a Volkswagen Beetle (to highlight the similarity to the name of the Beatles band), and there are, in fact *two* Beetles; the family gets to the haunted situation, the horror, the events to be remembered in their lives, in a *replacement* Beetle.

This only scratches the surface of similarities between the novel and even more the film, and the Paul McCartney death rumour, whereby in 1966 (we now know) the rumour started in the UK (England), getting famous by 1969 in the USA.



Lennon sings of not merely "shining" or being shiny, pretty, but shining on, as a soul power in a way.

So who "shines *on*" in the stories (the novel and film have different stories, slightly)?

The Lennon song talks of shining on -- through age or death, presumably. Lennon was likely talking of all of us, hoping also in life after death, though it is uncertain. But in the novel and film, if there is *extensive use* of PID themes, who is shining *on* in them?

It would be, transformed into a very different story, that Paul shined on, or his double (not a literal double) did -- at least as an idea. The stories do not mimic this, but play with the idea, we argue.


Often called a hoax and little known in accurate detail until recent years, the rumour of Paul's death states that the current Sir Paul McCartney is a somewhat or very talented man, but not Paul McCartney and that Paul himself died, now almost 50 years ago, in September 1966 (though mistakenly dated November by some). If it is correct, somehow, then Paul died more than twice his lifetime ago. He would have lived only until the end of Beatlemania, at age 24 and a half, in September 1966.

Paul does not have to have died for you to understand the art history work in this article. We do have to fill you in, though, on what the rumour contained, and -- however silly or crazy it seems on its face and might be, as we start into it -- what the case is broadly about, so that you can understand whether it was something Kubrick and King were using to base major thematic changes and content on, in their works both titled "The Shining".

Why? You would need to know what to look for, in great amounts and in highlighted aspects of the novel and film, if the idea of Paul's death, even from the rumour, is present in a major way (or a minor way) in the novel and film, of course.

Note: for those who have heard of or watched various disinformation (or mistaken) and joke materials on the Paul death case, such as the film, "The Last Testament of George Harrison" (2010), please put those out of your mind. We will be doing art historical work, but where we do have to fill the reader in on the Paul death case position, whatever its merits or not, we will only use high-end materials, ones without very misleading re-edits of people's voices (such as was done in an interview used in the Harrison spoof film), ones without utterly inaccurate claims (such as in that film as well), and so on. We will also be mentioning that the rumour dates from late 1966 in the UK itself (from 4 or 5 sources now known and mentioned with details, in a video I did, which is listed much further down); it did not date from 1969 USA college students. It got big in 1969-1970 in the USA.

The film as Mystery genre, rather than Horror alone


But first, the film is, according to Johnnys53's findings and the main female actress in the film, a *mystery* to be solved.

Shelly Duvall, the main female actor in the film, said so, we will see.

Here is Duvall and the fan commenter about the famous deleted scene -- or scenes, since there was a bit of another scene than the main one which was deleted. It was probably the most famous deleted scene in film history.


http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting/shining/hospital.html:
Shelley Duvall (1981) - (In Michel Ciment's Kubrick: The Definitive Edition)
He cut out the final sequence of the film after several days in the theatres.
I think he was wrong, because the scene explains some things that are obscure for the public, like the importance of the yellow ball and the role of the hotel manager in the plot [...] And he [Ullman, the hotel manager] pulls from his pocket the yellow ball that the twins had thrown at Danny. It bounces twice (we spent a whole day filming so it would bounce the right way), Danny catches it, looks at it, then lifts his eyes towards the hotel manager, stupefied, realizing that throughout the story he was aware of the mystery of the hotel. There was a Hitchcockian side to this resolution, and you know that Kubrick was crazy about Hitchcock.

[Note the two bounces for the ball, only particularly notable because we have Duvall's testimony that it was *very deliberately produced and difficult to produce nicely*, and because also there is context for this emphasis on the idea of a human double or doubled items. The number two -- in objects, actions, colours, visual demonstration of the numeral, etc. -- is very important in the film, we will see.]
[...]
 
Martin Cannon (mcannon@instanet.com)
But yeah, the excised scene occurred directly after the shot of Jack on ice. The scene is set in a hospital. Danny is recovering, and Barry Nelson explains to Shelley Duvall that people simply can't take the isolation, and that's why Jacko went wacko. From now on, we're told, the Overlook will be completely shut down during winter. I seem to recall that he also made some smug comment about the how Shelley must have been hallucinating toward the end.
Nelson's smarmy CSICOP-ian rationale for all that we had seen evinced more than a few chuckles from the audience. (I saw the film at the Chinese in Hollywood, on opening day.) Presumably, unwanted laughter led to the snippage.
[For those reading this page in foreign languages, using an automatic translation service from the Internet, the "CSICOP-ian" word does not break down as follows: CSI = "Crime Scene Investigation", a TV show name, COP = cop, a nickname for police, -ian = a suffix, an ending, indicating a "type within a group", an "instance within a group". It refers instead to "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal", which is sometimes represented as overly resistant to the idea of Paranormal events, a bit uncareful to let evidence for paranormal reality to build, and rather to cut down (*ad hoc*, so to speak) the evidence.]

Would you find the movie more mysterious with or without a scene where something real was indicated? Without the scene, we are left wondering, yes, whether any of it was real, but how many of us wonder *what, specifically, was real or happening*? Perhaps too few, and that is why an intellectual approach helps us for this film, Johnnys53 discovered. We will see what he discovered and why it also fits the PID (Paul is Dead) thesis, perfectly -- with some acknowledgement that other tangents fit in too, but not overtaking the PID one.

Kubrick loved to make things obvious but only if you want to know a *subtext*. Danny is the main subject of the film, really. He is the only one who loves his father completely in the book and suffers at the hands of Jack, or a double, while remaining largely an innocent. He also (in the deleted scene) gets the proof that the events were *somehow* real.


Thus, even if you do *not* think these conspiracies happened, Kubrick could be ruminating on them for a main theme, without having the other themes *not there at all*! So let us advance.



We are doing an art historical study.


Art History and Sneaky or Special Symbols


For most of this article, we will be doing art history work.

Sure, doing the intellectual work might sound "unreal" in a way, even if these things are truly there -- and even if they really were true conspiracy cases. Of course it sounds stupid to look at clues or hidden meanings in art -- to some -- or implausible. Just as the conspiracy claims themselves can seem to some.

But it is quite ordinary to note that some art has a lot of thematic references in it.

Take this book on "Secrets and Symbols" in Renaissance Art, for example (an area I did my University studies on, partly):


The book is available at:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/188735459X

(Though the book is by art historian Clare Gibson, it is not I, though, yes, I have the same spelling in my first name.) She (and I) studied Mediaeval and Renaissance art and Modern art in University. She was at King's College, London and works as a writer, translator and editor. (I was at the University of Toronto, did not pursue a Ph.D., deliberately, and I did not major in art alone; I also studied other aspects of the Middle Ages and Ancient, Classical world in an interdisciplinary degree.) According to Gibson's biographical stub at her publisher's Web page, she "specialises in symbolism, art history and genealogy [and] has previously written four other books on signs, symbols and icons." (http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/clare-gibson#sthash.kXj403uz.dpuf)
She specialises in symbolism, art history and genealogy. She has previously written four other books on signs, symbols and icons. - See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/clare-gibson#sthash.kXj403uz.dpuf
She specialises in symbolism, art history and genealogy. She has previously written four other books on signs, symbols and icons. - See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/clare-gibson#sthash.kXj403uz.dpuf



Art historical work does involve other disciplines, though, for understanding what the ideas are we are wondering if the artist was using. For example, in PID (Paul is Dead), we have to know enough about the PID case to determine if its themes are in here. We may need: political science and history, psychology and neuroscience, to some degree, about people's self-deceptions and how others deceive them as well, and need some understanding of any forensic questions (that includes technological knowledge to some degree, if the issue is something such as Apollo as a hoax or JFK's death or even photo doctoring in PID).

Why? Again, we must recognize what things the artist might include from the ideas of the case. Some artists might include mere passing reference to some Beatle clue or something like that; others might -- even if it is a flawed case -- include the ideas from that particular crime case.


But okay, did Kubrick (and even King) "sneak" messages into this film and novel? Moreover, are the messages about conspiracies -- used as a technical term, to mean actions by groups which are actions of a criminal or unpleasant nature or denied? If he did, does that mean they are *confirmed* by Kubrick, or could he be just ruminating on themes?

If he is ruminating on themes at all, how to prove it? One would need a preponderance of evidence and key areas of evidence, yes? Yes. And if King were, too, the same would have to be shown there.

That does not mean Paul has to have died for them to do so -- though with extensive ruminations, one might wonder if it happened and they knew.


Remember:

Kubrick and King could have heard the idea was true -- and not come out on a show to say, "Hey, it's weird and true!" Or they could have just ruminated on the events *as presented in the rumour itself*.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7dGdrP3pms "I heard it through the grapevine", Marvin Gaye, 1968.



But of course we will have to know what the Paul death conspiracy involves as something to ruminate on, in case King and Kubrick were ruminating on that rumour *for any reason*, and put it into their works, in different media, titled "The Shining".

Do not worry, we will fill you in on the PID (Paul is Dead) claims, as well as the movie and film and other considerations of scholarship as we go along.

Plus, the reader will likely be curious about the Paul death claims and why something from a rumour would grip the minds of two top artists of the 20th century, if it did, something long thought to be *just a rumour started in 1969* in the USA by college students (though this is untrue, and it was not started in that year or by college students or on the North American continent).

So again, yes, we will weave back and forth between informing you just a bit about the Paul death position, case, idea, and the actual evidence in art historical terms that King and Kubrick used this issue in their works here. They could merely have heard the rumour, of course and thought it politically and culturally interesting.


You may be thinking it would be natural to show you the VW Beetles in the film and novel first, but let us start with something less certainly Beatles-related, when taken on its own ... something which shows how things can come into new consideration in a new context, without leaping to certainty from that new way of viewing the evidence marshalled. 

The Maze as double mirror and lateral X mirror


Let us turn to one aspect of the maze.

Later we will discuss the Mayan pyramids delineated, and the numbers, and Jonny's points about Apocalypse with some ideas of our own to add, but first, is it possible that knowing that a change or lie is at stake here, and we are thinking of Paul's death, can mean that the maze seen from on high is an imperfect -- there is a slight imperfection at centre -- again an imperfect and thus hinted double again?

It is vertically, horizontally and ... in another way mirrored or sketched. The non-vertical, non-horizontal way is not mirrored into the halves at the corners but inside, in the pyramidal cross, it is.


"Maya" in India means "illusion" as well as being the name of the tribe of Native Americans. Mazes are tricky, difficult, but are real.

And this maze has a Mayan pyramid in it. It also has crosses (indicating crossbars) above and below the main crossbar. And it has a centre line. Jonnys53 does not draw both out. Here is what I see as a possible overlay of meaning. Do you see it in a moment?

Jonnys53 shows this image second but I am showing it first. Remember there are crosses above and below the mid-section.. Johnny doesn't draw the horizontal crossbar fully.



Indeed it is temples. Sure. Yes. But ...
Jonny did not do the images together, so he missed it, the overlay. Though he wonderfully pointed out the maze is not exactly the same, so it is a *false mirror*, a false *double*, a wrong *doppelganger*, an *incorrect self*, a *replacement, which will not be exact*. That is true too. As he put it, "he reason I say, ‘nearly perfect depiction of 2 different mirror images’ is because you have to look at it very closely. There are variations he added across the center strip that destroy the continuity of the mirror image."
But when it is shown in lines and the vertical is there without the crossbar:


And if we combined the two:




Just if, maybe, it was intended. There is apocalypse (Mayan era change to be exact) in this image especially with the numbers we will see later and there is illusion (as "maya" in India), maybe, which fits the general theme of illusion in the film and for Paul's death case and rumour. But is there also a determined effort to put in a trick with the 3 of 4 Beatles into the British flag?
We will come back to this, but here is a 12 and it is 3 items like the Beetles (Volkswagens), an unusual choice in the movie which has many 2s. It is composed of 4s, like the Beatles band. 3 were left after Paul's death, if the rumour and case for the death are looked at.

Other numbers in the maze are made out of the hedges. They add, and are significant. But we will just note the interesting 4s for the moment.


Three 4s are done as light in shadow, an inversion of the way other numbers are found in the hedges themselves. We will not come to the other numbers until later.







Jonnys53 goes into the numbers and the mirroring up, down and in another way, and we will give his material below. He is not tracking the Paul death idea. But for now, let us note the 1 made out of 2 people, like the doppelgangers he found and other doublings we will note everywhere. And we have a 12 which becomes repeated throughout the movie, and here it is made of 4s, 3 times.

If Paul died, or, per the rumour anyway, there were 4 famous names for Beatles but there were really 3 remaining of the 4 you thought were there.

Let us note it as evidence marshalled, but not the most definite.

Even as apocalypse or *era-change*, whose "apocalypse" was the death of Paul? It was all of ours, culturally, for a huge lie was started which allowed many others to flourish. But also it was a British event, even if the US had a hand in the event.



I know you want to get to the evidence portions, or only look at filmic and novel evidence materials, but please bear with the actual text. You will need some of the concepts we cover as we go.


I am interrupting this article to remind people that just showing some Beetles in strange situations and so on, will not convince them if they do not know enough about how we should be wholistic -- neither rushing to one thing as "proof" (which is improper), nor bringing no background to a subject (which is not rabid prejudice but a certain amount of reasonable preparation).

 

Doubters and believers, interested persons and resistant persons should all be satisfied with this method. In no way do we want to find a *wrong pattern*, but we must know what pattern we seek and then compare the results to that pattern.

 

If it is a fairly close match and with some detail, as well, it is likely a correct pattern; but of course we do not do this utterly willfully nor do we want to be blind and miss it utterly on the other hand.


What general kinds of things suggest that PID is in "The Shining"?


To deal with the Kubrick issue itself, not with the issue of whether the lie he had in mind was *actually real*, we will give a sort of primacy of emphasis, though not exclusive emphasis on certain things, because they weave *throughout* the movie, or are naturally primary as a likely important moment, idea or object no matter what.

In order to know what kinds of things Kubrick would tend to have been thinking about PID or Apollo or any other supposed public lie or crime, we have to have thought them through ourselves, as if they were true for a moment. And we did that.

So, we would recognize the themes which would crop up if someone else were thinking through those themes. Maybe?

Here are the kinds of things which *are in the Shining film and novel*, but which you may not have noted and which we will prove (show, argue, since no proof in life is absolute, of course, and we do not want perfectionists but thinkers are welcome):



- the book's and movie's source for the title is Beatle-related
- VW Beetles (in both book and movie), in specific ways you will learn
- facelessness of the innocent son (from the novel) and overlap of character qualities or elements in father and son (novel, movie)
- car crashes (dreams of the father having a car crash, dreamed repeatedly by the boy in the novel, and representation of a car crash in the movie)
- the "doppelganger" idea (also from the novel originally)
- mirroring backward, up and down
- imperfection of some mirroring, not to only call attention to it, but hidden in some items, as though that is part of the hidden point
- time shifts
- a British flag in the maze (knowable because supported by the other points)
- devil as mass liar rather than mere religious figure as such
- era change as cultural apocalypse based on a lie
- the numbers 42 and 24 in the movie (1942 born + 24 years = 1966 dead)
- with other numbers, constantly doubled or about doubling, such as 12 and 21, like 2 from 1 and 1 from 2, which are supportive of the idea too
- constant doubling and a few singling of physical elements (using colour, literal double items, doubled items on items)
- the deleted scene with indications "it" (something, somehow) was real, even if "it" was impossible in a way, or "unreal" as a confusion, not a pure hallucination
- the movie's backwards elements, including the most famous backwards film word and film audio track in film history.

That is quite a lot, if it is true, is it not? And it is not only a lot, but it includes some things in specific areas of the PID case which are prominent themes.

Intrigued? I hope so. I found it very interesting to go through this film's content, especially with Jonnys53 as my "guide".


The Kubrick inversion of King's novel: 3 different coloured Beetle cars, including a red one, hidden



As to Kubrick's use of the controversy, which is our topic, we shall begin with the following -- one tidbit of evidence to marshal, never a proof on its own, but in combination as we go through, it is part of our argument.

Most people did miss the following red VW Beetle in the film. We will note right after that King used an equally PID-themed Beetle reference in exactly his choice of how to talk about the car driving to the hotel, but Kubrick does something different. Let us look at his first.

In the film, here is the hidden red Beatle -- oops, Beetle -- even having been in a crash scene, as also Paul died (or was killed another way and made to look like he died in), according to the Paul death case.

The lead-up scene, approaching the crash:


Do you see it yet? Probably not.


There is much more we will cover, but if Paul died, or at least if that is the main theme we are in, even symbolically, a red Beetle -- or white one, playing on the clue idea from Abbey Road album, even if that is a misinterpreted Beatle clue -- nearly has to be here and is, and it also is seen in a crash. Paul was supposed to have died in a crash.


How about now, beside the truck? (The top image below from the beginning of the film, when everything might be well, so it is a friendly yellow and if it refers to Paul's death, then this is still when the Beatles are okay, happy, loving, at least often loving each other and the fans at their concerts.)




Interesting enough, perhaps, this red Beetle hidden in the film.

Jonnys53 discovered that many objects change colour 1 time in the movie (= 2 objects), and he discovered this without Paul's death case in mind.

But Johnny also discovered a lot (a lot!) of "unnecessary" changes to King's novel, as in, enough to create a kind of inversion or mirror effect. And in King's novel there is, as we said, one colour for 2 Beetles while in Kubrick there is a parallel idea: one car changes 3 times, and 2 of them are not obvious. In a film with a lot of twos and doubles as "shining" we will see, King's 2 identical coloured types (like doubles, but not the same), instead, for once, becomes not two as Kubrick makes an unusual non-doubling, in a film we will so many doublings in.

What is going on here? Some will say, "Nothing," but that is not likely; given the preponderance of thematic doubles in the film by Kubrick. To know about the thematic doubles and other uses of doubles, please continue. We will not get to them exactly for a while, since several lines of evidence and argument will make sense best to come first.


King's novel and a scene with two red Beetles, a dying  one and a replacement, plus a glider -- like a beetle dead -- with a broken wing


And most people do know that the novel opens, as the film does, with a VW Beetle. The colour of the one in the novel is not discussed until once, later on. The film opens with a yellow one. It ends with a white one, a bit hard to discern but in the parking lot.

We will see that the one time the Beetle in the novel has its colour named, is when it is *replaced*. It is, then, a *double*, a shiny *new* red Beetle.


King, we will see now, has a shiny new red Beetle Volkswagen car drive the Torrances to the hotel, as a *replacement* for the old Beetle in the first part of the novel, a "much newer, much brighter" one:



Image at: http://www.123rf.com/photo_27731612_ashkelon-israel--august-26-2013-old-bad-conditioned-volkswagen-beetle-on-the-street-it-is-economy-ca.html "ASHKELON, ISRAEL - AUGUST 26, 2013 Old bad conditioned Volkswagen Beetle on the street"






A post called “Vintage Is In Again”, with image labelled: “Classic Red Volkswagen Beetle” Cached at: http://v1.aroundhawaii.com/assets/articles/2009/05/1714/images/2009-05_viiagain002.jpg


Here is the relevant passage in the novel:







Remember, this is Stephen King's idea, not mine. And it is not in Kubrick's film. (Instead, 3 Beetles, a red one hidden in a crash, are in Kubrick's film. Both ideas fit the Paul death idea equally well.)



http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/stephen-king-on-kubricks-version-of-the-shining This page is about Stephen King's feelings about “The Shining” film by Kubrick. His criticism is of the lack of emotional emphasis, not the content so much. Image cached at: http://nofilmschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/facebook/public/uploads/2013/07/Stephen-King.jpg?itok=8_53Aby0

No, asking people such as Stephen King if they had this in mind would not get a straight answer out of them, even if they *had* used it. If they had, they would assume (as many of you do now) that they would look "like idiots" to you if they said yes, so their answers either way (unless surprising admissions) are not to be taken so literally in a controversial case. The case itself about Paul's death has to prove itself in other ways.

And you, too, for the moment, never mind whether McCartney *was* replaced by a "McCartney" who was not too much like him, actually, or the Paul is Dead thesis for the moment as applied to Kubrick and King. Let us just note that fact about King's novel for now, not saying that it (or anything) is proof of anything to do with the Paul is Dead rumour (or fact) until we are aware of the evidence pieces and total picture, or argument from the film and novel.

What kinds of things are in the PID case, even if it is *untrue*?

These are themes in PID.
Are they or most of them in Kubrick and, to a lesser idea, in King? (Yes, they are, for whatever reason. And if they are, is this the best explanation for their being there? Well, in combination with a few other themes as sub-themes, yes, it should be the explanation if all or almost all of these are in the film and novel. Right?)

- double people, but not exact (not clones) -- and for this you will have to learn what Jonnys53 discovered
- replacements of things or people, as if one were old or about to break down and a new one comes (though Paul was young when replaced in the case, we should note that with objects, we tend only to replace when something is broken, so this is a similar idea)
- cloning or twinning as an image for non-clones (and because Paul was -- or is -- a Gemini astrologically)
- confusion
- mass deception and illusion (in Hindu, this is "Maya", like the tribe of the Americas)
- self-deception
- trauma in finding out you deceived yourself and were deceived (both, actually, are themes even if the case is untrue)
- trauma in realizing most will not believe you
- British government complicity (not the whole government) -- why (in the real case) is something we will mention, but what the item is in the movie will be interesting, not definitive but highly likely *in context of the rest*
- cultural era-change and apocalypse (though it is "a band" it was not *merely a band but a phenomenon, long before Sgt Pepper became the symbol of "weird creativity"*)
- police protection -- in the deleted scene
- grief and loss for the immediate participants and their friends and acquaintences who hear of it
- loyalty feelings and protectiveness as a feeling
- once fabulous, charismatic and ebullient (effervescent) in personality, famous and with "all the good people" in the past, but the current man and situation being somewhat corrupt or worse (despite many people's perception that things happening and the character of the replacement man himself were fine and generally totally nice and ordinary)
- 1942 (Paul's birth year)
- summer of 1942 (Paul's birth time was summer of that year) -- does this surprize you? Yes, the actual summer of 1942 is mentioned visually in the only identifiable item on a TV
- 24 (Paul's age at death in the case)
- 1966 (Paul's death year in the case) -- You will not have to know this, but the death was September, not November, in the real case, whether that case is correct or not overall; in 1969 when the rumour hit big in the USA *after existing for 3 years in the UK*, the USA got the date wrong by a few months for a very reasonable reason
- Lewis Carroll as backwards and other mirroring ideas of distortion and wordplay for clues
- Crowley as Devil worship (though that is not exactly the only thing Crowley stands for)
- mirroring for doubles but also for cryptic clue-making
- straight backwards audio tracks (this is not debated, though its application to PID is debated)
- technologically produced backmasking, where audio sounds intelligible forwards and backwards, or relatively intelligible backwards (even if this was not done, it is part of the case rumour)
- loss of identity and history (face confusion, loss and broken biography knit together in new ways)
- news lies or misperceptions of what news events were caused by
- VW Beetles and other imagery of broken wings on objects if associated with beetles or VW Beetles and the beetle insect (especially white, from Abbey Road album, even though that car in the image was not owned by a Beatle, and red to signify blood)
- car crash imagery, especially involving Beetles
- projections, assumptions, unreal being real
- "ghostly self" without actual ghosts (doppelganger)
- 3 relative to 4 (3 remaining Beatles out of 4 original "Fab Four", from 1962-1966)
- 5 from 4 (5 real Beatles in history -- not including the earliest forms of the band, which included Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best)
- 1 and 1 as in two people, 1 from 2, 2 from 1 and so on

Just as with not believing in a particular religion, we still must know its imagery and philosophical emphases, even science claims (say, the Biblical version of creation or Hindu one) to recognize passing or intense references to these concepts.

One of the most important things when dealing with corruption (conspiracy if two or more persons, secret or not) or secret group action (conspiracy because secret, even if not actually a crime), is that it is everywhere, as in, in every area of life, big and small, and an artist who uses a particular theme (case) to ruminate on would be referencing deliberate illusions and crimes, lies and perception errors, if they ruminate on such cases -- whether the cases are true or not!

But "looking" for clues in Kubrick can sound so intellectual, right? Or silly?

Yet it turns out that Kubrick made a rather *intellectual* film anyway. It is a mystery more than a horror flick, as Duvall said (see next section) and as Jonnys53 found, we will see (below, throughout the article).

The following should go without saying, but when the reader might have extreme resistance to the idea of something's being *true*, then thinking it through as if it were true, to know what someone else would end up putting into their artwork and looking for that, can seem ridiculous.

This is different than whether looking for clues or themes is ridiculous; it is not. It is part of ordinary art historical work. What I am saying is that we have to be able to *recognize the content* if it is there.


But we are going to have many readers for whom the issue at hand is whether -- or how definitely not -- Paul died.

So along the way, we will be referring to the actual case argument for the death and some objections to it.

We will also list in a moment some things which you will need to know as foremost for an *artistic* representation of the death. That does not mean a *drawing*, necessarily, but an intellectual rumination which could express itself in a visual, audial, numeric, plot form; in other words, a rumination which could be in some art form -- such as, here, a novel and film.


If Paul died, it would show up everywhere, but only certain things would be the *best evidence* in the argument, and others would be supportive. This is true in any case. We have to remember how to think about cases, issues, arguments, if we deal with controversy, or else we may laugh too soon.


If we were right in our prejudice, that will be confirmed not only by objections but by determinant issues we will find on that side.

When you are ready to do the work of overcoming prejudice just to see and hear properly enough to determine if there is a good case, then come back to it. Until then, you are in a quagmire of assumptions, even if you are right.


Yes, even if you are right to begin with.

But the biggest effort is in making a true determination when there is prejudice against an issue.

If Kubrick and King used the rumour for any reason, we have to know something about the case for the rumour; that means understanding the implications and contemplating the contents.

So, what kinds of things would come up in a PID discussion? Some would be the same for any large conspiracy case, some would be different. We have seen some.






Hitchcock, mystery, intellectual problems versus emotional thrills, and the deleted scene


Can we solve the mystery? For it is a mystery.

Ullman in the film denies -- denied -- anything was real but gives -- gave -- Danny a ball which had been only seen in a vision. He bounces -- bounced -- it toward the boy and leaves -- left. (The bounce was twice, which they worked hard to film: a whole day.) This scene and a bit more was cut, when audiences balked at the pure indication that Ullman was being a shit in denying everything, but it was intended as a scene and not, seemingly, cut because Kubrick himself did not like it. When he cut it, he cut it with a bit of another scene and the numbers -- which we will learn about later -- for the total film time still were made to adhere to the basic mystery.

Is it for some reason the main, orienting theme, as a lie idea in a film *about lies and mysteries*? In other words, though many people have not only picked up on the fact the movie is more cerebral than horror and there are themes or clues -- the most thorough thinker on this is Jonnys53 -- few seem to think there is an over-arching theme because they are stumped in how it connects. Jonnys53 comes closest in his identifying doubles and mass manipulation, apocalypse as Mayan 2012 era change (or any era change which is disastrous, if he thought about that, but he does not), and devil associations for Jack (which again suggests lies).


Moreover with the emphasis, in the novel, on car accidents, overlap between father and son, faces missing or not remembered, and all in the theme of something inspired by John Lennon, the movie and novel also being inversions or tricking when compared one to the other on anything but the main "man tries to kill family" level of the plot, we really should naturally ask what is going on here.


The novel's "faceless", somewhat identity-less boy with great abilities, an innocent who dreams of his father in an accident


In the novel, the boy's mother remembers him "with no face". It is a truly bizarre idea, making him not only innocent but identity-less in a way. What is that about?

It does not merely have a horror aspect, though it is odd and even creepy on the surface. It is *strange*. He has placental matter on his face when born; this is bloody tissue (not exactly guts too), and is not death but life matter, yet is gory. But she does not -- the mother -- emphasize the grossness. She emphasizes the *facelessness*.

Why would King do this? Yes, he is writing horror, and doing it well, but in this passage we will see, the emphasis is hardly horror. It is more focussed on identity and *the loss of identity*.

The boy is without a face -- an image, she knows, which is not true, literally, of course -- and is so *attached to his father that in a way they are "in tune", we might say*, or spiritually or image-wise overlapped.


http://piq.codeus.net/picture/47778/no_face by cesarloose








If Paul died, he became, in a way, faceless. It is a putting down of the original man to blend him to his replacement. A real illusion, that is, one which is going on for so many that that is most of the trick, not whether the two people are that similar. Let us simply consider for the moment that a facelessness (and the idea of a doppelganger quality to the boy's sensitivity to his father and even the father's own moods, not a mere mood switch) is in the novel. In the novel, the boy's facelessness is, of course, creepy, but the mother says she is in awe of his "abilities" -- though not musical, no. But the mother drifts off to sleep with some song lines, never able to recall faces from her sleep. Whose "face was lost"? For Paul's death, it was the original Paul who lost his identity and face.

The facelessness for her boy is an impression she has because of birth matter over the baby's face when he was born. Yes, it is a creepy image, but where would this come from? Few people would just suggest that a young boy is faceless, for a mere horror story about an ax murderer father.

This boy also has *dreams of his father in an accident* constantly, through childhood. Paul died in an accident -- or that was the story put out. These sorts of things, along with the title for the whole work and the duplicate red Beetle, mean King may always also have been interested in the rumour, too.


Not that Paul and Sir Paul, if two different people are completely in tune spiritually, in temperament, looks or anything -- even musically -- nor the father and son in the novel and book, of course. But it is an interesting thematic similarity we may note. 

But for now, let us note more about the imagery used for him. He is young and yet he is like one who is remembering things which happened before he lived or too early for him to remember.

Time is shifting here, if Paul's death is the theme, the metaphor. A young man would be Paul, replaced by an older man (who said he was 30 and looks it, some say, in Magical Mystery Tour film, 1 year after the death timing -- Paul was only 24 1/2 the year before). And events happening to Paul (such as an accident or impact, murder or not) would be remembered, literally, by a younger ghost, would they not? Sure. And an older man would, in time, have the events of the past happening to him if we are instead in the physical realm (the son is not a ghost).


Maybe King also seems to have been using the idea of Paul's death, in the novel. That does not mean that the storyline is about Paul's death, but aspects of the story are *strikingly drawn from* Paul's death or the idea of that death, and how we know that is what we will be investigating here.


But even more important ...


Danny and his father are "one" and "two" in the novel


Now what of the "lost face"?

Who was he?
The son in the novel.

The main character, the young boy, whom Kubrick puts in a shirt with the date of Paul's birth, has a different aspect in the book, but it works out to be the same, for the rumour. And we are considering these things for a moment in light of that rumour (and fact) that Paul died.

Kubrick, if Jonnys53 and this article here are correct, has extended the idea in King of how two people are one (son and father) to the King "ghosts" themselves, making them doubles of living persons, but not exact. For the story to work, they are still sometimes like other people (especially the main, father character's double), but mostly are really themselves.



Even if incorrect for reality in the Beatles, this is the idea the rumour requires:

Paul loses his real identity in being confused in our minds and loses the events of his life (the end of it), while Sir Paul, appearing for us in 1967 loses his real (early portion) of his life -- publicly anyway -- and gains his real second life, one which we read as "Paul" but is mostly his own, his own interests and development. Sir Paul has a cachet, a popularity he would not have had on his own, probably, even with great talent, if he really has that, because he is backed by public perception and a big money and social support network from Paul. But indeed he and Paul lose their real faces, their real distinguishing character differences in the overgeneralized "similarities" Sir Paul puts on at times.

It is an interesting idea, quite amenable for artistic reference. If King and Kubrick were thinking of Paul's death, then they certainly transformed it in an interesting way in their own right ... hiding it while showing it; what do I mean? They are not brashly showing it in some easy identity-swap story. Otherwise, it fits.

That is, if we play with the themes, overlap them, as would happen naturally if creating an interesting artwork, a young man, the son, who is not *literally* Paul, can come in as the sort-of "ghost" of the past, with memories in the present of a past, and the father, who is not *literally* Paul in the image, but gains some of the age-related attributes of Faul and of Paul, is the only one to whom the event of an accident could have physically happened -- and did not, says the mother -- if the boy is not a ghost.

He is faceless, though, also, like Paul, who loses his real character by being absorbed in history into another man, Faul. This is the kind of idea which may be weaving into this set of evidence we marshal. As we continue with more and more, we will be able to show increasingly that this *is* the basic idea.

What did King have along this line? He had father and son be kind of mirror images, sharing memories of a sort, at least a sense, a false memory (as we saw) of an accident and some kind of connection which went beyond the mother's connection.


The following excerpts from the King novel, outline the strange thoughts and connections between Danny and his Father, the request to know if his father was in an accident (repeatedly), and the "boy with no face" image. It also includes the references to the *two* VW Beetles, the old and new version, a *"replacement"*, that is, their shared colour (red). There are also two lines from a song and mention of memories of *faces the mother cannot remember* upon waking up.










And here a few paragraphs later:




A few paragraphs later ...












The Father then is like the older and more ugly attitude of Faul (Sir Paul, the replacement since 1966), who has suffered but is sometimes more of a creep, more dissociated, not just a truly loving family man, and has a lie to keep and intelligence affiliations. Not because Epstein and Parlophone records had intel agents at their beck and call, but to continue, the agents for the state and corporate international speculators (we will note that Wilson's government didn't have to devalue the British pound, because of Beatles' revenue and related revenue) ... no, affiliations were there between intel and artists' corporations, because this is big and socially important and controllable.


The son is like the young Paul, but also has his identity wiped, somewhat: he is now overshadowed by the dangerous and damaged father. This is of course, somewhat normal in psychology, but with the 42-24 and Beetles references and so on, we also know that his wiped identity is the discounted youthful Paul.

But it works the other way, too: Danny asks repeatedly if his father had an accident, because he dreamed it. So in a way, he is a "child of the amnesia" we are supposed to live, according to the Paul death case. Yet we can know, or think we know, that an event happened, that Paul died, if we trust our inner sense, our own memories or even our intellect, if memories fail.

Those are some of the ways Danny is a less ego-driven version of his father, and the boy (youth) with "no face" ... a powerful image and one specifically haunting his mother (not as a ghost). She sees a special gift in him (Paul was especially gifted and persons who think the replacement is as gifted or, for all the weirdness he pulled off with George Martin, the producer, that he is even better, have to go back to the roots of the Beatles, their energetic love, joy, not only charm, or youth -- aside from their brawling at times).








Maybe Derren Brown, the famous "mentalist" or magician and hypnotist simply heard the rumour, but he is clearly ruminating on it here, with his theme of how, under certain circumstances, people will confuse people -- in a short time, even to an incredible degree -- when they are switched, swapped, for a doppelganger, while completing his segment by mentioning St. *Paul's* Cathedral and how a person could "not" -- this is, in context, hyperbole -- miss a "famous pop star" who was switched.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBPG_OBgTWg






Did you also notice one other thing? Below, I will tell you where it is.

A little while ago, I did go ahead and make a few claims about the case now being made about Paul's death as an idea -- whether the case has any merit or not -- and here are some pieces of background information on why I stated what I did, about the era. For the case for and against Paul's death would be likely running through your mind even though, strictly speaking, we do not have to discuss *whether* Paul died or how the rumour came to be, to discuss the art history question of whether and how Kubrick and King made use of it, here.

It is the most famous rumour in music history, after all, that Paul died and was replaced by the current and 50-year-long "reign" of a good, or great replacement, now knighted for services to the realm and called Paul McCartney. Were those services helping keep a very lucrative and mass appeal going, with -- perhaps -- promotion of some LSD and other ideas inside the band and to the public? Sir Paul was the first to be brought to light about LSD use, in 1967, not John Lennon.

Current students of the issue, scholars and average persons, have talked of these things; this does not mean, of itself, that Paul died, but we have to know what would be in play if he had died and the Beatles and *others* had wanted to continue, along with family and friends, as though Paul's dream did not die with him. But if he died, in a sense, his legacy did *not really* continue. Sure, the band kept going past the putative death date, instead of folding.



One number (itself a reversal of a double of another number prominent in the film) which Jonnys53 could not identify a source for: 42


Before you balk, let us continue.



One frame from Kubrick's The Shining, showing one of the many emphases we will see, which could be -- and in the end, have to be -- about Paul McCartney's death, other than Apollo references, another and more public event, one known to have taken place but whose reality is in doubt. The movie, The Shining, is based on a novel which was inspired in the title and opening scene, to reference John Lennon, a Beetle.


As we will show, the connections to the Paul is Dead case are extensive for the movie and quite present in the book, too.

Oh and the thing you probably missed in the video above, is a flashed image of a face, at 3:02-3.

More material from the book is given a ways later in this article, but for now, let us note:

Danny is associated with 42 and 24 directly in the image below. But before we view it, we should know that the 42 and 24 numbers (along with 12 and 21) are used so constantly in images and, as time codes at key places, even the duration of the film entirely, that the time codes should be mentioned for a moment.

"In the US DVD version Stanley Kubrick has the same numbers we see on Danny's sweaters [in the 1980 film "The Shining"], dates, and room keys pop up in the time codes of major shots in the movie. In each instance when the time code hits :12 or :21 minutes someone sees a vision and all have a duration of exactly to the second of :12 or :24 seconds. In each instance when the time code hits :24 or :42 minutes a cast member comes to a pivotal spot where they make an important discovery and each has a duration of exactly to the second of :12, :21, or :24 seconds." (Jonnys53)

These numbers are not significant for any major lie in history, not for Apollo, which also figures in as an idea (that we did not go to the Moon).



As such, the movie is a perfect place to reference Paul's death as rumour and reality, if Kubrick did. The emphasis in the photo here is of doubling and mirroring added to many things in the film, compared to the novel, which had few double things, and we show this image here also to note how in the same context as a mirroring, 42 is on the sleeve, which -- if related to Paul is Dead as real or rumour -- refers to 4 Beatles, but 2 Pauls, and equally refers to Paul's birth year, 1942. Paul also was 24 and a half at his death, in September, 1966.





There's only one recognizable movie clip we see and it's from the “Summer of 42”. It also just happens to be the scene at :24 minutes into that movie. Not only was Paul McCartney (the real one) born in 1942, and was 24 at his death, but he was born in she summer of 1942, was a Gemini (how ironic, the Twins of the Zodiac), died by car crash -- or it was made to look that way -- and was replaced by a double (who really was not that much like him, in key ways) -- who fooled a lot of people.


42 is not the only number with some kind of repeated presence and even mirroring in the film. We will show more on this later, and in a moment, we investigate several numbers and doubles associated with it in the film credits. But let us note some overview issues with backwards elements first.

Let us begin to note backwards elements


We will not be talking only about numbers, but you get some idea here, of part of the issue:

"Precise time codes of major shots ending in the same set of numbers like these do not occur by chance. Here's more proof that Stanley Kubrick has edited scenes so that time codes come out as precise numbers. At first I didn’t read Stephen King’s novel but listened to it on my I-Pod and the spot where Danny enters room 217 is almost exactly at the halfway point of the story Chapter 25 (Page 148). In the movie the opposite happens as now Jack enters room 237 at precisely the same spot, 1:11, exactly at the halfway point of the movie and this happened because Stanley Kubrick edited the movie so that the first half is a mirror image of the second half." (Jonnys53)


The movie ends with "Help me!", backwards -- seemingly. Or some kind of "Help". Jonnys gives us the audio reversed in a link below, but it is not a very clear reverse sound, not crystal clear. It sounds more *natural* reversed, but the exact word is a garbled "Help". Frontally, it does not have any naturalness *at all*. One way or another, it is a reversed sound, distorted as well. Kubrick uses an audio track. Here is the idea visually:



Jonnys53:

------------------


Stanley Kubrick adds one more brilliant little touch at the end of “The Shining” that must be mentioned. You hear it every time you view the film but I bet you’ve never ‘really’ heard it. The final words spoken in the film; something borrowed from “The Exorcist” [or ...?] and we never would have known about it if a poster hadn’t mentioned this to me. Lightningscream suggested that I, “should watch the film in reverse. Kinda’ like reverse speech.” But even though some believe there are many hidden messages in rock & roll songs, could a message be hidden in a film the same way? I knew that there’s one obvious part of the film’s audio where Stanley Kubrick could have hidden something. People have come up with all sorts of explanations and translations of what Jack is saying at the end of the film. Some think he’s calling to the dead spirits in the Indian burial ground, or the “ghosts” in The Overlook, or a dead Saint, or maybe even the souls of the Donner Party. But after Jack sells his soul and takes Lloyd’s drink he’s been possessed by the purest of evil. Now it’s the big time. The Overlook was the place where all this happened and the scrapbook was the fuel for Jack’s insanity. But you have to listen closely to the 2 last words that Stanley Kubrick has Jack utter to truly understand the depth of what’s happened to him, and where he knows he’s going to be residing, “for ever, and ever, and ever”. It all sounds like gibberish unless you reverse the audio. Then it becomes frightening clear that Stanley Kubrick has hidden 2 of the most incredibly chilling words I’ve ever heard in a film. Hearing them has totally changed the end of the film for me. The anguish and despair cuts right through and the more you listen to it the more disturbing it becomes (click here). Help Me! The final pathetic words spoken by Jack Torrance in “The Shining”, and Stanley Kubrick has him speak them in reverse. Heeelllppp Meeeee. A perfect chilling end to his film’s dialogue. Two words (like the word “Redrum”) brilliantly hidden and like his entire film, only understandable when reversed.




-----------------------

Even if Kubrick was only fascinated by the *possibility* that Paul was replaced, let us see if he has woven in the *possibilities* of what that would mean -- and if he knew it was right, that Paul died and was replaced, then he was ruminating on possibilities from what it does mean, a slight difference.



Jonnys53 discovers mirroring and doubling and reversals; I begin to show they are related to the Beatles


Reversal is a mirroring. There are doublings, too, and doubles. There are specific numbers constantly in the film, as exhaustively catalogued by Jonny. There are "reversals", not only things backwards but, like inverted colours, they are changed, in most scenes, unnecessarily. People inside vs outside, people in one room or in another, conversations with one happening with another -- but constantly -- and the main 3 items (boiler, elevator, fire hose) doubled (except the firehose) and inverted: not moving when they were moving.

The deleted scene, the troubling final photo and many comments in the film are about not only psychology as emotional horror, but about *perception error*, tricks, lies, confusion and mass public lies (Apollo being one, Paul's supposed non-death being the other).



Then there was still a weird form of *earlier self as doppelganger* in a strange photo of Jack, and the *backward* cry of "Help Me!" at the end. Kubrick took out the scene mentioned by Duvall, but though it may not have felt really strong to some audiences -- a reason to take it out -- it gives a stronger hint in a calmer way, even a creepier way, that we cannot *exactly know how it is real, but something is real about everything and it was not all in Jack's mind exactly*. It occurs in and because of Jack, not the hotel, but the hotel is a place *where it can happen*, whatever this strange doubling is.

Again, hiding things backwards or simply using backward elements had been pioneered in pop culture by the Beatles and continued by others, while it was used again by the Beatles in their film, "Let It Be" (1970). Aside, in the picture is their murdered roadie and friend, Mal Evans, who died under suspicious circumstances only a few years later when he was going to get royalties and was finished his book (not a diary), an expose of the Beatles' real history. Neither came to be.





In this screenshot, from "The Shining", we note the upside down and backward cross (Satanic and mirrored). (& *double* doors = on the key room in the story, room 237, which Kubrick changed from 217 in the novel, also changing the doors to double doors.)




Alastair Crowley also advocated the use of practising things in unconventional ways, such as writing backwards or with the left hand if right-handed, and listening to records backward. This famous Satanist-Luciferian (Lucifer means Light-bearer, originally the name for Venus, the planet), and British Empire spy, was quite popular in alternative circles around the time of the Beatles, and is a favourite of the replacement in the story (the reality) of the Paul death scenario, that is, the current Paul McCartney, now knighted, who has been our public figure "Paul" since very late in 1966, according to the Paul death case.

When the Beatles and Kubrick took the ideas of Carroll, there came in a sinister aspect at times. One aspect was, supposedly, the idea of Paul dead, for the Beatles. Was it also for Kubrick, in addition to the ideas of psychological horror and general occultism he seems to have been interested in? We will cover the Beatles' own use of backwards tracks, the supposed "backmasking" (where forward and backward are overlapped, supposedly, to mean different things), and we will cover Lewis Carroll's ideas in a moment. But first, let us note the idea of double, Satanic trickery and time shifts, with a numeric overlay as well.


Back to Kubrick:

The idea of a double projected and acting from the mind of the person who "shines" in the film is derived partly but significantly from the fact that people with "shine" know things but *not mere mind-reading, psychically*, so to speak. They only know what is *happening to the other person*. And if that other person is having a *self-delusion*, they will experience that.  That means that others cannot know *just from the ordinary knowledge of others' mind contents* what they are *thinking*. Rather, they have to "tune in" to others' specific projected thoughts or a time others were talking. (This is a rather fascinating fact in the movie, proved that Halloran does not know Wendy's nickname, which is not talked about until after he asks her nickname, but does know Danny's nickname, which was talked of before the Torrance family got to the hotel).


Jonnys53 demonstrates that the numbers 12, 21, 24 and 42 are prominent in the film in many ways


In fact, by leaving out two first names of persons with double letters, 4 (four) letters were "lost". These would have made 25 doubles. Kubrick has to be (if all else we will see is noted) drawing our attention to doubles, 21, two in 1 and 1 in 2, and mirroring in the other 12s (twelves) we will see after we show the following uses of 12, 21, 24, 42 in various visual and action ways.


We will end up noting not only doubling and doubles, tricks and reality interwoven, but the numbers 12, 21, 24 and 42.

Perhaps before we get to the extensive evidence for all this, it would be important to make the following remarks about the PID case and conspiracies as big conspiracies, in general.



What else does the exhaustive compiler list about the Shining which does not have to do with Apollo? Those numbers I mentioned a while back, 12, 21 and 24, 42 are demonstrated not only in the time codes of the film's structure mentioned above, but in objects. Jonnys53:

------------------------------

Where are some of the most obvious occurrences of the numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice?

Where are some of the most obvious occurrences of the numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice?

12

There is only one enigmatic room in the movie that Danny isn't supposed to go into, Room 237, and its individual numbers add up to 12.


The Overlook has only one call number; it's KDK 12 (“KDK 12 calling KDK 1”).


There is only one set of bloody elevators and they're always stopped on floor 1 and 2.


Only two times are given in the movie's black frames, add them together (8 + 4) and you get 12.



There's only one song playing over the final credits and it's "Midnight, The Stars and You" by The Ray Noble Band.


....and Stanley Kubrick doubled only one name from Stephen King's novel, Grady. In the movie he has 2 names and they both contain the same number of letters; Charles Grady = 12 Letters and Delbert Grady = 12 Letters.


21

There's only one enigmatic final shot in the film and there are 21 pictures on the wall with a 21 in the date and a :21 in the time code. And as a very astute anonymous poster noted there are 2 candles and 1 shadow visible on the wall.



Jack only works on one novel and Wendy stops at line 21 as she pulls the page out of the carriage of his typewriter. When she first spots it, we hear her thumb through 24 pages of the novel in the box.


The money shot in the Hedge Maze is when Danny fools Jack and there are 21 full footprints in the snow in this scene.


... And as Trevor an astute commenter noticed, there are 21 pieces of mail behind the receptionist when Jack walks into The Overlook for the first time.



24

There's only one mysterious date in "The Shining" and the numbers of that date 7/4/1921 added together equals 24.


There's only one master staircase in The Overlook's Colorado Lounge where Wendy clobbers Jack, and counting the platform which is also a large step there are a total of 24 steps to the top of it and 6 steps on each side [making twelve again, by means of a double].


Wendy pulls on the storeroom latch 24 times.


Danny’s first vision of the blood coming out of the elevator happens only once and it's exactly :24 seconds long, to the frame.



42

Room 2 x 3 x 7 = 42.

An anonymous poster found this gem; ”All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”, (letters and spaces) is 42 characters long.

There's only one recognizable movie clip we see and it's from the “Summer of 42”. It also just happens to be the scene at :24 minutes into that movie.


Danny wears the number 42 once on his T-shirt in their bathroom.


Jack breaks down their apartment door with his ax only once and it takes him exactly :42 seconds, from first frame to last to do it (when we see him first hit it with the ax to when he pulls the ax out before opening the door). We also hear Jack hit the bathroom door 12 times with his ax.


And don't forget Stanley Kubrick edited it so that Wendy swings the bat 42 times. With the first swing being in this shot right after Jack says, "How do you like it".



--------------

 
So says Jonny in his Webpage linked above. (There is more.)


Jonnys53 raises the issues of doubles in many ways, but one is, as we have seen and will see below, related to numbers like 21, 12 (themselves mirrors and doubles, with doubles as an idea within), and 42, 24 (again now doubles of those and themselves mirrors and doubles within.

(All longer quotations from Jonny are taken from http://jonnys53.blogspot.ca/2007/06/what-you-may-or-may-not-have-seen.html and will be between "----" section markers):


Jonnys53 discovers doubles as numbers (and other things to come)

-----------------------------------------


The movie was created and edited this way and Stanley Kubrick did it for a reason. All these things happen only once; one room Danny's not supposed to go into, one recognizable movie clip, one doubled name from Stephen King's novel. One mysterious date, one set of bloody elevators, one song playing over the final credits. There’s only one master staircase in The Overlook's Colorado Lounge, one novel Jack works on and one time that Wendy reads it, one set of call numbers. And Jack breaks down their apartment door only once. These are all major scenes in the movie and the same set of numbers keep popping up where probability tells us they shouldn't. You're not seeing things. Like the 21 pictures in the last shot and the year in the date having the same number in it, 1921, and the time code on your DVD player indicating 2 hours and 21 minutes.

[...]
What’s a little odd is the names of the cast members from that final deleted scene are still shown at the end of the movie. Considering Stanley Kubrick is one of the most renowned perfectionists in the history of movie making, this is very sloppy indeed; unbelievably sloppy unless that deleted scene is actually an important and intentional part of the movie and we're supposed to notice it. Could it be because there were already 21 double letters in the cast’s names in the credits that he didn’t want to take the time to change? I don't think so. What other movie contains a deleted scene that becomes part of the folklore of the finished product (as all Kubrick aficionados know about it)? A perfectionist would die rather than have something like this obvious and horrendous movie mistake staring them in the face; "forever, and ever, and ever". You’ll have to forgive me for not taking everything in the "Shining" saga at face value but Stanley Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing. If he was contemplating the removal of that scene he would have also had a different set of credits ready to be inserted. He worked on the film for 5 years and had plenty of time to think about this problem. He also had plenty of eager help to do it for him. It’s the same as the numbers on Danny’s sweaters. He’s pointing us to something contained in the credits. He wants us to notice and think about the double letters (the 21 double letters) and ponder over just exactly what's contained in that now lost scene. It's all just another part of the show, something else for us to try and figure out.

[...]

He wants us to notice and think about the double letters (the 21 double letters) and ponder over just exactly what's contained in that now lost scene. It's all just another part of the show, something else for us to try and figure out. Deliberate and obvious. Some websites indicate that all the deleted scenes added together equal 3 minutes which would have made the running time of the story from the original final cut 2:24 rather than 2:21 in duration as it is now. Both durations still contain one of the numbers he wants us to notice. Look at how, for no apparent reason, (Larry) Durkin and (Bill) Watson's first names were left out of the credits yet the deleted actors names remain. He’s toying with us, beckoning anyone to notice these anomalies and wonder what it all means. He's almost hitting us over the head with them.

Jack To(rr)ance.................Jack Nicholson
Wendy To(rr)ance...............She(ll)ey Duva(ll)
Da(nn)y............................Da(nn)y (Ll)oyd
Ha(ll)ora(nn).....................Scatman Crothers
U(ll)man..........................Ba(rr)y Nelson
Grady..............................Philip Stone
(Ll)oyd............................Joe Turkel
Doctor.............................A(nn)e Jackson
Durkin.............................Tony Burton
Young woman in bath...........Lia Beldam
Old woman in bath..............Bi(ll)ie Gibson
Watson............................Ba(rr)y De(nn)en
Forest Ranger 1 .................David Baxt
Forest Ranger 2 ................Ma(nn)ing Redw(oo)d
Grady Daughter.................Lisa Burns
Grady Daughter.................Louise Burns
Nurse.............................Robin Pa(pp)as
Secretary........................Alison Coleridge
Policeman.......................Burne(ll) Tucker
Stewarde(ss)....................Jana Sheldon
Receptionist.....................Kate Phelps
Injured guest ...................Norman Gay


Skeptics think this all had to have happened by chance. But there’s much more than just the cast member’s names. There are other numerical anomalies. He didn't just do this to the names in the credits.

------------------




Men's doubles badminton games, 2012 Summer Olympics https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Olympia_2012_Mens_Doubles_Badminton_Final.jpg

Let us continue:
There were not twins in the book.
Twins, doubles, mirrors, seeing/not seeing two ...
Here are some examples of doubling and reverse doubling, given here in Jonny's main blog page:


--------------

There are also no twins in the novel. In the movie there are several sets of twins including the Grady girls, the elevators, and the boilers.

Twin elevators remain motionless / 1 elevator moves on it’s [sic] own.

Unimportant twin boilers / 1 very important boiler.

2 Grady’s [sic] / 1 Grady.

“Redrum” is seen only twice in the movie / several times in the novel.

Jack frozen 2 times (in the Hedge Maze and on the wall) / Jack burns to death 1 time.

2 Overlooks (one has a Hedge Maze and one doesn’t) / 1 Overlook.

Jack sees 2 women / Danny sees 1.

Wendy reads 1 paperback / Wendy reads 2 paperbacks.

In The Overlook, a single bed is in their apartment / in the novel twin beds are in their apartment.

Jack uses 2 twin Adler Eagle typewriters / Jack uses 1 Underwood typewriter.

“White man's burden, Lloyd my man. White man's burden” is doubled and repeated twice / “White man's burden, Lloyd my man” is mentioned once.

“For ever, and ever and ever” is also doubled.

There’s only one reference to cannibalism (the Donner party) / in the novel there are 2 references to cannibalism (the Donner party and the rugby players).

Dick Hallorann tells Danny to stay away from 1 place at The Overlook (room 237) / in the novel Dick Hallorann tells Danny to stay away from 2 places at The Overlook (room 217 and the Hedge Animals).

The Overlook’s Ballroom has small intimate tables for four / The Overlook’s Ballroom has small, intimate tables for two.

Danny is 5 years old in the novel and 7 years old in the movie. 2 years older exactly like the Grady girls who are 6 & 8 in the novel than become 8 & 10 in the movie.



------------------


Jonnys53 comes up with the following Apollo 11 like numbers here as a major feature, but of course 1 and 1 are more significant for Paul death as an idea and the idea in each of these moments is that of a double. Added (pun intended) to the 12, 21, 24, 42 theme and the basic doppelganger idea Jonnys53 is finding, the 11 cannot mean *only* Apollo 11 or another hidden meaning.



Somehow, though Jack was deluded, he was not hallucinating -- not exactly. In the end, in the photograph, even after the *deleted scene showing there was reality to the events somehow* -- somehow -- Jack himself is a delusion? Somehow.

And somehow, there are doubles in things and maybe in actions.


Has the film merely "mirrored and twisted" the novel, in an "inversion"? No. The film takes doubles from the novel, though they are hardly as well worked in, in the novel, and makes mirroring *the theme*. The main change for Jack is *at the halfway point in the movie*. The first mirror (Stovington, the t-shirt he has on) is at 1/4 (one quarter) of the way in and at 1/4 (one quarter) of the way from the end, is the Redrum "shined" onto the door.

So on the one hand, though "Nothing is real" as John Lennon sang in "Strawberry Fields Forever" after Paul's death, the delusion is real, or rather the illusion is *really going on*. Could this be the point? How is it real?

Overlook Hotel

It is missed *reality*, seen only from an overview, an "Overlook" of the situation, like the hotel's name. We overlook (miss) something, but we also see over, get an overview.

It is about mirroring, doubling and identity mistakes, as the main theme. That does not mean it is *not* about the other themes.


Kubrick and "hidden themes" -- or not?


Is Kubrick a great filmmaker? Maybe so, but more on an intellectual artistic level than a totally emotional one. People have pored over his perfectionism and many "hidden" ideas in his films. Some work, some are not so successful (as too general, ponderous).

Certainly he was a perfectionist. Mistakes happened but certain things were done repetitively in this movie and in bizarre places, so we may know that deliberation must be in play. We will see many examples of such things. Some things we will discuss, though, are rare; these things are still *highlighted* in the film, by being particularly atypical, and thus deserve some note, as well.

Kubrick admitted to putting hidden messages in his films, or at least, to being aware of symbolic political art and using it. And if I were a typical thinker, I would present that as evidence toward my thesis here. I will not -- not exactly -- so that you get a sense of who I am and why I write on evidence and proof and argument and prejudice.

Here is Kubrick on the idea of putting in messages and meaning (starting with "The Shining", though his brother in law is commenting on that one specifically, as being a disorienting film in how the Hotel set design was done) -- the section on Kubrick, starting with the brother in law, is at 6:17 (6 minutes and 17 seconds):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2P6w0gdAI

Note, the meanings and messages admitted to are generally hardly the level we will be talking about, but there is some similarity.


If Kubrick had not admitted this, he still could have put messages. We have to know how to know, outside of testimony in a general sense.

We also have to realize that putting a specific theme in a specific place is also the question at any point in art historical research.

And we have to know that denying or admitting can be lies.

The evidence will be so extensive that first we will give some overview and interspersed there will be commentary about the general considerations.

These are the kinds of issues marshalled (often) for and against Paul's death itself as well, and any other controversy. We have to know the testaments and where they would fit in a specific case.

And we have to define what we mean as message; do we mean a general psychological insight, a subtext storyline (real, imagined fully, just ruminated upon but not believed), or do we mean literal content in very cryptic forms, such as special addresses to the audience (talking to the audience, say, about a personal or cultural event in just a small sign, symbol, hidden wordplay), or do we mean that there are other meanings to a main image (a good simple example would be that if someone's grandmother died and loved dogs, then for some artist having a dog in the image would be both playful and a silent reference to the artist's memory of the grandmother), or do we mean all of this at once

These are art historical questions.

But the novel and film are a *horror* genre, even though King felt Kubrick made his scary movie more a mystery than pure horror


King did not feel Kubrick had exactly made a horror film, but the film is still within a murder theme, horrible. The Overlook Hotel does not "murder" in the film as it does, in a way, in the novel; rather, the father's double (inner self) damages his own boy and murders another man. But yes, there is murder in the ideas of the novel and film.

Whether *that* part was related to ruminations on the Paul death case we are arguing King and Kubrick had in mind, we cannot say.

We can say, however, that current thinking on Paul's death as a real possibility or actuality *does* often posit murder. At least, current positions mention, quite often, how intelligence services would have been necessary to "help" the Beatles continue and would probably have suggested the idea of replacement as at least an initial start to creating a new band.

Why?


Lennon would not have dragged himself through grief like this without a new "Paul" to resent but love in his mind; the new person would not really be of the quality of the old one, but would have talents and would develop them. Not just "anyone" with a new name and no similarity or attempted similarity could try to help, surely.

*This* band would not have continued with a new lineup, not in the public frenzy for *those four* together, at the height of Beatlemania, in 1966. They were tired of touring but never not only toured but performed live together *ever again*, and an announcement of *that*, not merely no touring for a while, followed hard on the heels of the putative death date.

This does seem to give some support to the case for a death, even if it is "bad" evidence, something we judge wrongly construed, when we finish.

Or they would have feared, at least, that they personally and fans would not be able to brook a new songwriting team *overtly*.

And others? Were others involved if it happened? Not that it seems as though it did, if we look at the subject initially, but if it had happened, would others have been involved?

Yes. At least to help, it would be *necessary*. Once we are in the postulate, the discussion, we have to realize that much. And further, maybe, some say, as I began to acquaint you with, others could have caused the death and suggested a "risky", odd but, for spy networks, a somewhat common replacement option.

It is important for you, if you are interested in motives to help a replacement come in or even to kill Paul, to get some sense of the case.

First, you would need to check out the detailed, personal memory of lawyer and JFK assassination conspiracy advocate, Mark Lane's new account of his meeting Paul McCartney in early 1966. Lane goes over their general discussions with several details, such that the memories seem quite solid.

The gist of their acquaintance is covered in the time period from just before Mark Lane's major work came out in mid-1966 ("Rush to Judgment" about the lack of significant evidence to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of the John F Kennedy assassination, if Oswald had lived). Lane wrote of this connection to Paul McCartney in his recently published information in his autobiography, "Citizen Lane". You can see a Paul is Dead case advocate writing on it, quoting it, here, at http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.html

Second, you would need to get some sense of at least the LSD movement and its link through time with conspiratorial infiltration of activist musicians and others. So you might wish at some point to hear this interview in full:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8RSnI8g1c&feature=youtu.be


And about Lennon's own death, the most complete case information overview -- going beyond but using the lawyer, Fenton Bressler's, book on the subject as well, which is mentioned in the interview above -- here is a 2-hour, 2-person interview, which I was honoured to contribute to: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/12/clare-keuhn-total-info.html
(Right-click green name at top to save and listen, or left-click to listen in your browser.)

Moving on in a moment, we should note here that proving the rumour went back to the claimed time of Paul's death, in 1966, and the location being not the USA but England, and other arguments, cannot fully be done in *this* article. Links to other works of mine and other people, will have to suffice as we go, about such things.

One way or another, buying concert tickets for a man who has been "Paul" longer than the other was alive, if he died in 1966, is hardly shocking; the replacement has talent, if he is a replacement, plus few would be thinking he was a replacement anyway.

But Kubrick and King could well have heard the rumour and -- maybe -- not known, thought, believed it was true. So you don't have to believe it. You just have to know it well enough that you can see if the theme is *in "The Shining" movie and book*.



What are some of the things Jonnys53 discovered? Doubles as people from all "shining" persons, consistent numbers, mass deception as a theme


Jonnys53 discovered a number of things. His major discovery, from all of his other major discoveries, was that when people "shine" (show special abilities) in the movie, they are projecting a scene, real or desired, into others' minds, and have the ability (not merely an hallucination) to move objects, and they have *a double*, projected, who does some of these things.

It is a complex set of discoveries adding up to the fact that Kubrick not only changed the novel -- though not entirely -- he *reversed* it: the hotel does not haunt; nor are the people haunted (by ghosts, as real things), but the illusions are real as *projections in the mind and movements in space* with a real (ghost-like) double, who or which is *from the person projecting it*.

We will have to demonstrate this using Johnny's findings, but the basic idea might look somewhat like this:

This image is not actually from a double with a "new identity" being created in the source, "Dominion". But it shows the idea visually. Image at this link.

Kubrick would have been interested in how illusions work. Art is *illusion* in method (a fiction, a story with reworked facts in it, for basically non-fiction artworks, and for fiction, it shows typicalities instead of specific facts in it); but art shows us general truths (even in reworking non-fictional facts, typicalities come out and are truths).

So ... what would Kubrick tend to be thinking about (or anyone who ruminates on it)?

1. Illusions: art, politics, corporate: things done *to you*
2. Lies: our sympathy or lack of sympathy for ugly emotions which cause greed or later self-pity when people do not speak about what they have done
3. Public aloneness and bullying: for those who see a truth, a fact, an event and *others do not believe them*, whether they are perpetrators in any way, victims directly or public who discover that they have been victimized by the lie


4. Specifics of PID: dates relevant to the issue, specific actions done in art ("clues") and in life (grief, aloneness, denials), doubling (since a replacement bandmate who is *supposed by many* to be the same, a literal double so much that he is *not a double*), imperfections in doubling (since there would in fact be a quite different person involved as a new bandmate, but who has a *passing resemblance*).

Is this even possible? That people *completely mistake someone* for a long time?

Yes, actually it is. It would depend on the admittedly unusual circumstance, but not physically hard to do to us, where close people lie and the rest *assume the changes are age* and the *actually new future is just a future for the replaced person*; a few toss-off actions and ways to control emotions for the newcomer in a few places would do if we were not looking closely *and then tried to look closely*. Why?

We would usually be conditioned by what we thought was possible before: well, he (or she) kind of does look like the old photos, or enough, that you have to be crazy to think it was a replacement.

But that might not be accurate -- and Kubrick would, if he used the ideas of PID, be including these themes.



Jonnys53 discovered various items in every area of inquiry and in preponderance, that is, in great amounts, or, for some things, in significant places in plot or timing, in objects and in dialogue, which demonstrate that as much as Kubrick added "It's not real" and "It's like pictures in a book" or "TV", it derives from *something in a real someone* and becomes real.

Image description is of artwork by Erin Anderson. It says: "Emanation No. 2" is an exploration of portraiture as a physical and energetic representation. Being that it is in of itself a conductive material, the copper substrate is perfect for etching abstract designs to illustrate the idea of a person's energy. Emotion, connectivity and energy are central themes in my work. The idea that an emotion felt by an individual can also be felt by those around them, whether directly or indirectly, is a captivating concept to me. Someone can go through life interacting with others oblivious to the invisible dance that is the energy they exude and the way it is received. Image at https://www.artprize.org/erin-anderson/2013/emanation-no-2


He also describes and tabulates an large number of doubles in number usage and mirrored number usage. He shows extensive uses of not merely doubled numbers (in objects and in timing) but their mirrors: 12, 21, 24, 42, or we could say, 12, 24, 21, 42.

He describes inversions (he calls them reversals or mirrors, usually) but some of them are changes, more like inverted colours, where a picture with reds and oranges becomes a different set of colours with no reds or oranges in it, but their colour-wheel opposites, blue and green (which has yellow in it but not in the direction where red gives orange, so we would not take blue and purple). Not that *that, literally* is what is done here, but inversion is more like that than an opposite. It is a set of changes, some of which are mirrored, some which become other than the novel but not exactly opposite. People might have a conversation outside, then inside, but some things are just changed (as if willy-nilly), unless the purpose is intellectually to be *change*, inversion, as a higher concept.

These are not mere negatives, but opposites and negatives. Or, putting that another way, they are "mirrored" and distorted or doubled. Objects and conversations are *almost all changed*, in a "useless" sort of way at times, where things could have been the same. Why make something inside outside, outside inside, interior scenes not matching the windows for exterior scenes and so on, since it does not *really scare people*, happening too unknown to the audience to be even noticed, unless they have exact scene comparisons at hand.

Poster artwork. Upside-down walking man figure, arrow to nowhere. The artist is interested in how intentions are often mistaken when we express them. The words on the poster say: "Creativity suppressed, destruction advertised." Ironically the photo includes a yellow Beetle by chance, so I used it instead of a close-up on the poster itself. The location is "Arnolfini, Bristol", according to the Webpage. Image at http://irational.org/heath/inversion_fly_poster_graffiti


This is not a negative. It is a set of opposites in colour. "Inverted color-flower, by Devonnah C". Image at https://www.pinterest.com/pin/481955597595896220/


No, these things do not all have to be done for this purpose; a novel is not a film, nor can be translated exactly, but things are changed *with other things which disappear and reappear* or are *mirrored or doubled* in so many instances, that the changes, or most of them, are best interpreted as inversions.

I have appended (added to the end) the blog page he wrote. It is long, which makes this article seem longer. Not all that he shows is given in my article, so please do read his as well.



Why would Paul's death -- or rumoured death -- be of interest to them (or to anyone)?


Why would the artists, creatives, be ruminating on a theme like this, if they did? Well, the ideas are *interesting* as Orwellian possibilities, are they not? And if they are taken to be true, they are *important* to know, because, well, then we would never immediately doubt that average top CEOs or politicos can conspire (function in a group to do things we disapprove of, or literally plot things we disapprove of, especially with some denials and lies), and we might have to rewrite history a bit, science claims rewritten a bit -- and imprison people, or appropriately forgiving, depending on the situation, but asking properly if people are doing this again.

And the Queen or her close helpers would have to know about this switch; it would require their aid in passports, legalities, etc. And with the -- oh no, for some of you this will sound too weird, but just think of propaganda and drug infiltration, for the moment -- with the MKUltra experiments on mass populations (now known), we have to begin to realize that anyone interested in cultural art and popular movements would, maybe, be interested in whether the "band played on" without a real Paul, whether Paul was murdered, and why the public could not notice (mostly), be put down for wondering, and so on.

That is the kind of thing which Kubrick might well find interesting, as do I, even if Paul could not be shown to have died in 1966.

We all know that it is supposedly impossible that these things could be done, according to general "wisdom" or "consensus". Even if they are not done, we have to ask if an artist thought they were done or was interested in the idea, to warn us or just to feel through the idea.

Let us remember though, since many will *also* have in mind the thoughts of the actual issue of whether Paul died, that it takes *work* to determine the truth or falsity properly for any idea.

Yes, *any idea*. Ideas are not scary; implications are.

This includes the *uncommon* ideas, which might be correct and determinably correct, or not. I say "might" to mean this must be our attitude even when things seem obvious to us; they may not be so obvious; there may be ways to determine that our minds have tricked us, that we have been sloppy, and even been led to be sloppier -- though willful wishes are a large part of why we doubt certain things.

For those who are believers in the conspiracy cases, surety must also be refined enough to know, properly. We cannot rely on senses as impression alone, on either side.


But did Paul die?


That is not the main point of this article. And on the other hand, of course the question -- not always as a real question but a mockery of the question, quite often -- will likely be playing around the edges of the reader's mind.

No-one is a moron for taking on the case which has some subtleties, nor for believing the Beatles did the hoax. One side is wrong and one is right, but there are some good reasons to think either one; the issue is, are there methods for making a firmer determination than one's mere feelings and inner conviction? Yes. Will most bother to make sure? No.

You would assume a lot if you were to say that "Billy Shears" is a mere character which Ringo sang, so then Ringo was Shears and Shears was entirely unreal as an idea. If there was a replacement, the things Shears sings about express the feelings of the replacement himself, not Ringo, of course.

Or if you assume that there was a joke or money ploy, well:

1. They didn't need money and nothing about it is joke-like.

2. It started in 1966 in the UK for some reason and that is, if a person bothers, well knowable now.

3. There is direct evidence for the replacement, even if it were flawed evidence -- some of it being quite concise evidence, some requiring more understanding. Going through the evidence does not mean one is crazy and believing in the evidence, if that is an error, is certainly not such a horrible thing; there is some good evidential material out there.

In a court or science disagreement, believing for a while some ultimately flawed things about evidence materials does not make one crazy or stupid, if the evidence has some initial merit, does it? No.

So it is not crazy or stupid to fall for a fairly solid case, is it? If it were pretty good, even, it could fool people, could it not, without their being morons? Yes.

So could a public lie, though, couldn't it? Yes.

Uh oh.

4. There are direct lines with evidence for death, including from the news events problems at the time and from the imagery of coats of arms and John's drawing of the body (both of which require some knowledge about the items in question, but show death). True, there is no death certificate or photo available of the dead body. But if there are such strong suggestions, it certainly would not make one *crazy or stupid* to wonder or to conclude ...

Even if ultimately that were wrong to do, now would it?

You are just wrong, not a moron, either way, and if you want to feel superior, just remember that being right is not as much of a superiority as being a "non-moron", so please calm down. I write this knowing full well that some of you want to just put down people you think are stupid.



And, though some people do not like to, we have to realize that even a wrong case is work to make. No matter how much they are off base or on base, a crazy, maladjusted idea or not, the efforts to make them are extensive for some cases.


Sorry about that; the issue of a complex set of impressions either way is not moronic and few issues in life really are. They are perception differences and some have a lot of seeming back-up -- as with any serious case -- so one has to figure out if one wants to find out if some of the serious confusions are on the "mainstream" side or not.

A proper determination can be made, upon quiet -- even originally somewhat prejudiced -- reflection, if prejudices are avoided for a while.

Due diligence does not mean what *you may think is due* but rather *do full diligence on every topic which comes your way*. Few people have the time or inclination and in controversies often refuse outright. But if they were going to do the work, they would have to do it as I was describing. It is just a fact that it is the only true intellectual method.

 Image from here, cached here.

This is also true with any determining piece or pieces of evidence and arguments about those, in any case, in any issue or idea in science or court or history. Why would we need as far as possible a whole case to support a piece of evidence which should be able to stand on its own? Just for added surety that the item in question is well argued. This is also true when arguing DNA or structural impossibilities. Nothing in life is exact, beforehand, in an argument. So we want as many angles on the question as possible.

Here is a summary of links on some of those issues (http://tl.gd/n_1so0u9k), but please continue here either way.

Yes, our issue is with Kubrick (and King) as having used the rumour.

PID (Paul is Dead) and Apollo 11 as hoax, in Jonnys53, Imagine Dragons music video and Wikipedia


Jonnys53 did know of Paul is Dead as a rumour and set of clues supposedly in Beatles material, but did not *see specifically* that the findings he made relate to Paul's death case, rumour or fact. He only noted that Beatles Paul is Dead clues are like what Kubrick did.

The music group "Imagine Dragons" instead and rather famously, actually overtly remade parts of the film "The Shining" and added elements from "2001: A Space Odyssey", for their music video, "On Top of the World" (2013). They worked in Paul death references as well as another large conspiracy claim: the often-mentioned Apollo 11 Moon landing hoax idea. In fact, they worked them in so well that the idea for the video starts as a tinfoil-hat-wearing kid insinuating himself into the crowd (slipping in), as a joke or maybe as a truthteller and then the whole storyline ends with people in the crowd seeming to realize (remember, inside the video, not necessarily in reality), seeming to realize that both events were conspiracy.


Though Wikipedia has a page about the video and claimed that the people in the story did *not* agree with the conspiracy ideas for Moon and Paul, it seems more likely that even as a joke, the people in the story do believe it. Why? Not only they are dancing at the concert *on the set,* where, in the story. How so? The crowd flocks to the Apollo set when there is a glitch in the broadcasting and hails and forgives Kubrick and Nixon for lying. In the story, then, they are accepting, forgiving and coming to a real (truthful, in the story) -- a true humanity together. Even if the events were not conspiracies of lies, the story of the video seems to indicate that we could all grow up and realize they were; and if they were, yes, then that would be the way forward.


Here is the video link:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5tWYmIOWGk



By the way, "Snogard", the secret "government" or secret "corporation" with the Masonic all-seeing magic eye as a logo, in the video is "Dragons" *backward*. It also works as a combination of the word "Guard" and the name "Sno-Cat" (Snow Cat), a type of vehicle which plays a role in "The Shining" novel by King and film by Kubrick, in addition to the VW (Volkswagen) Beetles in the novel and film.

Aside: Imagine Dragons' video mentioned above is really well done, though, so maybe they were not truly joking. I do not know. But there is a major error in the best Website about the imagery in the video, http://illuminatiwatcher.com/the-shining-symbolism-in-imagine-dragons-on-top-of-the-world-music-video. They get the number of Beetles in King's novel wrong. And though the Website is by someone who is a conspiracy-aware person, but who also does not think the band knew anything. So for those of you reading this, be advised that not everyone agrees, even on the "other side" of mass culture.

What is similar in what Imagine Dragons did and what Kubrick and King did, we argue below, did, is that they used *intense combinations of Paul is Dead, as rumour or fact.* The artists could well have *believed it to be true -- or known, seen, thought it to be true.* But of course, they do not have to -- they could have not had the idea as a perceived truth in their minds to use the symbolism at all.


What is at stake, though, is what the Imagine Dragons video demonstrates at the end: if the conspiracies did take place -- conspiracy is not a perjorative term, properly used, just a technical term naming a group action in secret or unpleasant -- if the conspiracies did take place, they are propped up by disbelief now and by rabid prejudice. It comes down to this idea:

is prejudice okay when it happens to be right or should we always find out, if possible, what is truly knowable in new ways or unknown to our old ways?

For the moment, we continue with Kubrick and King though, of course.

Were the themes *in Kubrick and King, though*? Is Imagine Dragons group right *that far*?


Jonnys53 discovers that illusions and a double self or doppelganger are the point of the final image:

King presented an image about social acceptance driving self-delusion and Kubrick uses this, showing it stands for the final image of the whole plot


The end of the movie shows a photo of a *double*, Jonnys53 discovered. It is as if the main character was somehow, "suggested", as Kubrick himself said, to be a "reincarnation", but no reincarnation *looks the same*. Also, Kubrick tended to carefully use key words, so "suggest" is not a strong idea suggested, but a weak one: it is a *mere* suggestion of reincarnation,s somewhat in a ballpark, a gist of reincarnation. What could reincarnate but not reincarnate, be a ghost in the mind but really a ghost with actions? A mistake, a hidden double. Jonnys53 comes to this conclusion but is unsure quite what to do with it.


This is the photo of the movie's own main doppelganger, a mystery for the end of the movie. It makes the movie less a horror or thrill flick, than a conundrum, a mystery to be solved, an intellectual puzzle with suggestive aspects though no firm answers *within the film*. This man we see is "put" into the past, or was in the and was doubled in *our* story, as Jack. This man in the film is in 1921. Jack is in the 1970s.



----------------------

The only important (black and white) photo in Stephen King’s “Shining” is the linchpin in understanding Stanley Kubrick’s ending. It’s the only clue to the final picture you can find in the novel and it’s mentioned on page 191 (Chapter 33). It tells us exactly what that enigmatic July 4th photo depicts. Here’s the important excerpt from Stephen King’s novel that led me to the explanation the July 4th picture; “In that instant, kneeling there, everything came clear to him… In those few seconds [Jack] understood everything. There was a certain black-and-white picture he remembered seeing as a child, in catechism class… a jumble of whites and blacks… Then one of the children in the third row had gasped, "It's Jesus!" …. "I see Him! I see Him!" … Everyone had seen the face of Jesus in the jumble of blacks and whites except Jacky… when everyone else had tumbled their way up from the church basement and out onto the street he had lingered behind… He hated it… It was a big fake… [But] as he turned to go he had seen the face of Jesus from the corner of his eye… He turned back, his heart in his throat. Everything had suddenly clicked into place and he had stared at the picture with fearful wonder, unable to believe he had missed it… Looking at Jack Torrance. What had only been a meaningless sprawl had suddenly been transformed into a stark black-and-white etching of the face of Christ Our Lord. Fearful wonder became terror. He had cussed in front of a picture of Jesus. He would be damned. He would be in hell with the sinners. The face of Christ had been in the picture all along. All along.”

------------------------

Jonnys53 makes it obvious that the photo Jack sees "of Christ" is a black and white photo and that Kubrick got that end photo idea for his film from this black and white issue.

"How hallucinations emerge from trying to make sense of an ambiguous world" October 12, 2015 http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-10-hallucinations-emerge-ambiguous-world.html 

But though Jonny has identified how Kubrick (and King) are saying we see things when they are not there, as a mind trick, not an hallucination in total mental illness or from ghosts, exactly, he misses what I am pointing out, that there is a *specific perception error all of this derives from*, not only a general horror and formal mental illness at stake. He correctly links the photo to the faked photo of Lee Harvey Oswald for Life magazine, how a face is *added* to someone else's body (important link to background history: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.ca/2015/10/framing-patsy-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald.html).

Jonny then: Jack's face is added to the photo above:


-----------------

The entire photo is a fake and was specifically produced this way. We know this from Stanley Kubrick’s interview with Michel Ciment. Jack Nicholson's face was airbrushed onto someone else’s body. To quote Danny's imaginary friend Tony again, “it's like pictures in a book “, "it isn't real".

“They were in a photograph taken in 1921 which we found in a picture library…. I very carefully photographed Jack, matching the angle and the lighting of the 1921 photograph, and shooting him from different distances too, so that his face would be larger and smaller on the negative. This allowed the choice of an image size which when enlarged would match the grain structure in the original photograph. The photograph of [Jack's face] was then airbrushed in to the main photograph, and I think the result looked perfect…."

The photo of Jack is not real. His face was airbrushed onto someone else's body.

-----------------

But the face for Jack doesn't *seem* to be actually added, so we miss it. Does it *have* to be something we know for the *point to be about how we misidentify people, faces, behaviours* sometimes? It should have been (Kubrick overdoes his excellence here, so that it is not *discoverable*, except through all of the other hidden and less-hidden suggestions in the film. It is not *watchable* and knowable, exactly.

This is regretful. However, the point at least with the music which was not available in 1921, might be a hint.

Also, I think the whole body was airbrushed in. In other words, though Jonnys53 suggests that the face only was airbrushed, because the size of face had to be reasonable, so did the body. And it was a picture of Jack. The statement is readable either way. But it remains an airbrushing, a doctoring.

Given that the angle of the arms suggests a Devil tarot card, like a Baphomet figure too, the body might well have been added.

If not, we still have imagery of Devil and "all the best people", which Jack was not, with a Jack face (like his "faceless" son in the novel).

Is this like the Paul situation? Yes, the original Paul was not a Devil; but the new one is, in the sense of being a lie.

The film is about Maya, with a Mayan temple, mirrored, in the maze. Maya means illusion in India, yes, as well as being the name of a Central American tribe. And as such there are other things which can be taken generally here. And death as an end of all is also a theme in the film, yes. And Jonny talks extensively about how the whole thing is an illusion, but not merely Jack's *delusion*.


Jonnys53 discusses Jack's supposed reincarnation and concludes that the film is about "a big fake", a mass deception, which is somehow also real


----------------------


Unfortunately Stanley Kubrick will be no help whatsoever in trying to understand what’s going on in the end of “The Shining”. This is why we’re here poking, prying - endlessly trying to understand this film. Look carefully at what he said about the final scene in his interview with Michel Ciment. He could have told Michel exactly what the July 4th ballroom picture means, but instead he cleverly says this; “The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack”. What an interesting choice of words he uses as the definition of ‘suggests’ is to cause one to think that something exists. The implication (and deception) here is obvious. He wants Michel Ciment, as well as the rest of us, to “think that something exists” or else he simply wouldn’t have used that word. He wants us to believe Jack’s been in the hotel before – but he hasn’t. Stanley Kubrick is a master of the English language and it’s obvious that what happens to Jack doesn’t even remotely fit the definition of the word reincarnation, the rebirth of a soul in a new body, as Jack’s face has remained the same. Everyone who views this movie is positive they have some unique insight into the puzzling question of what happened to Jack. It’s because the power of this one image, and what it implies, is unbelievable. But look closely again at Jack in the final picture. Remember what I showed you before; it’s undeniably a total paradox. The Overlook's caretaker worked in the winter. July 4th is in the summer and Jack wouldn’t have been there. He isn’t the caretaker in that picture either he’s someone special, The Manager. It isn’t even July 4th, as the only identifiable object Stanley Kubrick airbrushed in with Jack Nicholson’s face when he created the photo would obviously make it a New Year’s Eve party. The song playing in the background didn’t exist in 1921. The photo is definitely not The Overlook and the image of Jack is a fake – a face airbrushed onto someone else’s body. It's obvious that everything here is the reverse of what it appears.


[Clare Kuehn comments: I have added this section from a different part of the blog to make sense of the following images]


In Stephen King’s novel Jack dies inside The Overlook by burning to death in the boiler explosion that destroys the hotel. But nothing that simple happens in the film. In another reflected image of the source novel viewed in the Kubrickian mirror; at the end of the movie we undeniably see the exact opposite, Jack frozen solid outside with The Overlook Hotel still standing. But what seems to have been included in the original director's cut, shown to the first audiences and than later removed by Stanley Kubrick, is that the police couldn’t find any evidence of what Wendy and Danny said they saw in the hotel. This is very important. For all we know they imagined the whole thing (that’s something to ponder). But the audience is still left looking at the most puzzling and enigmatic picture in the annals of moviemaking.


  [Clare Kuehn comment: Jonny's comment about the New Year's eve party can continue below]

As I brought up earlier; what happened to all the other caretakers that had to have worked in between and before Jack and Grady? “You have always been the caretaker.” Why didn’t they try and kill their families and are they “reincarnated” also? And if this picture actually was The Overlook why would Jack Torrance be invited to that party? He’s an utter failure, as he didn’t succeed in doing his duty to “correct” his family. This can’t be left out; where’s Delbert Grady? If he’s a real “ghost” and not a figment of Jack’s imagination he must be in that picture also. “I should know I have always been here”.

Nothing really fits here. Stanley Kubrick created the ultimate enigma in that photo and if we didn’t look at Stephen Kink’s novel questions about it could never have a correct answer. The photo is truly "a big fake"; the mirror image of the black-and-white photo from Stephen King's novel. It’s meant to mislead and sear a powerful image (that Jack Torrance has been in the Overlook in a previous life) forever into our minds.

The Devil as manipulator, Father of Lies, in "The Shining"


----------------------


Jonnys53 continues:

--------------------------
 it’s not The Overlook, it’s not a Ball, not a ballroom, it’s not the state of Oregon, and it’s not on the wall during the movie. To add even more to all this, an astute anonymous poster alerted me to the most important clue about the picture. Something they thought was going on in that final photo. It seems for some strange reason that Stanley Kubrick may have posed Jack Torrance in the final picture as;

..................................Baphomet


[... And the "Devil", but also ... the man is a double, a figment, partly real and partly unreal, if we count the deleted scene and the other clues:]

But he doesn’t have Jack posed as Baphomet like the poster thought. Stanley Kubrick grew up in the last century and has Jack Torrance posed as something he’d seen before. Something spooky that represents to most of us, pure evil. [...]

If you go back to the paragraph from the novel about Stephen King’s black and white picture you can see just how brilliantly Stanley Kubrick used the source novel. Everything now “suddenly clicks into place.” We’ve “stared at that picture” in wonder for years; “unable to believe we had missed it”. The most enigmatic image in the history of moviemaking and its explanation has been right under our noses all along. Visually he created a true mirror image of the important black and white photo from the novel. A reflection viewed in Stanley Kubrick’s special mirror. “[ Jack ] would be damned. He would be in hell with the sinners.” And this is exactly what Stanley Kubrick has done here. The face of evil has been in the picture “All along.” And it will be there on that wall, “for ever, and ever, and ever.” Stanley Kubrick’s fake black and white photo inspired directly from the real black and white photo in Stephen King's novel.

[...]

Stanley Kubrick totally reversed the black and white photo of Jesus mentioned on page 191 (Chapter 33) of Stephen King’s novel. Jack is now posed in the final photo as the devil from an old Tarot card.


--------------

Not only a lie is the theme, but the theme of doppelgangers. This is not usually known, but was elucidated brilliantly by Jonnys53, an unofficial (Internet) scholar of the film. Doppelgangers usually look quite like the people they replace; but our minds play tricks on us even when people are not really so similar if we do not *start off knowing* there will be a trick.

Calvin Dillard image at http://inspirably.com/uploads/user/18097-satan-is-the-father-of-lies-and-the-greatest-liar-of-all-he.png

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/is-not-the-devil-the-father-of-lies-at-the-foundation-of-all-lies-such-as-witchcraft-the-wiccan-r/question-66397/?page=2

Lewis Carroll, The Beatles, Crowley and mirrors



Mirrors, doubling and even backwards elements did not, of course, originate with the Beatles, but they, along with Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson was his real name), in Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" books, are the most famous users of the idea. Lennon loved, all the way from childhood, the brilliant mind games of fun and subconscious insights of Lewis Carroll.

Alastair Crowley, the hedonistic "Satanist" of sorts, also a British spy and possibly criminal, taught people to "write backward", walk backward, use a left hand or right hand if it was the non-dominant hand, and "listen to phonograph records backward" to become skilled at thinking differently than others do and master one's own mind, plus be able to *have power over others*, to exercise one's will upon them -- in any hedonistic way one wished, actually. Crowley is a favourite of the man the Paul death case treats as the replacement for Paul McCartney.



Lewis Carroll (1832-1898), was, in real life, the Oxford Mathematics Lecturer (1855-81), the Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, or to his many young friends who knew him personally, Mr Dodgson.
Lewis Carroll is derived from the reversed and transmogrified [after being rendered in Latin first] Christian names.

(Real name:) Lutwidge (Latin name:) Ludovicus (New English name:) Lewis
 Lutwidge Ludovicus Lewis

 Charles  Carolus  Carroll 
 (http://www.heureka.clara.net/art/carroll.htm)

Alice Through the Looking Glass, Alice Garden, Castle Grounds, Guildford. Modern sculpture by Jeanne Argent, erected in 1990 in the Castle Grounds, near the back garden of the Chestnuts - Photo: http://www.beautifulengland.net/photos/index.php/surrey/guildford/alicethroughthelookingglassalicegarden#sthash.ohsSG9S4.dpuf
Lewis Carroll spent holidays at almost this location. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/guildford-alice-through-the-looking-glass-1612389.html



One thing we will find is that not all of the emphasis is done by King, but by Kubrick, brilliantly. Kubrick even doubles the novel's *backward visual message* (Redrum for Murder), and an *audio* one, as well, at the end. It is a *backward voice message* (Help Me), though not a *backmasked* message, where frontwise the message would have made sense too.

We will discuss now and again later, how the Beatles were the most famous group for doing each backward kind of thing except "reverse speech". Or rather, they supposedly did backmasking, where meanings front and back are technologically added, and certainly did simply backwards tracks, both instrumental and verbal. Reverse speech is something other than these. And the Beatles definitely did backwards images.

The Beatles and backwards tracks, plus technological supposed backmasking (not reverse speech, a supposedly natural phenomenon, if it occurs)


One of the earliest backward tracks of any kind by the Beatles is in the song "Rain", from early 1966. This is before Paul died -- just before. It was released June 1966 and he died in September. (A later error in the rumour, not the original rumour, though, necessarily, had him dying in November.) The backward track in "Rain" is a musical element but it does contain vocals. The decision was supposedly from an error, though some say they were playing around with the interesting musical effects one could get backwards. There is also a backward element in "Tomorrow Never Knows", released in August 1966, on the album "Revolver", just before Paul died. It is a guitar section with no vocals.

There is a backward verbal track, a weird result, at the very end of each of two records, a fact also not debated. These would more likely be messages, of some kind. Or feel like that. These occur after Paul died, and the rumour said he died. Their actual words are debated, since they have been modified as well as rendered backward.

One is separated from "Strawberry Fields Forever", 1967, in the "inner groove" at the end of the record. The record was a single, with one song on each side. The other verbal backward track is also in an "inner groove" at the end of a record, the same year. This time the backward message, whatever it was, is at the end of a whole album.

The backward track there is after "A Day In The Life" song. (That song in turn is also not within the main theme song bookends, which are a full and a partial version of the song "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".) The album is of the same name, "Sergeant Peppers", also from 1967. "A Day In The Life" comes after the reprise of the theme song, at the end of the album. No-one doubts that the two backwards tracks are there. Exactly what they say and why is debated. And no-one doubts that the later albums of the Beatles were created with emphasis on composition of where songs would come (the order of things), overall.

We should also mention the difference between true simple backwards tracks, backmasking overlay and what has been proposed in recent years, unrelated to the Beatles, a supposedly natural, not technological and not-Beatles-related thing called reverse speech. It was discovered (or posited). Backmasking and reverse speech, not the same thing, are seen sometimes as unreal.

Was it all about liking Lewis Carroll's works, "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass" (mirror)? Is it simply about the Devil? Or was it even about liking Crowley -- which the mid-late Beatles were partly into as well, though only the man living as Paul (whoever he is) has continued with that obsession or interest? Or was it those *and* a real death, or the rumour of a death, hidden in plain sight, as is so much else which Jonnys53 demonstrates? Is there a story of, or a fact of, a double who is not a double, that is, Paul after a tragic accident or murder and a replacement Beatle (like the "replacement", "shiny, new" VW Beetle in King's novel, though the novel is also just a horror story about psychology emotions and the demon of alcohol)?

John Lennon loved Lewis Carroll's works, as a youth.

Alastair Crowley also advocated the use of practising things in unconventional ways, such as writing backwards or with the left hand if right-handed, and listening to records backward. This famous Satanist-Luciferian (Lucifer means Light-bearer, originally the name for Venus, the planet), and British Empire spy, was quite popular in alternative circles around the time of the Beatles, and is a favourite of the replacement in the story (the reality) of the Paul death scenario, that is, the current Paul McCartney, now knighted, who has been our public figure "Paul" since very late in 1966, according to the Paul death case.

When the Beatles and Kubrick took the ideas of Carroll, there came in a sinister aspect at times. One aspect was, supposedly, the idea of Paul dead, for the Beatles. Was it also for Kubrick, in addition to the ideas of psychological horror and general occultism he seems to have been interested in?

What can be seen in not only a mirror, but an inaccurate double? Is there an alternate supernatural reality? Is it all a figment of the mind what happens at the Hotel in the movie? We will see that though it involves the mind, there are indications it is not only in the mind. And we will see also that while in the mind, or exploring that aspect, the audience's minds are challenged to wonder how they see and know things, how much of lies they will excuse. And what, in the movie, have been taken to be *simple ghosts* or, alternately, *just hallucinations*, have elements of something else: actual doppelgangers, or other *selves in time*. Yet they are not quite reincarnated, either, for no-one has the same body in a reincarnation. What is going on?

Alice in Wonderland and Alice's story of "Through the Looking-Glass" or Mirror, are translated here into imagery of distortions. Artist: Kathy Geoffrion Parker. On page: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate/03files/Project_Looking_Glass_LANL.html, cached here: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate/04images/Machine/Looking_Glass.png

Non-verbal or non-special verbal message backwards tracks were put into music from the Beatles before Paul's death; it was then still a mere musical idea but was revolutionary for regular records.





We will show soon that in King and Kubrick that, yes, that is what is going on, in addition to the other themes, and as a main theme. Even King, we will see shortly, enters the ideas of doppelgangers, doubles, a young person (the son) with no face (lost identity, as well as a creepy idea), confusion between father and son characters in several ways, and let us not forget what we saw about *pure perception error* in the novel: the black and white photograph, and how the father has to *fit in socially* and *see something which does not exist* in it, which Kubrick inverts and puts the father *fakely* into.


Satan, or what we call satanic even if we do not believe in a personal Satan, is known as the "Father of Lies". Kubrick's film "The Shining" is about lies, more than it is even about psychological or supernatural horror. We are left wondering, "What really happened?" It is really a *mystery*, of sorts. It has all of the other issues in it, of course, in some way, and a reference to era-changes such as not only the Biblical Apocalypse, but the "end of time" without a pure end. Time shifts in the movie, not only in *visions*.







Who died at an age mirroring his death date? Paul McCartney, in the rumour and case. Who has a double, a 2 in 1, McCartney (the original). What is the mirror for that? 1 in 2, which is what most people think they are seeing when they look. 1 in 2 is like 12, put together. And whose band had 4 members but 3 were remaining and after the replacement 3 are "real", though the replacement is also a bandmate? Paul's band did.

Who was born in 1942 and according to the case for death, died in 1966 at age 24, whose half is 12 (as if 24 were a double)? Paul McCartney, though not the double. His double is his real birth year, if we were thinking that through: 42 from 24. But the ideas wash back and forth ... literally up and down the number scale with only a few variations.

Do not balk right now; we are investigating an issue, which requires patience even for utterly silly ideas since these *can be* presumptions of what is silly; besides, if you will, we are at least investigating what may have been *only a rumour's* possible use by artists.

I own Emilio Lari's new book of 1965 photographs. General colouration matters when making a determination of reasonable colour range for any object which shares colouration with a fairly known range of colouration, such as skin and hair compared to eyes. We will see that this is important.


Photos from Emilio Lari's new publication, taken in 1965, during the filming of the Beatles' movie, "Help!" Thank you, Emilio, for hanging on to your pictures. (You know what I mean.) Book available here: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Beatles-Photographs-Set-Help/dp/0789329468

Note the eye colour, in spite of variations in film stock, age and lighting. These eyes would never transform to green, without all other colours being severely changed unnaturally, even in different light. What is going on with this? It was shown once, but is this contact lenses, does it show doctoring, or is it film stock relative to other? No, because general known quantities such as basic colouration of skin (white people) and depth of brown above are determining factors.




Again, the green tone is quite evident as a major effect in the eyes. Even though darker overall, these eyes are not brown in the skin relationship.



Paul was known for his brown eyes; they were not warm brown, but a cool hazel, a layered mid-to-dark brown. Just because the photo above and the one above that are slightly dulled, "browned out", desaturated, does not make them suddenly *brown eyes*. How odd! And what of other brown photos? Those can be doctored, or brown contacts. But these are too natural and what are they doing suddenly back in early 1967? Does this *prove* anything, on its own? Does any piece of evidence actually function as conclusive on its own in any case? Not really. Not as an argument. So is there a lot more to the case?


This is not the main issue in this article but it does take work; it is real work, to overcome what we think is obvious either way. For example, if ear cartilage and eye colour, determined properly within the constrains of the evidence, did show major differences in two time periods, we have a different man in one set of imagery, or at least, within reason we can make a decision.

Another way to put this -- for any crime or science case -- is that what seemed unreasonable should then be turned around, right? Right, but only (and here is the catch) if the forensic issues are also supported by as complete a case as possible. If these are not different -- within reasonable range -- then there would be less best forms of evidence or even less, and the thing becomes indeterminable or more doubtful.

At the time of the death claimed, there was little news. There were few reports. The reports were garbled in their content as regards what had happened to Paul at all -- and few were able to track these news reports until recent years. Also the same is true with photographs; a few were circulated of the current events, but not widely, not for all. Most photos were re-used of Paul for a while (and even sometimes of the others). This is usually somewhat normal; it's called "stock photos", reused. But in this time period (from September to April or so, 1966-1967), it was the period in question -- not in question until one asks, but in question in the issue the rumour raised.

And the rumour raised the issue most famously in 1969, in the USA, but started in the UK in late 1966.

So, if we are going to ask at all, we have to know that it was only in the period of the Internet that enough photo comparisons and news article notices became available (some in libraries, recently, for the newspapers and music magazines), that people could really make a proper determination on the truth or falsity of the claim of the rumour.

A proper determination is different than a cursory emotional attitude, a, personal assumption, no matter how much one read on the matter. Why? Because a proper determination means keeping in mind all the suggestions and details of a side, a case; it does mean following wherever it leads even if it is a crazy (as in wrong) idea. The determination can only be made *properly* at the end of this process, after comparing everything one did to make the new side work, and seeing if the stretching is more for it -- other than emotional stretching, if one was prejudiced and had to suppress that a lot -- or the stretching is more for the original side.

What would happen to surety about the voices being the same, the faces, the biographies and so on? They would *have to show differences in key places which we may have discounted,*  breezed past, excused, found objections for and not placed them carefully into the right (other) side.


So what do we do if we are a proper scientist, knower, litigator, etc.? Well, this case (and many others) will not be in court for various reasons *having nothing to do with whether the evidence is strong*. If they are correct, or incorrect, few would take these cases on and pursue them to get more and fuller evidence. If they did, they would -- just by the kind of things these involve -- be thrown out by others from court or a phone call would stop the case.

This does not mean the cases are true; it is all *hypothetical* but important to think through. Being in or out of court does not change my point that if we have discounted things, we have discounted them possibly by not keeping the strongest single pieces of evidence in mind, and not done due diligence on everything.






We will continue.

What is the "Shine" some people have?


Who needs help? The father, the son? How many times do doubles, not merely as creepy twins, have to insert themselves? Do they? Only room 237 (217 from the novel), has double doors in the movie in the main areas. Why is there a double when there is a double? Is it *merely* that we are to ask what is real, or is that related to some other unreality Kubrick is thinking of, or several unrealities?



Shine, a kind of ability with doubling or mirroring oneself and moving objects, according to many findings in Jonnys53's blog. Image above altered from here.
But what does Jonny have to say he discovered about the ability to actually "shine", that is, to exhibit telekinesis? Jonny discovers that there are not exactly ghosts, but a *double* for each person who begins to exhibit the ability to change what is real.

He has of course interpreted this as being about all cultural lies and personal beliefs about paranormal things nevertheless, which do have a place in the movie, but what is this about *doubles being real*?

They act, they are present.

At the same time, unlike in the novel, Kubrick adds, "It's not real." And then the opposite is indicated in the deleted scene, the most famous deleted scene in film history. It was deleted because audiences did not all get it, did not like it, it seems, but several people found it to be a compelling aspect. Why was it good? Kubrick had Halloran indicate through body language and black (near-black) roses, plus by throwing the ball which Halloran supposedly would know nothing about, which the twins (doppelgangers really) had thrown in a vision and so was "not real" (getting it to bounce *twice*, a hard thing to get done, say the actors), that it *was* real, somehow.


The indicators of the doppelganger presence are -- for most of the characters -- well hidden, not creepy because lost in what is, in a sense, an over-intellectual art piece. Kubrick was not, in some ways, a great *emotional storyteller*. King picked up on this and said so, we will see. But Kubrick does develop a new and (when thought about) very clever meaning for the "shine".

Here are some chair changes; other indications of objects changing are given by Jonny, and he points out that what could have been continuity errors are so consistent with all of the people who shine, as are the mentions of doubles and such ideas, and numerical doubling, that the chairs moving cannot be a mere mistake.


We are dealing primarily with Kubrick, but King's novel will be significant.

Jonnys53 discovers Doppelgangers as telekinesis


Jonnys53, we said above, discovers that doubles (literal projected reality, a kind of telekinesis) do work in the film. They are unreal (not even as ghosts are they real), but they are not exactly unreal, since though from the mind, they are more *of* the mind, doing things.


What of these doubles, which Jonny discovers? Only one way it shows:


--------------------------------

What Do Delbert Grady And Danny's Friend Tony Have In Common?

Stephen King dropped these two words, double and Doppelgänger, in his novel and Stanley Kubrick couldn’t resist finding a place for them in his film. I've found something else that’s odd and moves around in "The Shining" when it shouldn’t. It was one of the first things I ever noticed in the movie and I immediately thought it was the most common of visual continuity errors seen hundreds of times in other movies. But I never would’ve realized just what this meant and how important it is to understanding the story had I not read the novel.

How does Stanley Kubrick visually show us that each main character also has an imaginary friend like Tony?

The recurring doubling motif that Stanley Kubrick sprinkles throughout "The Shining" is quite obvious and pointing us to something under the surface of the movie. There are no important examples of doubling in Stephen King’s novel; they were added into the movie. But doubling is mentioned in it and I believe it's where Stanley Kubrick got the idea from. Tony, Danny’s imaginary friend, can be seen in the novel. This can’t be ignored as I noted before Stanley Kubrick is showing us an inverted mirror image of Stephen King’s novel, and now in the movie Tony is invisible and communicates through Danny’s voice and index finger. But he's still there if you know where to look. In the movie Tony is not only a voice inside Danny, but he’s an actual invisible entity. In fact anyone else who “Shines” in this film also has an invisible entity around them. What I’m suggesting may be a little hard to comprehend because how on earth could Stanley Kubrick show us something that’s invisible on a movie screen. This would be tough for the average director but for Stanley Kubrick it's no problem at all and the proof of what I’m saying is in these pictures. Every time a cast member’s invisible entity makes an appearance in the movie they do the exact same thing. I’ll show you the pictures first and see if you can spot where they are in each one.











Did you notice a chair moving between shots in each scene? This isn't a mistake or a movement of a camera angle. No cast member went near them and they shouldn’t have moved. It’s deliberate and it happens at least five times in the film. Stanley Kubrick shows you that they are there, the invisible entities are present sitting in a chair making themselves comfortable while hanging around and observing their host. In the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary the definition of the word Doppelgänger is; a ghostly counterpart of a living person, a double, and Stanley Kubrick put the visual evidence here in these pictures that each major character in “The Shining” has a Doppelgänger associated with them. Even though the modern Internet definition indicates an evil presence Stanley Kubrick is working from the older definition here, as only Jack’s Doppelgängers, like he, are evil. It can't be denied obvious doubles are all over this movie. What an idea Stanley Kubrick had; take Tony from the novel, make him invisible in the film and than give everybody else an invisible Doppelgänger also.


----------------------------------

Jonnys53 shows that the telekinesis, done by doppelgangers from the subconscious, is not done for scares but for a mystery


We will go into some more things below.

------------------

Are Danny and Wendy actually seeing the same vision of the bloody elevator?

Again, he doesn't overdo this but each character has at least one scene where Stanley Kubrick intentionally does something that tips us off to their special ability. When Danny sees his vision of the bloody elevators we know it’s a product of his “Shine” (:11 min. into the film). This is never disputed. Then how can it be any different when Wendy has frame for frame the exact same vision of the bloody elevators at the end of the movie - 2:14 into the film (:11 min. from the end). If this happened just once there would be no way to use it as proof of the characters special ability. But when it happens to all of them what Stanley Kubrick has done becomes obvious. The symmetrical placement of these two scenes can't be ignored (:11 seconds from the beginning of the film and :11 seconds from the end).



They're both seeing exactly the same vision of the bloody elevators and you cannot say that Danny is “Shining” when he sees his vision and Wendy is not “Shining” when she sees her vision. They're exactly the same. Danny doesn't "Shine" it into her head either. Stanley Kubrick goes way beyond meticulous to show us that this just doesn't happen here because the scuff marks on the floor in front of the elevators point us to something important. The point of view is different each time they see the bloody elevators so even though both are seeing the same thing frame for frame each vision is totally unique to that character. The scene was shot with two adjacent cameras (Wendy’s on the right and Danny’s on the left) giving each character their own unique point of view of the same event. What thought Stanley Kubrick put into this project.





Is it Tony, or someone else that shows Danny his first vision of The Overlook?

This is how I knew Jack was “Shining” images into the other’s minds. Stanley Kubrick puts it in the dialogue. Look closely at what Danny says just before the first vision in the film;

Danny; Tony, why don't you want to go to the hotel?
Tony; I don't know.
Danny; You do too know, now come on tell me.
Tony; I don't want to.
Danny; Please....
Tony; No.

Tony says a definite, “No” and in this situation “No” means “No”. It’s crystal clear. He refuses to show Danny anything about the Overlook when asked. The vision of the twin elevators that Danny sees in his mind is coming from somewhere else. It’s coming directly from someone that is looking at something inside The Overlook at that very moment. The vision is coming from his father [who has seen the scrapbook at this point, indicated just after this vision].

-----------------------



The Overlook even has only one call number; it's KDK 12 (“KDK 12 calling KDK 1”). Thus the Overlook is a double of one with 1, calling 1 other, a real or shall we say, purely natural other.

You have seen nothing much, yet, of course. But let us begin with the conclusion, so that you can judge the evidence toward it.


Double is an unfortunate word, because the original Paul, if that is the theme here, could not *really* be replaced for anyone. No-one really can but especially this one: he was too excellent. This is one of the objections people raise to the replacement idea; of course, others say "Paul" now (calling him Paul, of course), is far *better* than Paul, if he is a replacement. (Neither is quite true: there are serious problems in the latter "Paul" work and missing forms of excellence also, compared to Paul, the definite, unquestioned person's work.)





About the hotel, we notice inversions: nothing happens to the boiler (doubled for Kubrick), the elevators (doubled and stuck for Kubrick) or the fire hose (inactive but not doubled for Kubrick). Instead, in the novel, these are all single items and move, doing creepy, haunted things.

Also, about the "shine" and inverting the storyline:

- people discuss things in different places (a shift, a change) not only when people shine, showing an inverted storyline, altered everywhere one can

I cannot list all of these, so you will have to read through Jonny's blog page below to note them all.

Jonnys53 comes to the conclusion that the film actually in some way *is a "double", an "untrue" mirror of King's novel* in a basic thematic way. He also concludes that each person who "shines" actually has a "double", a "doppelganger". It is from that person's mind, but *does things*, of which they are not aware. Jack, the main character, has the greatest ability in this regard of being able to "shine" and goes evil, mad (insane in some way), dangerous, criminal, yes, but the characteristics of all people who "shine" are shared.


Jonnys53 points out many of the changing features in the film -- and the following is not a complete list:

-----------------------


Are there other explanations for the supernatural movements I’ve noted in the film?

Before writing this article few of the continuity movements I’ve shown here were ever mentioned on other Shining sites. But since my article some that have read it and have a lot of time invested in their own ideas have come up with another explanation for these continuity movements and color changes that I’ve noticed in “The Shining”. They can’t say they aren’t there because the pictures I’ve produced prove it and agreeing with me would mean a lot of deleting and time consuming rewrites. So another explanation has been put forth; it seems now that they agree with what they refer to as my so-called “theory” that they are deliberate but noticing them has another purpose in the movie. Seeing things like moving clocks and light switches and rugs are supposed to unsettle us, add to the spooky atmosphere of the movie and maybe even scare us.

Look at the clock on the wall.



Watch the light switch on the left as it disappears.



This light switch appears later in the movie.



Are you scared yet?

You have to look closely at this simplistic explanation because there’s a reason none of this was noticed before I showed up. So much time was spent by other writers dissecting Stanley Kubrick’s psychological motives that they missed the obvious; the things that Stanley Kubrick hid in plain sight. I stuck with purely visual anomalies and was specifically looking for these continuity movements because I knew they were there and I knew just where to look. If you don’t know something’s hidden in a movie you’re not going to be looking for it, and if you don’t know something exists and it's never noticed, it can’t possibly scare you. The reason I don’t agree with this other explanation is this; now that I’ve shown them to you the cat is out of the bag and we all know where the items that move are. But there’s a big problem with the assumption that Stanley Kubrick was trying to scare us with things like moving clocks, rugs and light switches because they were unbelievably well hidden, and this cannot be ignored. The average viewer would have to possess the memory of a savant to have spotted any of them in a theater as most occur in entirely different parts of the movie. No! I’m positive that when you think about all these pictures they will prove to you that Stanley Kubrick, in his version of “The Shining”, gives the power of psycho kinesis to certain characters (Click here). It’s all a well-hidden part of his movie, not a trick used to frighten us.

----------------------



We will not, I repeat (to be like Kubrick, but I am doing it more for emphasis than subtext) we will not be assessing the film simply to "find" a meaning in it. There is a relationship between having an idea, an hypothesis, and seeing evidence for it, even *incorrectly*, a wrong pattern. But to know a truth or a falsity, the true relationship goes back and forth. Evidence *suggests* for a moment; hypothesis checks; or hypothesis *suggests* and evidence checks; and the two interweave as processes. You can start with either and move forward; you then judge in the end, once thinking the whole thing as possible as you can make it, noting all objections, though, for final judgment.

That is open-mindedness; it is careful, not silly, and has a very conscious process. But it is also not so meticulous that it forgets broad sweeps of relative meaning, while making one's assessments. That is over-intellectualization, which can refuse to see a basic likely truth or falsity.


& Jonnys53 again, in a different section:

----------------------

There’s only one important photo in Stephen King’s novel and it’s black and white. Stanley Kubrick chose a black and white photo for his final enigma and there should be no confusion about what inspired him to create it. We’re looking at an exact, purposeful mirror image of the paragraph I quoted from the novel. The enigmatic black and white picture we all see at the end of “The Shining” is the mirror opposite of the image of Jesus that only Jack sees in the novel, and this sentence is what Stanley Kubrick used as the blueprint for his black-and-white mystery, “It was a big fake”. In the novel Jack believes the black-and-white picture is "a big fake" but it isn't. In the movie Stanley Kubrick shows us a black-and-white photo that everyone accepts as real without any question, not one iota of skepticism. But the photo at the end of Stanley Kubrick’s "Shining" actually is "a big fake". It’s fake! Jack Nicholson’s face was airbrushed in on someone else’s body. No one ever stops and thinks that this photo and what’s printed underneath are all a lie. It’s was meant to deceive yet we all just blindly accept that it's the truth and that it proves Jack Torrance has been in The Overlook before. And you know you’re right because you've seen the picture of him from 1921 saying "Overlook Hotel". The only question that anyone ever seems to ask is ‘what does it mean’, never ‘is what it depicts actually real’?

--------------------------


Jonny on "The Shining":

----------------------------

It’s a study in mass manipulation on the highest level and has everything to do with the final photo in the movie, which, as I’ve show[n], is also not what it appears to be. Ask yourself this important question again. Why do you believe what you believe?

----------------------------

The Paul death case (and the Apollo 11 as hoax case) both challenge what we believe. If the main point of the film is to challenge what we believe (rather than merely scare us, as we will see throughout), then whether it is successful or not, this idea fits perfectly the Paul death as a theme, even from a rumour -- as well as fits other mass lies or other mass lies Kubrick might have had in mind, even as possibilities.


Jonny:

---------------------

 It can’t be denied; we’re all lead to believe the opposite of what the truth is in this movie. Delbert Grady lies about everything and Dick Hallorann never lies to anyone – it’s so obvious. For some it may take a while but when you finally realize this it’s gonna’ change everything about how you perceive “The Shining”, for good. Stanley Kubrick only gives us certain bits of information to work with. Dick Hallorann says that Ullman phoned him ordering him back to the hotel, and unless someone can find another explanation in the dialogue or prove that it’s a lie, it’s the only explanation there is. And it changes everything about the film.

------------------------

He leads with the end photograph, for importance in this idea:


Kubrick took King's novel, which was named after a John Lennon song ("We All Shine On") to tell of public lies (such as the Apollo missions which we will cover), and of Paul's death. The Grady twins are not twins, yet they are the most famous twins in movie history. What are they? A girl and a ghost, or two visionary hallucinations of nonsense because it is creepy? No. There is a girl and her *double*, and how do we know that (even if they are, themselves, visions?)? Because everyone has a double, who has the ability to communicate in the dreamlike state, in the movie. How was this discovered? You will see.



Jonnys53 says this:

---------------

But if you're skeptical explain this from the credits? It's the most famous deleted scene in movie history; the mysterious deleted hospital scene at the end of "The Shining". We would never know anything about this important scene if it weren’t for the movie’s credits. I'm not exaggerating, it’s quite possibly the most famous deleted scene in movie history as it was part of the finished work and was actually shown to audiences for a few days before being excised from the film by Stanley Kubrick. How many other deleted scenes were taken out after the theatrical release of a film?

---------------

Well, the audience tended to laugh at the idea of a full denial about the events. So that is explicable, Jonnys52. But what did the deleted scenes (there was a scene and a bit) add? 3 minutes. So a total of 1 hour and 21 minutes becomes 1 hour and 24 minutes with the deleted scenes in. We have 1:21 or 1:24, both working with the 21 and 24 idea no matter what.

Why 42 and 24? These do not fit the Apollo Moon Hoax idea -- though we will discuss that below. Though younger than his Father, he is in fact like the real, dead young Paul, in that he is an innocent version of his father who, in the book, he had dreamed often had "been in an accident". The ideas are not an exact timeline, for son is younger than father necessarily, but Jack as a kind of mirror or double in Kubrick's version, is also partly mirrored in the son.


&
Jonny:

---------------------


Knowing where he got the idea for a cryptic black and white photo would make explaining it so much easier. This can’t be debated and surprisingly it turns out that the place where Stanley Kubrick got the idea for this particular black and white photo is right where you would expect to find it, hidden in plain sight, in Stephen King’s novel. [...]

In the photo, it’s not Jack, it’s not July, it’s not a caretaker, the music we hear is not from 1921 ...

----------------------


Nor is the replacement in the Paul death case to blame for *being the replacement*, since others would have asked him in, according to the case. But he is to blame (with others) for keeping the secrets of the secret intelligence services and corporate leaders he was helping. If he is a fraud.

------------------

Grady is an honest God fearing “ghost” and inside The Overlook, he’s the top “ghost”. But it never dawns on the audience that something is tremendously wrong here. Dick Hallorann’s character is a true hero; he never lies or deceives anyone in the film yet what he says in the dialogue is not believed (click here). Stanley Kubrick not only explains the “Shine” but most of the other secrets about the mysteries of his masterpiece through the mouth of Dick Hallorann, but viewers only believe some of what he says. Some writers will even try to un-explain what his character says in sentences like these. “It isn’t real” indicating that visions like Grady aren't real or “there are other folks” indicating that others (like Jack) have the same ability to "Shine" and don't know it. Or when he says, “Ullman phoned me last night, and I'm supposed to go up there and find out if they have to be replaced.” Indicating that something else, other than Danny calling for help (which he never does at all in the film) is what lured Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook. If you don’t like what Dick Hallorann says in the dialogue and it goes against what you believe you're seeing in this film you’ll be tempted to just ignore what Stanley Kubrick has him say. Grady (A.K.A Jack Torrance) on the other hand has no credibility at all and is believed by everyone, wholeheartedly. How thoroughly easy it is to deceive human beings and in his film Stanley Kubrick plays this card for all it’s worth. It's quite embarrassing.

---------------------

The *main* point stands that the source in King's novel and the photo in Kubrick are about perception error & "*two*" in our mind *&* reality!
Yes, of course the main storyline is a murderous set of interactions between father and son (who were very close, emotionally, in the original novel, before his emotions -- and a red Beetle -- were replaced with a "doppelganger" effect, according to the mother).

But what of this movie? In general, we know that we cannot simply use the term "supernatural" to mean *anything at all*. There is a kind of supernatural telekinesis and telepathy and visionary quality to the movie, but the material does not *quite* add up to supernatural ghosts. Someone is in the photo at the end, and it is -- sort of, or looks like -- Jack. It is his *double*. And he cries "Help Me!" ... backwards.

Is there an inspiration for this? Is this inspiration, in fact, a hidden theme, the main hidden theme, of the movie? Could it be related to the title? Indeed. We will see it is, if our argument and a mass of areas of evidence are considered in full.



Jonnys53 throws out his talk of doubles in a way, by getting into the idea of the Mayan Apocalypse or era-change, which in the 1970s was popularized by Michael Coe as being 12/24/2012 and in later years was talked of as 12/12/2012. But because *doubles* are so important and 42 is a mirroring (a doubling), the Mayan idea cannot be *sufficient* for a coherent theory (explanation) of what is happening with all these numbers for Kubrick.


That is an apocalyptic effect, well disguised, mostly by our minds, even less than by the Beatles (or intelligence services); that is the sad thing about cover-ups, the case for Paul's death claims: it does not take much except some credulity and a few delays in imagery and a few denials, to make a cover-up. Inside the scene, a few deaths of truth-tellers before they garner a lot of support behind the scenes, and someone (intelligence circles) to help with legalities and fingerprints on passports.



Delusion, hallucination, time-shifts and doubles (with the final missing hospital scene, where Ullman puts down the shell-shocked wife and child, brings dark -- let's say, almost black -- roses, rolls the yellow ball the "twins" had thrown earlier in the movie, though Ullman keeps saying that it all didn't happen yet supposedly he didn't).

Jonnys53 got all of this, but he did NOT notice why the 24 and doubling and illusion all relate. Heck, the year the movie was released, *might* have been chosen for a happy coincidence; he'd worked on the film for 5 years. Could he wait to release it? Yes. Could he have probably released it before if he'd wanted to (end of 1979), maybe.



Jonnys53 and Mayan Apocalypse -- but it is a flawed double meaning


But I digress ... Jonnys53 again:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shot I’m talking about is Jack’s twin vision of the hedge maze that I just showed you. It’s visually quite busy and if someone were trying to hide something, lots could be there hidden in plain site without being noticed.



I looked at it for about ten seconds and my jaw dropped as I found exactly what I wasn’t looking for. The Mayan Indians never being mentioned by name in this movie doesn’t mean anything because, like everything else I've shown you, they’re iconology has also been cleverly hidden. They were the Indians that Stanley Kubrick has been pointing us to all the time though. Just like the Hedge Animals, fire hose and possessed elevators from the novel that mysteriously don't budge an inch in the movie; he didn’t leave them out. Just look at how subtly and brilliantly he did this. For almost 30 years viewers have looked at this image and not seen what’s hidden there. And Stanley Kubrick did get the idea of hiding Indians in the movie directly from Stephen King's novel.



...............“Can you see the Indians in this picture?”
.......…………….............They are there!



Stephen King asked this seemingly insignificant question in his novel (Page 133 - Chapter 21), but there are no hidden Indians in it to find. Stanley Kubrick reverses the sentence and inserts hidden Indians throughout his film. He makes you “strain and squint” than in the movie, “you could see some of them”. “But you could never see all of them, and that was what made you uneasy. Because it was the ones you couldn't see that would sneak up behind you, a tomahawk in one hand and a scalping knife in the other ... (page 133, Chapter 21)”





Now, “Can you see the Indians in this picture?” There’s a perfect depiction of an ancient Mayan pyramid (top, sides and stairs) hidden in Jack’s daydream of the hedge maze and it’s proof positive that I’m correct about the Mayan date 12/24/2011. The only thing skeptics can say is, "it's not there". But we all see it. Nothing else in the ancient world looks like this. The top, sides, stairway. It’s all there. It’s an unmistakable iconic image and I made no error in getting the month, the mirror image of the 21 pictures in the last shot. He put them there on the wall to count. I made no error in adding up 7/4/1921 to get the day. He gave that to us to add up. I made no error in counting the 20 people in the second to last close-up picture of the movie. He cropped it that way for a reason. I made no error in seeing the number 11 on Danny’s Apollo sweater. He put it there for a reason. And I made no error in seeing the Mayan pyramid because it’s unmistakable image was hidden for a reason. The many American Indian references throughout the movie are way to obvious and for me they don't hold any mystery at all. The real mystery here is the date July 4, 1921 in the last shot of the movie. The inclusion of what’s hidden here; a depiction of an ancient Mayan pyramid in Jack’s daydream of the hedge maze (in conjunction with the mysterious numbers he has us notice throughout the movie) has no other explanation. It has something to do with Mayan Indians and not American Indians as is the popular belief held by some. There's no way that skeptics can make those pyramids disappear (they’re even twins - one on the top and one on the bottom). No other image in the ancient world looks like a Mayan pyramid and there is no other date in the ancient world like the Mayan Apocalypse. In fact if you had some important reason and we’re looking for a number to hide somewhere in your film, there’s no better one than this one 12/24/2011.


If this still isn't enough maybe seeing the numbers of the date 12/24/2011 Stanley Kubrick hid in the picture will help. They’re all there and quite obvious if you know where to look. The even numbers are horizontal across the middle area and the odd number is vertical.

12 is represented by the three unmistakable 4’s formed by the center shadows (3x4=12).

[Clare Kuehn notes here:
4+4+4=12, yes, but it is also that 3 of the 4 survived Paul, in our thesis. Note, too, the imperfection here: this part of the hedge design is not mirrored up-down, only left-right. An almost perfect mirror ... which the "double" for Paul is not, but his differences are subtle for those who are brainwashed, says the Paul death case.]



24 is represented by the two 6’s on the left and right added to the three 4’s (6+6+4+4+4=24). The number 6 on the right side is an inverted mirror image.


The number 20 in the year is represented by adding the four obvious 5’s on the left and right of the two 6’s near the center of the image (4x5=20). Now the numbers on the left side are the inverted mirror image.



11 is the only odd number in the date. Placing the obvious hidden Roman Numerals (X and I) in the picture together represents the number 11 and completes the year. (Some believe in the X in this picture they’re seeing a skull and crossbones but I find nothing else in the film relating to either poison or Pirates to corroborate this. But in the novel on (page 23, Chapter 4) we do have this vision that Danny sees; “A green witch light glowed into being on the front of the building, flickered, and became a giant, grinning skull over two crossed bones: "Poison," Tony said from the floating darkness. "Poison.")


We‘re actually looking at a beautiful and interesting example of a specific optical illusion. Mirrors are so important in “The Shining” and this image is a nearly perfect depiction of 2 different mirror images at once, a left-right and top to bottom inversion. A double mirror image. It’s not obvious because of the clever shadows he had added to it. The reason I say, ‘nearly perfect depiction of 2 different mirror images’ is because you have to look at it very closely. There are variations he added across the center strip that destroy the continuity of the mirror image.


12/24/2011, it’s unbelievable how he was able to hide the Mayan date and pyramid in plain sight for years. All in this one image.




The end of this blog is littered with comments on how wrong I am about the numbers. Just like what I'm going to show you next. There’s so much hidden and so much to see in this film that it boggles the mind. Take a look at how Stanley Kubrick hid the Mayan date in Jack’s novel. I love it; it’s in his clever dispersal of the typing mistakes. Something occurs only 3 times on the first page.

Stanley Kubrick points us to doubles again. Even though many mistakes are shown, there are only 3 sets of double letters that are mistakes (l, m, and a) on the first page of Jack’s novel and there are none on subsequent pages.

l - The first capital letter that’s a mistake is the twelfth number in the alphabet.
ll - 12 and 12 equals twenty four.





He also adds three l’s next to each other indicating 12 and 24.


mm - The roman numeral for 2 thousand.


aa - The first letter of the alphabet standing next to itself is 11.


k - Also, the first missing letter on the page is the 11th letter of the alphabet.


This is all so obvious. All the numbers are there - 12/24/2011.




------------------------------------------


What Johnnys53 does not mention is that 2011 is not the key number for Apocalypse, though it fits Apollo 11. And there are two numbers which are *not* in there but is key for the rest of the film: 42 and 21. So the mirrors are not there.

Why? This article argues that the imperfection in the Mayan date means the Mayan apocalypse is a side issue. It also calls attention to the Apollo 11 issue but ... not exclusively. It points (with the other evidence) to the fact that mirroring and 1+1 is more the point than 11 and *its* doubles or mirrors (which mirror exactly: 22, 33, etc.).

We will see that though Apocalypse in a Biblical and Mayan way does figure in, the doubling and *imperfect doubling* is the main point of these non-straightforward aspects of the story, the gore, the horror moments for psychology. Instead, Kubrick, we will see with Jonnys53, gives the Mayan Apocalypse date *incorrectly*, so that it ends up being 12/24/2011, not even fitting Michael Coe's version. The death of Paul was an era change, a new "double" vision of reality, a lie, but as well an apocalypse for real history and culture.

Era change is a Mayan Apocalypse and a Cultural Apocalypse in Sergeant Pepper Album


The Beatles were a coherent cultural item of energetic love, for their audience. They charmed all ages and represented a lot of chutzpah, shall we say. So as much as a gain (in the "oh so weird and wacky") later Beatles material, the change which was a colourful *pall* on the proceedings, an unhappy set, in bright colours, felt different. It affected people. It played into larger life, sure, but it was of a larger, celebrity life, raining down ... as much as drawing from ... the era.






What was the most significant cultural "era change" in 20th-century popular culture? I mean, one specific moment, like the one day of the Mayan (imperfect) date in Kubrick's "The Shining"? You may not realize it, or agree personally, but as a sea-change in music and art for popular mass culture, it was one album, one band, one image -- and not completely new, but hit the culture by storm, because of the band, the gap since they had been seen, the change in attitude and the fact they were saying there *is* a change, and the strange horror in it. Something feels *wrong*.

It is Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Sgt Peppers) album, early-mid 1967, the first full album put out by the Band (with a new lineup in one person), and pressures on it from outside, after Paul's death. Shortly after the album came out, their manager, Brian Epstein, too, would die or -- more likely, given some other aspects of his story, the arguments about his life's secrets -- be murdered.




And it is not very good in some ways. Many critics now have some perspective on the music itself in the album. Not good in the sense that the Beatles had been growing from "girl songs" which were as poetically and feelingly belted out as anyone could, toward expansive and troubadour-like ruminations of great touching value, in "Rain" and "Eleanor Rigby" and "Here Comes The Sun", but doing so without an *apocalypse*.

George Martin, the producer, had filled a lot of the space in the songs with his creations in this Sergeant Pepper album, effectively making it his production -- he'd helped a lot. And it was loved by many ... who motored on in their lives, had few images of the new person "Paul", according to evidence only the Paul death case bothered to marshal, at least very few initial images in newspapers, to compare with the old looks for Paul. And ... who would "posit it"?

Evidence does not tell you something if you are not "asking it from the evidence", and that takes some predisposition, like a rumour, a question asked, an hypothesis. One can see *wrong* patterns, but at least with complete evidence discussion, those can be ferreted out, if the question is asked properly and the evidence is bothered with, on both sides. For "weird" ideas, only the mad or genius scientist might bother ... or sometimes people who do not have much invested in the issue, or people who do care but also really want to look at a question as fairly as possible, even if they feel a basic distaste. That is what Aristotle said we must do:

"The mark of a truly educated person is the ability or willingness fully to entertain even arguments they do not accept."

The literal words he used were more curt, but the gist for the people to hear was the sentence above.

Sergeant Pepper album, then, was loved by many who came on board for the "weirdness" (though it was not *so* weird), and loved (in part) by Beatlemaniacs with taste for the subtleties they had already been expressing more naturally before, but *something was missing, not gained*. That had not happened before in their musical development.

Now there was a kind of loss. Something had happened. (Yes, really, but you may not know that yet.) Even without knowing that, the sense that something was lost drove an amnesiac level of hysteria and *whoa* it sounds so "good" ... etc. But now the album itself (music) is often criticized as fragmented, with toss-off items, and the real beauty is the last song, *almost not on the album as such, since the album's theme was book-ended by a brass band sound.*

The genius of the album, primarily is the last song. And *it* is more of a mature development from the previous year than anything else on the album. It is "A Day in the Life". And it is about loss, particularly the *loss of Paul*. You may not know that, or know how to know, but it was.

Even if Kubrick did not know. Or King. Let us say, it made for fascinating ruminations -- or maybe they saw it, knew it. Maybe they did not have all of the information available now, but they could know.


You and I and all persons come to odd and supposedly improper ideas with preconceptions: how to overcome them enough to do a proper job on the idea?


One thing which is common for such ideas, that is, lies, and public lies at that -- lies of any kind -- is the idea of illusion. This includes what is done deliberately to deceive people (which we tend to think of as a trick or magic or deception) and what people do to themselves.

What do we do to ourselves when we do not want to or cannot immediately know that something has occurred?

We tend ...
1. to use any objection available to *fully* deny any suggestion (evidence, rumour, claim) that comes to us for it, since evidence can be misinterpreted (seen as and truly be "not real evidence") and rumours or stronger claims can fail. Tentative denial is fine, until we are done with a case, but that means *noting objections*, not really *denying the evidence* unless it is outright almost impossible as a piece of evidence.

2. to be so unsure of the basic ideas involved and how they would work that we do not do the research or simply think through, mentally do a thought experiment as research, to figure out where the possibilities come from, if there are any at all, including the "how it would work" level, mechanically, forensically or socially, to see if a case actually has a possibility.

3. to emotionally dismiss the whole process and not even start.

These things are the illusions even more often than cases themselves are illusions! For what I just listed are *always method mistakes* -- and always is much more often than any partial occurrence, and that a case is right or wrong is always only part of the time. Even a conspiracy case: some occur (Julius Caesar was killed by one) and that is more than never.

In other words, even if a person ends up being *right* to avoid a subject in the sense of think it untrue, the *method to know how something is true or untrue is always to work through the idea properly*.

So the three points above are mistakes *in method*, no matter what. They are based in fear of an idea enough to laugh at it and say there is no fear at all! No idea is so fearsome that it cannot be *worked through as if true* and presented well, for quiet judgment.

No supposed bigotry, no bias, no partial mistake or loopy, even crazy belief cannot be properly considered, since even if there are emotions of hate or danger in the person presenting the belief, there may be parts of it which are *important to know without hate*, or which are -- sometimes -- not even hateful or crazy, when we thought they were!

You, the reader, probably make exceptions. You should not. No matter what the subject, even the most vitriolic or crazy and publicly dangerous idea you think exists, can be appreciated in calm for whether it has points to bring, or not! Yes, it is possible. And that can scare us: who would bother to sit through a horrible idea? Someone who is crazy or a public menace?

Maybe. But not always. The point is: it can be done, and it is the method for knowing a truth *with greater certainty than your current feelings*!

PID and all conspiracy cases -- that means even the corruption you know about and accept already in life, if done by more than one person -- are a kind of inversion of what we wish or generally think life is about, what is healthy to have happen in society.

Also, discovering that a lie has occurred is like *not* accepting evidence for a magic trick. In magic tricks and practical jokes, before you know it is a trick, or even after, certain things fool you and *you fool yourself*. How so? You might well not accept that it was a trick; you were *tricked*, then, into not asking about whether there was a lie. Most people only notice when people cannot actually correctly figure out how it was done, but that at least has people guessing there was a trick.

Here is the idea I mean: "This Unbelivable Magician Doesn’t Just Fool Penn And Teller; He'll Make You Think Magic Is Real" http://www.higherperspectives.com/this-unbelivable-magician-doesnt-just-fool-penn-and-teller-hell-make-y-1406179484.html


Or we can look at this (and no, it is not all about simple visual deception):


http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7873438-sleights-of-mind

The book's title is "Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions" [instead of "Sleights of Hand" and "Everyday Perceptions", which are the usual English phrases, I should mention to foreign-language readers].

Other, more complicated solutions than *uninformed* simplicity would know, may ultimately prove correct and *simpler for the real evidence*.  Occam's Razor does not "prove" any two postulates one way or the other.  In other words it doesn't provide any proof—in itself.  Only science as testing (including arguing) can prove something either way.  Occam's Razor actually favors that Paul died, but not as an oversimplified impression of one man in two.

While "one man" seems simpler than "Paul died and was replaced" on the surface, the amount of unexplained and unobserved assumptions for one man add up to something extremely complex. We will go into some of these, but our point not being to argue Paul's actual death makes the beginning of this article hard to write.

Anyway, having to cover Paul's death case for a few more paragraphs: death and replacement has complexity, but it *sounds complex* as an inelegance of explanation only on the surface; the deeper you dig the simpler it becomes relative to *incongruities in the one-Paul idea*.




The issues raised above for the Paul death case itself (not Kubrick's use of it), are, again:

- The rumour was early and this is knowable now from 5 or 6 pieces of evidence

- Eyes and ears when considered with proper arguments from specific conditions in photos, are like fingerprints, in that they have enough colour and/or shape differences for a compact argument to determine high likelihoods of difference in some cases. (For eyes we do not even need iris matching to know if a major property, colour, is wrong. Various colours are impossible for one eye to become in another photo, without *known ranges of context colours*, such as skin, in the second photo to show massive changes from what is natural. Doctoring and contacts become possibilities and film stock differences play a role, but not with *certain changes within a context of the whole photo*, when the photo has known ranges of colours in it, such as general skin. For ears we have to consider lighting and angle of view, but after that, we need to notice angles of whole areas relative to others, with ripples and size and placement in the cartilage everywhere.)

- The event was not massive, but had massive effect in *unknowing*, for the public, if we look at the case. The actual formal aspects of cover-up would have been rather limited, and most of a cover-up is not formal cover-up but people not telling *you*, because they get on with their lives, are embarrassed, were threatened, or just don't have direct proof.

Moreover, there were three good reasons to do a cover-up (the formal part of it) despite the risks (which as we know now, even if it was not done, were not very risky, since most people do *not* believe things against what they are told in a situation like this -- a scary thought, for whenever things are really a lie).



Why replace? The Beatles were:
a) huge business for a lot of people, including the *government*: Wilson's government did not have to devalue the UK Pound (money) because of the Beatles' direct and indirect economic impact https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/how-beatles-saved-uk-from-its-foreign-exchange-crisis-in-1960s-some-lessons-for-india-too
b) Paul was going to speak on the JFK cover-up only 2 years after the JFK murder, and people would have flocked to Mark Lane's 1966 book and 1967 movie if so, as Mark Lane tells with detail, in his recent autobiography http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.html
c) there was a cultural plot and experiment afoot in the US and England, about popular culture and war, marginalizing a small group of early, natural "hippies" by infiltrating, debasing, promoting and busting them http://informationfarm.blogspot.ca/2010/02/inside-lc-strange-but-mostly-true-story.html




For those who wish those points by the exchange above to be expanded for a moment:

2 college students did not discover the rumour idea on their own in the USA in 1969; the rumour crossed the ocean and the colleges began to have "fun" with or "notice" it, even be concerned by writing it up and calling it in to radio. One student said much later that he had "made it up", but as he later indicated, he meant that he had put things together from the rumour which was around. Just as we will learn many things before being able to assess Kubrick and King's works, and long before we can fully assess whether Paul's death as an idea is in them in a major way, we need to your facts straight before discussing anything, including the death idea itself.
As well, doing a replacement was not so "massive"; it was *unusual* and a "risk", except you probably still don't realize it's possible and right before your eyes, if it is true. So it wasn't much of a risk, was it? You don't understand the common aspects of "cover-up" if you think they're mostly done to you. A little doctoring and changing of news pieces after the fact will do. Some legalities behind the scenes and a few initial persons knowing, with others hearing and trying to be kind or get on with their lives, or threatened, will do.
"Keep calm (as British do) and (say) Meh ('whatever', get off my back, leave me alone, don't ask questions)!" Image at http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/724809-meh

"Meh" or "It does not matter to me" is typical in deflecting blame in a cover-up, where you were not the main player, or when you were! Image at http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/File:Meh.png
Each person mostly excuses their own life's role in a cover-up (including yours, to yourself). That's all. That is what amounts to cover-up. So cover-up is not really the issue in denying Paul's death case.

There *were* reasons and the ability to do a replacement, a highly unorthodox thing to do. The ability we will not show right here, but the reasons were basically threefold.


Again, the rumour was from before the US got it in 1969.
"before". Image at http://www.bloggingjunction.com/what-to-do-before-selling-ad-spaces-in-your-blog-site/
Are we now clear on that, even though I will not take the time to go into that here? 5 or 6 references to that are known now. It was from late 1966 in the UK. And people who begin to deal with the case must deal properly with the eyes and ears, if they cannot handle overall facts like body and body language, news reporting and biography, song assessment and intel agencies.
"I don't believe this!" Image at http://chrispiascik.com/2013/11/i-dont-believe-this/

"During the day, I don't believe in ghosts. At night, I'm a little more open-minded." Image at http://9buz.com/media/during-the-day-i-dont-believe-in-ghosts-at-night-im-a-little-more-open-minded--2013-07-07
Is that what it takes? An emotional openness? Or facts?
Well, both. Because with open-mindedness *not* based in fear, unlike the image about ghosts above, we can actually do some good determinations and remember what objections really hold water, so to speak.
"Who, what, where, when, why, how and Questions, Answers." Image at broken or slow link through this link (click).





Does Paul have to have died and been replaced for his replacement to be a theme in artworks such as movies, novels, songs and drawings? No. Not exactly, no. But since prejudice for the main case can be high and is a truly powerful thing, since odd ideas can be true, untrue or undeterminable without being crazy, we will cover parts of the case here. Craziness is, really, an exaggeration of how people put together facts and arguments for emotional reasons. Denial is a kind of craziness, then, too.

Jonnys53 on "The Shining":

----------------

How thoroughly easy it is to deceive human beings and in his film Stanley Kubrick plays this card for all it’s worth. It's quite embarrassing.

---------------

So, no, we do not have to accept the case for Paul's death to discuss Kubrick, but since the case for Paul's death is a negative in historical reality if it has merit as a case, some people cannot brook any discussion of a tangent from it. But negativity about it is unacceptable when that is prejudiced, uncareful, shutting down discussion even of tangents such as homage artworks, which we will show "The Shining" is. Some people have said the points are "debunked", when they do not handle *accurately* the points about eye colour, ear cartilage, etc. So we will give a touch of those and talk of Kubrick and King.


"No negativity". Image at http://www.hercampus.com/school/jcu/negativity-noun-definition-unnecessary

Paul, again, does not have to have died for us to know now that Kubrick used the idea.
It is unnecessary, at root, to know whether Paul died to have our basic discussion, though it will be emotionally necessary to refer to the case for the death and replacement, for many readers.

"Unnecessary: adjective." Image at: http://www.shutterstock.com/s/unnecessary/search.html


Paul also does not have to have died for us to correct what we know and think about many aspects of the case.

There are 5 or 6 references to the rumour of his death as being from late 1966, when he is supposed to have died -- and that he did not die or was not supposed to have died originally, in November, but in September. All of this was when newspapers ran a lot of older photos of Paul and he was (or the new man was) largely out of the spotlight for many months. More is known now about all of this. But either way, it was all long before any DJ or student in the USA could have thought it up, or in 1969. The rumour was first in the UK (Britain, England) and spread. In other words, the biggest assumption by people about the rumour is false. This is covered elsewhere and in the video of mine, which I link to much further down the article.

Let us repeat this, just to be assured the audience is correct when talking about the case itself. (I find a lot of people repeat bad information when prejudiced, even after being corrected.) And no, Kubrick (or King) did not have to know the rumour was true to make art about the idea. Nor is this article *about Paul's death case*, primarily. We will interweave comments about it in a section below and comment on the basic eye and ear comparisons are given, with facial comparisons which are striking, not ones where one might more easily confuse the people in question, in the case.

However ... many readers will have ideas they got from elsewhere, about the case. So, we will unfortunately have to start with something about the Paul death case, to be fair to them.

Kubrick and King, again, would not have to think or know that the death was real, for them to ruminate on it and use it, from the rumour. Yet, with the extensive use of it, they may well have believed it or known it to be true, especially Kubrick.


Here is a typical exchange:

- Believe me, Paul is Dead does not at all represent all Americans. I'm American and I have never once believed this nonsense. I have no reason to. No matter what half-wit theories these PIDers come up with, their lack of credible evidence makes it easy to shrug off. Paul has been the same person his entire life and no one can say otherwise. 
- I never meant to offend anyone. I love Americans but this rumour was started by an American radio dj and loads of Americans believe it. 
- A lot of Americans can be quite gullible sometimes. Yeah it's sad how people think it's completely logical that the British government went to such great lengths to create this massive cover-up, yet 2 random college students were able to uncover it. Please. The ideas have been shot down so many times ... There is no credible evidence.

When a case is basically done, it does not need you to approve. Sorry. But *is it done* is the question. In a controversy, every new person thinks they are a true arbiter. So let us just give some basic overview on the weird idea of Paul's death, which is not so weird, though it is always debated.


"It is what it is." Image at http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/tautolterm.htm




There are several errors in the exchange. One is to do with the rumour's start date; one is that the other evidence has been "shot down" (when in fact, generalizations which do *not* fit the evidence directly were raised, and though objections can always be thought of, they are not always a good *fit* for evidence); one is that Americans are gullible or were, for believing the rumour, when most did not fully at the time but wondered and most certainly do not now, despite better evidence.


Occam's Razor of logic:


Occam's Razor says that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected as the correct one, but that does not mean only *before* evidence is weighed fully and argued; in other words, the final, informed common sense, as in, informed simplicity of an idea, is where the assumptions it requires can be judged. And only then, actually.
that idea*?! Most of a cover-up is just our not wanting to know, if there are any indications at all, any slip-ups, or any clever references. Or is it all "made up" and a "fantasy" of the mind, making unreal patterns?



Overall Points on Kubrick's "The Shining" and PID


1 from 2 and 2 from 1, or instead and as well, 1+2=3. Not what, but who are these? Two Pauls and 3 remaining Beatles (and 3 VW Beetles in the film, though one *doubles* as the dead, crashed, bloody and red Paul), would fit this idea well.

24 and 42. Not what but who was related to those numbers?
Hm.
Well, Paul McCartney was dead at 24 and his birthdate was '42. Dead in rumour or reality.

This is all in a movie about a John Lennon song, or inspired by one somehow.

And doubles, doppelgangers, doubled objects, letters, time shifts and death, mirrors, backwards ideas and 11, in specific ways which do not always have to do with Apollo 11, suggests 1 from 2 and 2 from 1.


Now, we can almost return to the Kubrick use of the idea while learning new things in general about his movie's hidden material (discovered without the Paul is Dead thesis in mind).

But we should mention one more thing about the Paul death case. In fact, the biggest mistake in doubting the rumour now is an assumption.The biggest assumption many people have against a replacement and death is that there is some kind of "stupidity" among "Americans".

Of course, most do not and really did not think there had to be a replacement; there was also some news containment in 1969 in the UK about this. The containment of the 1969 rumour, for your interest, perhaps, was mostly disparagement. And *then as now,* most people did not believe the rumour as such, but more did wonder for a time, why there was so much which seemed to support such a rumour, once one looked. But now there is far more available to compare. Either way, though, Kubrick and King can have used the idea without Paul's having died or, if the case is correct, without knowing it.

All of these are ...





Points to ponder. (Image here.)

Okay, so about Kubrick and movies and meanings:

No assumption is made in this article that everything with a VW Beetle in it or a literal beetle insect has to do with Paul is Dead, in movies, nor does everything have to do with it in a movie which has the Paul death rumour as a theme. We will be saying that the theme is there, in multiple ways. It is a long argument with many issues to clear up and many pieces of evidence for it, in different ways -- not as an exclusive meaning, but a kind of trump-card, an over-arching theme with tangents and similar items weaving in, in addition to a horror plot. Kubrick's "The Shining" and King's horror novel do have the theme. That is what we will argue.

Moreover, there are *several* things we have to discuss, you will not have known about "The Shining" (movie or book). These were, primarily, discovered by Jonnys53.


"I love new stuff!" Image at http://www.social-engineer.org/social-engineering/social-engineer_in_2014/attachment/new-stuff/


It is an era change but a lie. A true lie: one we need to know, is the idea. Is the idea insane or our collective history is insane, as in, well adjusted only *inside the lie*?

Maybe so.

Again, and sorry to repeat, but it may be necessary:

Cultural drug excesses, strangeness and hedonism ensued along with the Beatles' transformation and, emotionally, many people felt somewhat led by it: it was, of course, a feedback loop for many people, even not Beatles fans. And everyone now should know -- I hope -- the involvement of intelligence services, geopoliticians, cruel wars as an issue or participation, drug smuggling and so on which also played a part in the "wild culture scene" of the later 1960s in the US, Britain and elsewhere.

This means the numbers and mirroring to 42 are more the point than Apocalypse *as such*, in its own right. They are both there, we will see, but again it is doubling and the Beetles and the title and the relationship of the characters not only to reality and hallucination but to *other selves*, which is the thread running through the whole with any consistency.


The movie ends with a reversal with questions surrounding it. A man with the main character's face is in a photo, happy, long *before* the main events of the movie.


Paul McCartney's death case: A few considerations


Even if Kubrick did not know (I give a reason that he would: that if the movie is "about", largely, this issue of the Paul death and rumour, he probably knew), but if he did not know, it does not mean you should not consider the issue.

Who would he be?

If there was a replacement:


What could be done was *change the future* (Paul's real likely future if he had lived), which would happen naturally as we accept the new. Not everything would be done *to* us; our minds would conflate the two persons (lay together the histories for the two). But the future for Paul as the "weird genius" was not realistic; it is an *improbable* future for Paul. (This is one of the signs we might be dealing with a double). The future of the young man would not have been much like that which became "his future".

By presenting a new person whose tendencies and interests would *become the future*. He worked with others who helped, whom he befriended to some degree and with the willingness and typical laziness of our brains, the mid-voice range, accent (not local accent, though), and some interesting talent -- but not the intense, loving, troubadour-like heart and star power -- a "transformation" of the original *could* be presented. The rest would be showiness, that is, deflections and distortions (doctoring of sound and images occasionally) and confused biographical materials.

You all probably know the man. He has been on the public stage, literally, since 1967, though the 4 earliest photos of him are from late 1966. He has been knighted. He is beloved by many, though never caught on with some, not usually knowing why. Early, "simple" love songs with great emotional complexity and heart turned into "silly love songs" later, in the hands of the double and in the minds of a bamboozled public, the replacement was not only talented, but *the same* or, shall we say, "better" for being intellect-oriented, weird, a showy fellow with some interest in doing good. But he was also more of a hardliner, more controlling, not a youthful occasional brawler, but rather someone with his own dark side and not just for being asked in as a replacement.

Not ...



But ...



Not ...






But ...

Was the movie about all hidden realities, all conspiracies and all psychological sicknesses and general propaganda or was there a hinge in the main theme of the artistic games Kubrick was playing? Was he playing on, first and foremost, *a specific case of propaganda*?

Why? Did he know it was true, or just hear rumours of it? Either way, he goes to a lot of trouble.

For real ears (fake ears on replacement were also worn, and surgery or age as any kind of significant cartilage changer like this on the overall angle in the back and upper ripples of the ears also needs discussion -- as does any piece of evidence where medical and complex visual changes are present, so this is again a summary issue), see the picture below. Ears are like fingerprints: there can be similarities but there will be differences in cartilage and many of them point to there being different people.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C8EbKUErAOE/UYlz7n8vhjI/AAAAAAAAAPw/gGPTrgKUUls/s1600/Comparing+their+ears+1.jpg



Well, let us even begin -- just begin -- to wonder: who is the close-up green-eyed man, even though colours are faded in the light and film?

They showed it once, close up, only once shown well, without too much colour imbalance (the hair being a dark, unnatural wig). Green eyes have some brown in them, some bluish and greenish. The *yellows* are under-represented slightly in this print, judging by the skin, and would render the eyes *greener, not browner,* overall.


Again, the green tone is quite evident as a major effect in the eyes. Even though darker overall, these eyes are not brown in the skin relationship.



Paul was known for his brown eyes; they were not warm brown, but a cool hazel, a layered mid-to-dark brown. At darkest printing he looked like this.


I own Emilio Lari's new book of 1965 photographs. There are two close-ups (fairly close) on Paul's eyes. Both show brown, though there is a lighting and colour balance issue in them. We can note from the general colouration that a blackish tone and bluish tone is less present in these colour images than skin colour would have. It may seem that yellow needs to be added, but there is red-yellow (orange) prevalent, actually. With more blue (which is lighter than brown, black, purple-red, actually), we would have not green eyes, but a more hazelnut brown, a tad lighter than chocolate. Even with yellow added, they would not turn green, in the pale green with brown fleck sense.



 The following image is an improper photo of the colours in the book. There must have been Photoshop adjustment or too much light on the image when photographed for the Internet. However, it was uploaded to the Internet. Even if we use it as a gauge, and make some comments below about it, we will see that the eye does not turn *green*; it gets a slight pale hazelnut brown (an artist would call it a greenish brown), but it is not something which in natural frontal or close-up would be green with brown flecks in the light-moss sense. Paul was known for having *brown eyes*, though in some lights they appeared hazel-mid-brown.

The image above was uploaded to the Internet but the colour is very wrong. I have the book. Let us say, though, at lightest, his eyes were the colours in mid-brown hair. Reflections and printing on the hair and eye, together, show that not the eye colour but the reflections become the palest green-brown, but not a true green (blue-blacks are under-present in the printing all over and would darken the look of the green-brown, to a brower brown). Within range, this is a hazel brown, not a true green-with-brown eye.

Who is this man, again, with the green eyes? Did we all miss a transformation which was a *doubling which did not really work but we thought it could not be done so we missed it*? Mere months after Paul still looked basically like the photo in the middle there, this man -- consistent over time in the differences, despite some passing resemblances and some doctored photos -- appears:



The photo on the left is a bit stretched left to right, but note that certain aspects are never the same in the same expressions and the liveliness in general is different. Also though there is a passing resemblance, expecially in other photos than these, a resemblance increased with our *wish to think it is the same*, plus plastic surgery and some attempt to be a bit like Paul, these are not mere fat loss or seriousness after drugs. The uppermost right image is from less than a year after the photos of Paul here. Mere fat loss is not the issue.


The issue of who the double is is one fraught with difficulties. We can talk of it only briefly. Though blame is laid on him, it is not his exclusive fault.

Though looking more mature and being sometimes an uppity prick, loquacious with a lot of interest in pseudo and real mysticism and cultic concepts, the replacement, who traded on "weirder" musical ideas, often without a lot of substance in the lyrics or sentiment, was just not *thought* to be a double, or trying to be a double, because *who would tend to think and accept

To be fair to those who doubt that there is some such real "double" or trickster in publicly in our midst, and to make it easier to speak of the idea of the Kubrick theme as an argument, I can say that maybe he *heard* of the major rumour and just ruminated on it, and go on to prove that this is the major theme behind his movie, "The Shining", other than a feeling for psychological, almost Hitchcockian horror. But I do know now that the double is in our midst and I think, if this thesis is right about Kubrick's movie, that he knew too, since he really gives it quite a lot of accurate thought which a superficial treatment of the idea would not have maybe thought of.


Even if you decide to see the findings as "mere suggestion", the issue we present is that with the title, the VW Beetle (more than one, actually, in each: the novel has a *replacement* Beetle in the only mention of its colour, early on, and Kubrick uses 3 different Beetles, one of them quite hidden and in an accident), we have to consider if the Paul death idea is *primary* to the creation of each work, that is, that it is a subtext intended and inspiring parts of the work, not merely a scene or two with a toss-off mention.


If you are not familiar with the determination that Paul McCartney really did die, the rumour was correct and early, how to tell that he died (in every way, the method to tell), then please review the following items.

Note that the rumour did not start in 1969 or in the USA. It started in the UK in late 1966, in response to the real death.



The bulk of the article will be the ins and outs of the ideas involved, with the implications in every area. Thus it is a lot to show, since this movie completely fits the idea that as the *main* theme, that was in Kubrick's mind. But the idea itself is not that far a stretch, it turns out. Enjoy.



Jonnys53 says this:
-------------------------------

So much is going on below the surface of “The Shining” that it was almost impossible for me to know exactly where to start or in what order I should present it all in. But there’s something here that I must discuss. Something that reaches into the very core of our human nature. It’s amazing how in “The Shining” Stanley Kubrick is so easily able to manipulate the audience into believing that lies are the truth and that the truth is a lie. In the end this may be what the movie and final picture are actually about because, as in life, we have to distinguish between truth and fiction all the time. There's also a continuous conflict in each soul between the "benevolent" and the "malignant". He’s questioning our core belief system (our faith) by showing us how easily we can all be fooled.

He may be mocking or belief system. Actually I’m being a little too nice. Stanley Kubrick may have been a deceptive person at heart because of the way he brutally toyed with the audience. I don’t think he ever thought anyone would make sense out of all this. We can never know for sure? But have you ever stopped and thought about your own beliefs? Why you have faith in what you believe in, or your lack of it? 

-------------------------------

But was there one specific historical lie which weaves throughout the movie? Apollo as a hoax does *not*. It is in there and we will cover that, but whole aspects of the subtexts and the main plot toward the time shift at the end, do not in fact relate to that idea easily. Anyone caught up in a lie (as Kubrick was, and we will cover that much further on) needs help, and would cry out as at the end. An old self would die, as that person, we say, "sold his or her soul to the Devil". But is there a specific theme which Kubrick uses, of doubling and mirroring, with specific numbers and images, which show that one particular and *different* public lie in history was Kubrick's inspiration for whole swathes of the movie's subtexts? Yes, we will argue that there was, whether he heard it as a possibility or, because of the constant meditation on the theme that he did, he knew it as a fact.



We will see. Not yet, for we are barely begun in our discussion of the film and novel.
But let us ask, is one of the themes, indeed the most major theme (other than personal depravity) ... even as a rumour ...



We are not there yet, of course, even about the use of the rumour, let alone the Paul death claim as a full case to be decided as fact.

So what did Jonnys53 discover everywhere in the movie? He discovered doubles (in visions), doubles (in numbers and objects) and mirrors. Some are *imperfect* mirrors. Why? A film can be about many things at once, some main themes, some overt storyline aspects, some subtexts. But could a main influence, even *main point* be woven thoroughly throughout such a confusing film, a film whose mystery is about mysterious *doubling*?

And most of these doubles are not to do with doubles of 11, in fact none, really. With the Apollo idea as a hoax (Apollo 11), which has been discussed by Jay Weidner, we would expect 22s, 33s.

But we find (other than 11) 12, 21, 24, 42. And we find them again and again (to double the idea), or should we say:

"niaga dna niaga"?!


People who "Shine" in the movie each have a double.


The use of 11 seconds (and other 11s) is probably from numerology magick (Alastair Crowley and Lewis Carroll's number tricks), and Apollo 11 as a hoax Moon landing (proposed by Jay Weidner and on which I have information below, in this article) but also 1 and 1 make doubles, twins.

With what Jonnys53 found out about the *telekinesis* and *projection of reality*, the changes when people "shine" or glow, fool, trick, in the movie, and the many changes (not all of them do I list), which are *inversions*, a kind of distorted *mirror*, or outright back-forth, up-down mirroring and imperfections in mirroring, we have to consider that 11 as Apollo 11 is not the only thing (or even primary source idea) in the movie.


Tricks are: tricking the public (in a fake Moon landing, for example) would be one kind of trick, but with the *Beatles references*, we have to wonder if PID (Paul is Dead) is the main idea being played with, "riffed" on here.



We will argue that yes, there are reasons to think so other than a mere notion or misapplication of a preconceived idea from alternate history thinkers -- conspiracy theorists as a non-pejorative. We will argue that with *specific types* of doubling and number use, image references and even sound reference, the movie has a very specific public lie in mind, at least as a *main* influence, not an exclusive meaning.


There are many reasons to think Kubrick (and King) were influenced *somehow* by the Paul is Dead (PID) rumour. Whether this was as factual knowledge, belief without knowledge or mere interest in the idea, we can guess at, but it is less the point of this article than to show why the movie (and perhaps the book) had this theme interwoven, even as a major influence. Not that it would be an exclusive influence, or that some tangents from it would not relate to other influences in the film, too, but that it is there and *perfect for much of the content, hidden and overt* in the film and to some degree the novel.


Numbers themselves become significant: there are so many 12, 21 (mirrors) and their doubles (24 and 42) in the film, in time codes, objects and repeated actions that though you would *not* be counting, Kubrick is telling a different *story* for himself *even there*. Some things he does about doubling are more *plot-related*, too. But note: 12 and 21 do *not* have to do with Apollo, though Apollo as a fake event -- whether you believe it was or was not is immaterial to the point -- has been shown to be worked into the movie.




Mirrors and doubles do not *require* the PID thesis, but the PID thesis requires them. So will we find some things which *clinch* the idea? I mean, clinch within reason. We are not getting Kubrick to speak about it under oath, which would give even more certainty. We are wondering: is there very good, nay, conclusive, within reason, that there is reason to believe that Kubrick was inspired by the PID idea.





Who is the one with the moustache in mid-1967? Who is the one below, who is smiling, yes, but a very different type of head to feature ratio, in general? The one with the moustache, could he come from the lower one, in *any* stretch or aging? Here is the other or putatively (claimed) other man, the one who would be the same person as the one on the magazine cover from mid-1967:



Whether Kubrick and King knew it then, the Paul death case is not *crazy*, then, even if it is wrong. It has some, at least superficial, reason to continue, even thus far. But we are focussed (for a while) on the idea that they *used* the rumour as some kind of inspiration within, and even as a or the main inspiration for the creation of their works, on a deep level.


We will see that in a slightly older way, even in 1966 the one in the middle had had some fat in different ways than the one on the top in all expressions, until botox and filler (?) were used on the other one, or so the Paul death case shows, argues. Never mind for now. Let us start on our road with Kubrick and King.

Whether Kubrick just ruminated on a rumour he heard, or came to know that the rumour was true, he was influenced by the idea that Paul McCartney was dead and replaced. It is not a far stretch, it turns out.


(My video on method and case overview):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTZrVOU4GsQ

http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page_24.html
(My page on this very blog site, about the case; it is badly edited and very long, but almost the full case. Google has a script error making editing impossible and I have not completely rewritten it yet.)

And for the eyes close up (once in early-mid 1967 Strawberry Fields Forever promotional film, like a "music video" today, while later and before, all images desaturated -- less colour, thus browning the whole image and making it paler, as in Fool on the Hill in Magical Mystery Tour Film and Hey Jude TV broadcast, both late 1967 -- or bad lighting, or colour contacts worn, or doctored still images:
https://twitter.com/ClareKuehn/status/666495380431867904

And then there is the music, the performance body language, the histories, the issues of money and blackmail, the faces, etc. But the points above are to get you wondering so we may continue.


The voice, actually the intense, jazzy (feeling not only heart, but excellent breathwork), is never there again. Same with body language. Got it? Good. Now it only remains to say how "cover-up" works -- mostly in your mind, not in too many lies -- and how the biographers confuse themselves as much as you are. Some are in the know. Some people have also wanted to tell and died, the case suggests strongly.

Can it be the same guy? Not really. But news services mostly used older photos (those of Paul) during the switch and a few after. Most people were not worrying, nor wondering: a dark haired (he initially wore wigs and a moustache), a slightly older fellow would "do". Would the voice be okay? Well, with weird new sounds and a lot of press interest, sure. Would people figure it out behind the scenes? How many would say, "He not only seems gaunt and older, but ... that's not the boppy young and lively Paul I knew, and people change -- even from drugs -- but do they lose their spirit and verve so much? No." No many would not. Others would think, boy, this is beyond us, and I have a life to lead.

And ... of course it would all be arranged legally; but with the formal lie (not the personal lies to you, but the formal lies in paperwork, etc.) in a cover-up, it would not come to a court case or suing. But they would all -- not the Beatles only, but the replacement and the Intelligence services protecting him, and the companies -- would all cover their bases legally, too.

Why replace? Again, the Beatles were:

a) huge business for a lot of people, including the *government*: Wilson's government did not have to devalue the UK Pound (money) because of the Beatles' direct and indirect economic impact https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/how-beatles-saved-uk-from-its-foreign-exchange-crisis-in-1960s-some-lessons-for-india-too
b) Paul was going to speak on the JFK cover-up only 2 years after the JFK murder, and people would have flocked to Mark Lane's 1966 book and 1967 movie if so, as Mark Lane tells with detail, in his recent autobiography http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.html
c) there was a cultural plot and experiment afoot in the US and England, about popular culture and war, marginalizing a small group of early, natural "hippies" by infiltrating, debasing, promoting and busting them http://informationfarm.blogspot.ca/2010/02/inside-lc-strange-but-mostly-true-story.html

Okay, the little guy was gone -- or so the case says -- but so what?


Danny does not die in the movie but they considered it, it turns out, and in a sense Jack is the previous man in the photo, but his face is pasted on, in the end, in *time*, though I disagree that it looks literally doctored into the image. But Danny is the one mirrored and somehow also "of 42" (and the lie Apollo). He is the one roughed up. What is the youth being killed, almost -- not physically in the film but emotionally taken over and projected onto and into by Jack and by us?

He is in such scenes, young Paul, dead in reality (not the storyline), it seems.

Yes, it is the father, Jack, who has "been in an accident" in the boy, Danny's dreams in the novel, but they are current emotional doubles, or interwoven character types.

Jonny, the most complete compiler on The Shining's differences between the novel and the movie, and other thoughts about the movie, has this to say: "In the novel Danny’s left in a near catatonic state after his ordeal with Mrs. Massey’s ghost in the bathroom of room 217, and Stanley Kubrick alters all this in the film. The roughing up Danny takes in the movie is from Jack." (http://jonnys53.blogspot.ca/2007/06/what-you-may-or-may-not-have-seen.html) But before we can conclude Paul (the real Paul) is the overlaid idea here, we need to know more. On its own, this could be, of course, a mere Kubrick quirk, right, or attempt to make a book into a film, which might go through several changes, some of them quirky, some of them more cinematic.


Jonny mentions the extent of clue-giving in the film, as comparable to the Beatles in the Paul is Dead "hoax" phenomenon, but does not connect *this film to that issue*. Nevertheless, he has compiled an extensive list of number, image and plot, occurring in all levels of the film (including credits and scene times repeated), and if Google did not get some kind of error, I would reproduce the whole article at the end of mine, in credit to his scholarly work -- however unofficial the theme is, and its place being on the Internet -- his work on The Shining.

Of course, some of the changes are purely for psychic telepathic and visionary indications, but why the ability to see something special in a Kubrick-King Beatles film, about murder and death and reincarnation and doubling, especially as Kubrick tells it?

Let us see ...

----------------------

 If you haven’t read it yet this is what Danny realizes in Stephen King’s novel on page 293 (Chapter 55), “The house always lies”. Stanley Kubrick reverses this sentence and makes it an important reality. In his "Shining" it's now Jack, not The Overlook that always lies. Look closely at the conversation he has with Delbert Grady in the film and remember that Jack is talking to his imaginary friend (his version of Danny's friend Tony - himself) as he talks into the mirrors, not a real “ghost” haunting The Overlook;


Jack: What do they call you around here, Jeevesy?
Grady: Grady, sir. Delbert Grady…. That's right, sir.
Jack: Delbert Grady?
It’s in the name. At first this seems to be just one more enigmatic thing. Another perplexing mystery that Stanley Kubrick placed in “The Shining” that has no real answer. But Grady doesn’t tell Jack his real name. What he says is a lie. We know from Mr. Ullman that his real name is Charles Grady, not Delbert Grady. Most never realize this; what he says is a lie.

Jack: Ah, Mr. Grady... haven't I seen you somewhere before?
Grady: Why no, sir. I don't believe so.
This is another lie. Jack tells us later in this scene that he's seen Grady’s picture in the scrapbook we see opened on his desk. Grady would have known about the scrapbook as it's inside the hotel and holds the pictures of The Overlook’s more infamous guests who aren’t “all the best people”. The ones whose pictures aren’t hanging on the main walls. What he says is a lie because he would have known exactly where Jack had seen his picture (in the novel it’s actually Grady’s scrapbook and he specifically left it there for Jack to find).

Jack: Eh... Mr. Grady... weren't you once the caretaker here?
Grady: Why no, sir. I don't believe so.
Another lie as Grady was the caretaker of The Overlook in 1970.

Jack: You’re a married man, are you, Mr. Grady?
Grady: Yes, sir. I have a wife and ah two daughters, sir.
Jack: And, ah... where are they now?
Grady: Oh, they're somewhere around. I'm not quite sure at the moment, sir.
Another lie as he actually hacked them to death and is not telling this to Jack.

Jack: Mr. Grady, you were the caretaker here. I recognize you. I saw your picture in the newspapers. You ah... chopped your wife and daughters up into little bits, and ah... and you blew your brains out.
Grady: That's strange, sir. I don't have any recollection of that at all.
Another lie as Mr. Ullman tells us that all this happened at The Overlook in 1970. We also now know from the dialogue that the "ghost" Jack is imagining himself talking to looks exactly the same as Charles Grady who was the caretaker in 1970.

Jack: Mr. Grady, you were the caretaker here.
Grady: I'm sorry to differ with you, sir, but you are the caretaker. You have always been the caretaker, I should know, sir. I've always been here.
Another lie because he was the caretaker in 1970. Again if Delbert Grady had, “always been” in The Overlook his face would be in the final photo at the July 4th 1921 ball along with Jack at the end of the movie. And like Jack he would look exactly the same. They were both “caretakers” at the hotel and there have been many others that didn’t try to kill their families. Jack never “corrected” his family but Grady did. Grady would be there with Jack because he’s the number one "ghost" and succeeded at correcting his family. Something that Jack was a failure at. Grady must be in the July 4th photo or what he says is a lie.

Grady: Did you know, Mr. Torrance, that your son... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation? Did you know that?
Another lie as it’s Jack with his ability to “Shine” who .... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation. Jack alerts Dick Hallorann that something is wrong at The Overlook. If you find this hard to believe remember that Dick Hallorann knows something is wrong only when he visions Jack walking into room 237, then kissing the woman. He is totally unaware when Danny is strangled and almost killed, which happened several scenes earlier. It's quite obvious that Danny never telepathically calls Dick Hallorann when he's attacked or at any other time. This is extremely important; follow the time line of the movie that I explained in an earlier section. Before Jack meets the old woman in room 237 he’s “Shining” that image into Dick Hallorann’s head, not Danny's. As I showed before, Danny and Dick are both seeing entirely different visions of the inside of room 237 and if you can find anywhere in the film that Danny ever asks for help from anyone. Post it at the end of this blog.

Grady: Your son has a very great talent. I don't think you are aware how great it is, but he is attempting to use that very talent against your will.
This is an obvious lie as Danny never does anything except ride around The Overlook, play with his toys, and watch cartoons until the end when he escapes from his crazy ax wielding father. Watch the movie again if you don’t believe it. Stanley Kubrick plainly hides this in the film. Danny doesn’t even use his ability to “Shine” to get away in the end, he uses his wits. Stanley Kubrick conceals this extremely well but think about it, we hardly ever see him use his special ability in the movie as Danny is still to young to know exactly how it works. Here it’s Jack that, “has a very great talent” and he’s loosing his mind.

And don’t forget the first important thing that Grady says to Jack:
Grady: That doesn't matter, sir. You're the important one.
Obviously this is only true inside Jack’s sick mind as he’s actually a total failure in life and quite unimportant.

What an amazing example of manipulation we’ve been subjected to here with obvious parallels in human society. Because of the way Stanley Kubrick presented the characters the natural instinct after viewing “The Shining” is to believe all the things that the putative “ghost” Delbert Grady says and to ignore what the totally truthful Dick Hallorann says. It’s unbelievable when you stop and think about it. It’s a study in mass manipulation on the highest level and has everything to do with the final photo in the movie, which, as I’ve show, is also not what it appears to be. Ask yourself this important question again. Why do you believe what you believe? Do you still believe that Jack Torrance was at a party in The Overlook in 1921?


----------------------------------------------




Now we continue with more from Jonny's points, in support of the doubling in the movie. These are a mere main list of objects and clear persons who are doubled in some obvious way or upon a little reflection -- pun intended -- a little mirroring and contemplation:



--------------

There are no twins in the novel. In the movie there are several sets of new twinned items including the Grady girls, the elevators, and the boilers. On the left is the film, on the right is the novel:

Twin elevators remain motionless / 1 elevator moves on it’s [sic] own.
Unimportant twin boilers / 1 very important boiler.
2 Gradys / 1 Grady.
“Redrum” for Murder (backwards, as well, a theme in Beatles clues) is seen only twice in the movie / several times in the novel.
Jack frozen 2 times (in the Hedge Maze and on the wall) / Jack burns to death 1 time.
2 Overlooks (one has a Hedge Maze and one doesn’t) / 1 Overlook.
Jack sees 2 women / Danny sees 1.
Jack uses 2 twin Adler Eagle typewriters / Jack uses 1 Underwood typewriter.
“White man's burden, Lloyd my man. White man's burden” is doubled and repeated twice / “White man's burden, Lloyd my man” is mentioned once.
“For ever, and ever and ever” is also doubled.

------------------------

A few items were turned *single*, but most were doubled and in some odd ways, not merely for emphasis or the creepiness of twins, though that is one of the doublings. Jonny has listed, above, some of the main new doublings compared to the novel.

Doubles are not only of objects. In Kubrick's version of The Shining, Danny and his father have some odd overlapped qualities, as they specifically do in King's novel (which we will get to), but Kubrick emphasizes doubles of objects and, as Jonnys53 discovered, the visions themselves are of *doubles* in time, or some kind of real ability without quite being supernatural ghosts in the ordinary sense.

What we will see is *extensive* and *reinforcing*, but only if one has such an exhaustive study of the film as Jonnys53 did *and* an awareness of general details of Paul McCartney's death case and does *not come to the conclusion right away just because of the title or the Beetle or any one thing, but with the title and the Beetle, is willing to notice the areas of study which Jonnys53 could not account for and are extensive*. The two things (title and Beetle combined with what Jonnys53 discovers) fit and reinforce beautifully.

Why? When we take these emphases we can suddenly account for the numbers we will see in every which way in the film, by counting frames, mail, knocks, strikes, and seeing the numbers as numerals, or seeing film clips with titles using those numbers.


So says Jonny in his Webpage linked above. (There is more.)




Some issues in the film do *not* fit, or not exactly, the idea of Paul's death. In fact, that is quite normal even with a true idea, if it is about art. Art can have multiple themes, just as a court case can have multiple actors (people doing actions) with multiple motives. We are not seeking to say that every time something *might* fit it has to fit. But nor is it fair to say that a *main* theme cannot interweave with other themes but still *be there, as a main theme*, a source idea and its concomitant expressions and tangents.

It is not as if seeing a main theme is *necessarily* wrong because other themes are there. One has to assess the idea of the theme, how it marshalls and explains and what its evidence is and how often or significant for the film the evidence is.

Sometimes, of course, one can have an artwork (or science case) about something and think incorrectly that parts of it have to do with something else. But here we are claiming that the main threads all work for PID (Paul is Dead) as an idea, and spectacularly; so anything which does not fit does necessarily *not undermine the idea*, but adds to it. If we are right that it is there.

We will continue, noting that in the Paul death case, the basic debate is, *who is right, who has misidentified a face, voice and manners*? Is it the millions who go on their way with a *continuum* in the Beatles and the 60s culture uninterrupted by a death and missing person, or is it those who say there is a *misidentification* of the person who is present, a doppelganger who has telltale differences of feature, behaviour, interests, style and (actually) areas of ability?



We will not be saying that a film cannot be about many things at once; but saying that an inspiration, a trope, a rumination, a "riff" (theme) can be one thing, with others dovetailing into that theme or being general thoughts related to it. In other words, whether Paul McCartney died or not, in 1966, the rumour of his death was famous and Kubrick would have been fascinated. Moreover, that some of the ideas discovered by other scholars of and part-time thinkers on the film "The Shining", particularly, do *not fit their theories well*. And their theories account for a lot. So what are the areas, discovered in the movie, which have their theories and Paul as dead, or which are only about Paul as dead?


------------------------------


The audience reaction was clearly not what Kubrick wanted, and so the scene was removed at the first opportunity. It has never been seen since, and presumably only survives in a vault in the Kubrick family's estate.
Two actors are still listed in the end credits, however: Burnell Tucker (the notably odd Clavius Base photographer in 2001) as a policeman, and Robin Pappas as a nurse.
None of the dialogue for the scene is available in any form. Three continuity polaroids from the sequence however appear in Alison Castle's The Stanley Kubrick Archives
[...]
Michel Ciment's Kubrick: The Definitive Edition contains interviews with Diane Johnson and Shelley Duvall that cover this scene.
Shelley Duvall (1981)
He cut out the final sequence of the film after several days in the theatres.
I think he was wrong, because the scene explains some things that are obscure for the public, like the importance of the yellow ball and the role of the hotel manager in the plot. Wendy is in the hospital with her son. The manager visits her, apologizes for what happened, and invites her to live with him. She doesn't say yes or no. Then he goes into the hallway of the hospital, passes in front of Danny, who is playing on the ground with some toys. When he gets near the exit, he stops and says, 'I almost forgot, I have something for you.' And he pulls from his pocket the yellow ball that the twins had thrown at Danny. It bounces twice (we spent a whole day filming so it would bounce the right way), Danny catches it, looks at it, then lifts his eyes towards the hotel manager, stupefied, realizing that throughout the story he was aware of the mystery of the hotel. There was a Hitchcockian side to this resolution, and you know that Kubrick was crazy about Hitchcock.
Diane Johnson (1999)
Kubrick had filmed a final scene that was cut, where Wendy and Danny are recovering from the shock in a hospital and where Ullman visits them.
Kubrick felt that we should see them in the hospital so we would know that they were all right. He had a soft spot for Wendy and Danny and thought that, and the end of a horror film, the audience should be reassured that everything was back to normal. Personally, I was a bit tougher. For a long time we kept asking ourselves who was going to die, and we decided on Hallorann. But I was ready to shock everyone by killing Danny! That may have been going too far. [...]
[&] from past discussions in alt.movies.kubrick:
Mark Ervin (m4rv1n@aol.comNotBush)
With the greatest respect, Gordon, you are simply incorrect. "The Shining" opened, was released, May 23, 1980 in New York and Los Angeles with the hospital scene, which was there until Monday, May 26. It opened on about 50 or more screens in these two cities on May 23, and with the hospital scene.
I saw the film eight times on opening weekend at Mann's Chinese Theatre in LA. The scene was there all eight times. Next weekend I saw it and it was gone. The film was platform released, to get word of mouth going, and opened across the rest of America on (Friday) June 13th. These were prints made without the scene, prints in New York and LA has physical cuts which one can see as they go by.
That ending was in about twentyfive prints that opened May 23, 1980 in NY and LA, and it was cut out after the opening weekend.
Here's what I remember about the hospital visit. After the shot of Jack frozen in the maze, cut to Ullman moving through a white hallway. The camera back tracks via steadicam keeping Ullman perfectly centered in a medium shot. He's wearing a large, in fact really large, fur coat (brown fur, like a bear), and carrying some ugly dark roses for Wendy. He looks lost, turns a corner or two, and sees a uniformed guard sitting next to an open door. He walks up to the guard and says something like "how's he doing?" and the guard motions him in saying "fine." Danny is in the center of a large room playing with some toys. Ullman enters and says something to him that seemed inappropriate. I don't think Danny answered or even acknowledged Ullman. Then he leaves quickly and heads down the hall into the next room and there's Wendy in a white room, in a white bed, in a white gown. Ullman at first is kind and sympathetic, presenting the flowers to Wendy, who looks worse than ever with matted black stringy hair and wide black eyes in sharp contrast to the bright room.
Ullman says something along the lines of "you'll be fine," and Wendy asks what was found in the hotel. Ullman makes patronizing, and again inappropriate remarks about Wendy imagining the things she saw in the hotel. He implies that the proper thing to do is to keep this talk quiet, so as to not further damage the rep of the hotel. Cut to the tracking shot towards the photos, which was so silent and disconcerting at that point.
... Ullman had a bunch of ugly roses and was almost trivial in the way he talked to a thoroughly shell-shocked Wendy; he acted as if she'd suffered a minor ankle sprain. Previously Ullman had stepped into a kind of play room and said something to Danny--who was unresponsive. Ullman also had on an almost absurdly huge brown fur coat.
It had an odd resonance with the scene in "Lolita" (in the hospital) where Lo tries to convince Humbert he's imagining things (reversing the positions from TS).
My notes on the cut scenes also indicate Hallorann talking to Larry at Durkins' Garage. This must have been very short as my memory of it is very amorphous; Larry said something about being carefull and closed the sno-cat door, I think again.
Mark Ervin (m4rv1n@aol.comNotBush) (vs IMDB)
The scene was probably ninety seconds, or a bit more maybe.
There was a policeman stationed outside Wendy's room; one who looked and responded almost exactly like the one stationed ahead of Alex in the hospital in ACO.
[Ullman] walked to the rooms, speaking briefly in passing to an officer stationed outside Wendy's room (presumably to block press inquiries).
He's told they're both doing well.—IMDB He visits Danny.—ME and proceeds to Wendy's (Shelley Duvall) room, where after some gentle conversation he tells Wendy that searchers have been unable to locate any evidence of the apparitions she saw.—IMDB
Then it cuts to the camera silently roaming the halls of the Overlook hotel for—IMDB some seconds of silent tracking as I remember it before "Midnight With the Stars and You" echoed its way onto the soundtrack.—ME
legz3@aol.com
I do remember one detail which fits with your musings. Ullman, in his casual, patronizing manner, goes to great lengths to convince Wendy that EVERYTHING she saw at the hotel that final night was merely hallucination. He cites the police in this judgement, saying they'd remarked that such visions could easily appear to someone as stressed as she had been. It seems to me that by talking AT Wendy, instead of listening (as a truly concerned person would do), Ullman continues to serve the hotel's interests, by presenting a front of denial to the world, the same denial that made him laugh when he talked about Grady.
Mark Ervin remembers the tracking shot to the photos on the wall at the end of The Shining as being "twice as long" before the film was trimmed. Funny, I don't have any recollection of that at all, sir. I maintain that the tracking shot to the photos is the same in either version, music too.
Yet I do have the memory that this tracking shot began at about the spot where Hallorann was axed, whereas now it starts roughly where Jack first approached the reception desk.—ME
I recall the hospital sequence exactly as you described it, except I would say that Danny was catatonic, looking just as he did when he told Wendy that "Danny's gone away, Mrs. Torrance." He sure looked gone in that hospital. I honestly don't remember the musical cues being as you describe, but if they were, then they'd have been most effective. I like the idea of the disorienting silence before the "Midnight" theme began.—legz3
This is interesting. We may be aiding each others memory retrieval on this. I think I'm now remembering Danny as totally motionless and not playing with the toys he's sitting in the middle of. I'm confident he didn't acknowledge Ullman, but whether he had the frown typical of his "Tony mode" I can't say. He had previously broken out of it when he wakes up Wendy repeating "Redrum! Redrum!." The last we see (current version) of Danny he's himself when he runs out of the maze and up to Wendy at the sno-cat.—ME
Martin Cannon (mcannon@instanet.com)
But yeah, the excised scene occurred directly after the shot of Jack on ice. The scene is set in a hospital. Danny is recovering, and Barry Nelson explains to Shelley Duvall that people simply can't take the isolation, and that's why Jacko went wacko. From now on, we're told, the Overlook will be completely shut down during winter. I seem to recall that he also made some smug comment about the how Shelley must have been hallucinating toward the end.
Nelson's smarmy CSICOP-ian rationale for all that we had seen evinced more than a few chuckles from the audience. (I saw the film at the Chinese in Hollywood, on opening day.) Presumably, unwanted laughter led to the snippage.
"Werz Mungle"
I only saw it once on the first day of release and my memory of it is in conflict with reports from other quarters. They claim Barry Nelson rolls Jack's tennis ball towards Danny, or that he at least hands it to him. I have no memory of this as a major detail. As I remember it, Ullman comes down the hospital corridor and finds Danny playing with a nurse at her station and then proceeds into Wendy's room where she is in bed recovering. Ullman then tells Wendy that the police went to the hotel and were not able to find any evidence of the supernatural occurrences she described and they have dismissed her story and Jack's behavior as a case of cabin fever. Dissolve back to the Overlook hallway and the stationary camera starts a slow dolly into the photo of Jack on the wall.
rique (rique@worldnet.att.net)
After the closeup of jack frozen in the maze there was a slow dissolve to the interior of a hospital corridor, the camera preceeding Ullman as he walked to the nurse's station where he finds Danny, who seems just fine now and is playing a game with one of the nurses. Ullman proceeds to a hospital room where he finds Wendy in bed recouperating from her experience. I think he brought her flowers. Ullman explains to her that the police went up to the Overlook and did indeed find Jack and Halloran dead, but they did not find any evidence of the other weird goings on in the hotel: blood from the elevator, skeletons in the lobby, ghosts, etc. Ullman dismisses her "hallucinations" and explains Jack's murderous behavior as the result of them having experienced cabin fever. Wendy can't believe it. Then there was another slow dissolve to a static shot of the Overlook lobby. As the dissolve ended the camera then began to slowly move toward the far wall and into the closeup of the photo as the film ends now.
Klaatu@webtv.net
Basically, as far as I can recall, it goes from the shot of the frozen Jack, to Stuart Ullman walking down a hospital corridor carrying flowers. He then goes into a room where Wendy is lying on a hospital bed, gives her the flowers and tells her how sorry he is in that Stuart Ullman kind of way. i.e. " I just can't believe it happened here...chck...BUT it did."
He then goes in and sees Danny but I can't remember what he say's to him. It then cuts to the moving in shot of the photograph which ends the film.

-------------------------------------

 " And he pulls from his pocket the yellow ball that the twins had thrown at Danny. It bounces twice (we spent a whole day filming so it would bounce the right way), Danny catches it, looks at it, then lifts his eyes towards the hotel manager, stupefied, realizing that throughout the story he was aware of the mystery of the hotel."

Somehow, though Jack was deluded, he was not hallucinating -- not exactly. In the end, in the photograph, even after the deleted scene showing there was reality to the events somehow -- somehow -- Jack himself is a delusion. Somehow.

So on the one hand, though "Nothing is real" as John Lennon sang in "Strawberry Fields Forever" after Paul's death, the delusion is real, or rather the illusion is *really going on*. Could this be the point? How is it real? It is missed *reality*, seen only from an overview, an "Overlook" of the situation, like the hotel's name. We overlook (miss) something, but we also see over, get an overview.

The hotel is not *haunted*, though there is a death. The visions are really there, as visions with *abilities*, because something else is going on. Right? That is Jonnys53's conclusion.

An illusion is *being done to you*. That is an unreality which is *real*. Does that mean only general lies about history and science reality -- Apollo and any lie at all? Jonnys53 thinks so; Weidner puts it all down to hinging on Apollo. No, we argue here. It is not *only* Apollo, no, because that does not |it the main items in the movie.
Is this upcoming article "all too much", as the Beatles sang once, in "It's All Too Much" (1968) with "We are dead" following the later repetition of the line?

Let us see what we find. Shall we? We will have to go into many issues, so please do bear with them. As we go, we will provide some summaries (as if conclusions) before you may be ready. That would be normal in any other work, but here I hope to remind you that it is important to let the facts build up and the general direction they can be interpreted as. A reminder is particularly necessary where some people may resist not only that Paul *actually* died, but that Kubrick would *base a movie around it* as a subtext, an inspiration, even from it as a rumour, but also, given the extent of the use of the ideas which we will show relate primarily (first-off) to the issue of Paul's death, and secondarily to all general lies, of course some will resist because it is unlikely that Kubrick, smart cookie that he was, would in fact go to the effort merely for the possibility that Paul died. So he might well have heard that Paul *did* die. Or maybe our points below will not work. So please continue, enjoy and keep your wits about you without being overmuch against or for the idea to start with.


Of course it would be incorrect reasoning to posit that Paul's death (or rumour of it) related to the book and film, despite numbers, except for the reinforcement of the main Beetle car issue, the accident, title and extremely incongruous, otherwise unfitting but intense doubling of people and times and realities, and the doubles in numbers (12, 21), mirroring and moreover the (42, 24) specifically related to Paul's birth and death. There are those examples, not all examples, listed from timings and doublings in the movie.


In order to know, within reason, whether the Beetle could be a reference to Paul as dead (or the rumour itself), we have to consider the parts of the film findings which Jonnys53 identified so well, but could not place, nor Weidner.


There is also something you must begin to notice, which Jonnys53 discovered, pulls out, works through. The "ghosts" aren't ghosts *or just subconscious delusion*. They are real *subconscious doubles*, with abilities. Here is a teaser about that, from his blog:

----------------------

What’s different about Jack’s imaginary friends?

We know Danny has one and it’s obvious that Dick Hallorann and Wendy have invisible friends also; but what about Jack? He's a different case because Stanley Kubrick lets us actually see Jack speaking to his friends. We know from the interview with Mr. Ullman that Charles Grady was an actual person who worked in The Overlook, murdered his family then killed himself in 1970. Stanley Kubrick actually gives Jack’s imaginary friend, the putative ghost Delbert Grady, an entirely different name to seemingly confuse, or point the audience to the fact that the two are entirely different (the real caretaker was named Delbert Grady in the novel, there was no Charles Grady). He's not a ghost haunting The Overlook, he only exists as Jack’s double and is his subconscious version of Danny’s imaginary friend Tony. “Is Tony the one that tells you things?” “Yes.” It’s the same with Jack. Grady is the one who tells Jack “things”, like Grady alerting Jack that Dick Hallorann is returning to The Overlook. His double is also helpful in getting him out of the storeroom without Jack’s conscious mind (or the audience’s) knowing it. All the Doppelgängers are invisible. Don’t let the fact that we see Grady fool you. It’s Jack who’s seeing him and Stanley Kubrick is letting us eavesdrop in on his vision. Don’t forget what Mr. Hallorann said they aren’t, “real”, they’re part of the Torrance’s subconscious minds. Grady and Tony may communicate without Jack or Danny ever knowing it. I’m sure this is how Danny was beat up during Jack’s nightmare. There never was and old woman, or ghost of one, in room 237 while they were in The Overlook. It was just a vision of an echo of what happened to a person who committed suicide there in the past. A vision of an actual event only a person who “Shines” can see, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see".


------------------------------------------------

So these doubles or events are in fact, it seems, *from the past*, in some way, sometimes. And the final photo of Jack, as alive in 1921 in the photo, at the very end, is also as if he reincarnated, or *his double was alive before him.*

Let us continue.


We will also see an *inaccurate*, illusory doubling in the maze. In other words, from an overview without detail, it looks like the *same* mirroring is in it, but in fact it is *not a mirror*: there are *differences*. It contains numbers (which we will get to) which add to an *incorrect* date for the "long-count" Mayan era change, or "apocalypse". The date (just to give you an overview, an "Overlook"), is given not as 12/21/2012, which also is *implied now, but gives the original idea of Michael Coe, 12/24/2011, allowing even more the 24 to come in and a 1+1 for 2 in the 11. Why? There is no answer from Jonnys53, nor Weidner (except perhaps to say that Apollo 11 was the first hoaxed landing).

Jonnys53 goes over many Native American and devil-related images in the film, suggesting that Apocalypse is one of the main ideas. And it is, or interest in such things by occultists.

But what of the *slightly imperfect* maze itself? The one where there are *imperfections in the mirroring, in the double*, which one can *notice if one is careful*?


Again, is this "all too much", as the Beatles sang once, in "It's All Too Much" (1968) with "We are dead" following the later repetition of the line?

Again, of course it would be, except for the reinforcement of the main Beetle car issue, the accident, title and extremely incongruous, otherwise unfitting but intense doubling of people and times and realities, and the doubles in numbers (12, 21), mirroring and moreover the (42, 24) specifically related to Paul's birth and death.

I didn't come up with Paul for the Shining; I said, other bloggers/forum people did simply because of the Red Hidden Beatle as a changing-colour car in there. But ... they did not take it to the level it is.

The rumour, by the way, did not start in 1969, as often thought. It started when Paul died (when he was supposed to have died, let us say, if you do not yet know that he died): September 1966. Do please remember that.


............



I didn't come up with Paul for the Shining; I said, other bloggers/forum people did simply because of the Red Hidden Beatle as a changing-colour car in there.

Jonny was not able to identify why certain changes were made: why so many 24s and 42s, with 12s and 21s are present in every way in the film, nor account for why the Mayan Apocalypse is indicated, but in a hidden way, in a maze of hiding, and with the *wrong date*, not just the day (for that comes in the 1970s from a thinker named Michael Coe), but the *wrong year*, an error which cannot be unintentional, though for some reason Jonny does not seem to mention it (or I missed that). The maze is an imperfect *double mirroring*, but yes, *imperfect, slightly*, and the date for the apocalypse in it is *not represented, not doubled, not perfect, but seems to be the right one, almost*.

We will show what all of this relates to, in a natural way: it relates to the title and the car, the vehicle so important to "get between" the old and new world, the world of a regular job and the world of the delusions which are unreal really, but really real in the film. They are a real delusion and a real picture of a real reality, at the same time.

Jonnys53 is the most thorough and insightful scholar of the movie "The Shining" whom I have found. His main blog article I have reproduced in full, below my article. He managed also to come to some startling conclusions about what the gift of "shining" is in Kubrick's film, as distinct from what it is in King's novel of the same name. He did so, as he says, by noticing what is usually not noticed by film-goers, who often wonder "why" things happened but not "what" happened in the film.

His main conclusion is that the film is about mirroring the book, but by turning his movie about mirroring, illusion ("maya"), and not only psychological horror, as King's work had as a main theme for the plot, but about doubling, doppelgangers, alternate real personalities, but unreal conditions for them: the confusion of time and space, suiting *two historical realities overlapping*. Yes, he mentions ghosts (as not being exactly the problem) and yes mentions the "hallucinations" and "subconscious" states of people, especially Jack. But he ends up showing that in a sense the events *in the mind* happen through *doubles from the past*, real in one sense, unreal in another.

As well, here is Jonny53's remarks on the film as a whole, that the whole film has to be mirrored, investigated, looked into, in a sense "reversed" or "inverted" to understand it and that a *reversed sound message* concludes the film:

--------------------------

But you have to listen closely to the 2 last words that Stanley Kubrick has Jack utter to truly understand the depth of what’s happened to him, and where he knows he’s going to be residing, “for ever, and ever, and ever”. It all sounds like gibberish unless you reverse the audio. Then it becomes frightening clear that Stanley Kubrick has hidden 2 of the most incredibly chilling words I’ve ever heard in a film. Hearing them has totally changed the end of the film for me. The anguish and despair cuts right through and the more you listen to it the more disturbing it becomes (click here). Help Me! The final pathetic words spoken by Jack Torrance in “The Shining”, and Stanley Kubrick has him speak them in reverse. Heeelllppp Meeeee. A perfect chilling end to his film’s dialogue. Two words (like the word “Redrum”) brilliantly hidden and like his entire film, only understandable when reversed.

---------------------------

Whose were the most famous claimed reversals in history, audially? The Beatles, in the supposed Paul is Dead clues, where sometimes whole-phrase backwards "back masking" was supposed to have been occasionally done. It is a technical process (if used), where a backwards track is imposed on a front one, but as if both were frontal. In other words, find a track which, when reversed, has some similarity. Stretch and cut and create subtle consonantal or vowel similarities, and lay it with the forward track. Presto, you have a similar, but not the same, slightly "haunting" backward set of words -- if you do.

This is different than playing a track backwards when you are to listen forwards to it: that would be just backwards tracks, with forward tracks around them or with them. Then there is something called "reverse speech", which, if real, is a supposedly natural phenomenon where the brain creates a back masking like effect with extra clicks, breath and so on, which can be picked up while listening, in real time, or in a recording *without doctoring the recording*, unlike back masking.

We sort of have digressed, but what did Jonnys53 say he discovered? Mirroring, doubles and a reversal to understand the whole movie.



Moreover, as Jonnys53 remarks, but thinks it has to do *only* with the "Shining one" or "Lucifer", though Jack, he later explains is not exactly the devil. Here is his analysis of Satanism's and Alastair Crowley's emphasis on the Bible's Book of Revelation "Beast 666":

-------------
“God, I'd give anything for a drink. My God dam soul.” Stanley Kubrick puts it all in that one line. You can feel sympathy for Jack's character or not but he took a major wrong turn in life. An evil turn, “if I may be so bold”. I mentioned before Stanley Kubrick’s obvious manipulation of time codes in the movie and this proves it. If you look closely at the time code, the shot where we hear Jack gulp down his first drink is exactly 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the movie. Revelation 13:18; “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. What a creepy touch Stanley Kubrick added.



------------

But this is an hour (like a millennium, a different category than the minute or year count) and a 66. Could it also be 1(9)66? Indeed, it *could*. That was Paul's death year, and in the rumour. Are we right about that?

Moreover, why does Jack's face *remain the same* and "suggest" merely that he in the 1970s is a "reincarnation", has "always been the caretaker", and though a troubled, visionary loser now, "he" was with "all the best people" in 1921?

Jonnys53 again, gets part of this (as far as we can go if it is not Paul -- who, if it is, in a sense, is being mirrored by a replica who is no replica, after Paul's own death in 1966):

------------

Unfortunately Stanley Kubrick will be no help whatsoever in trying to understand what’s going on in the end of “The Shining”. This is why we’re here poking, prying - endlessly trying to understand this film. Look carefully at what he said about the final scene in his interview with Michel Ciment. He could have told Michel exactly what the July 4th ballroom picture means, but instead he cleverly says this; “The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack”. What an interesting choice of words he uses as the definition of ‘suggests’ is to cause one to think that something exists. The implication (and deception) here is obvious. He wants Michel Ciment, as well as the rest of us, to “think that something exists” or else he simply wouldn’t have used that word. He wants us to believe Jack’s been in the hotel before – but he hasn’t. Stanley Kubrick is a master of the English language and it’s obvious that what happens to Jack doesn’t even remotely fit the definition of the word reincarnation, the rebirth of a soul in a new body, as Jack’s face has remained the same.

-------------

Let us not conclude that it is, for the moment. But Jonnys53 and Jay Weidner -- Weidner's points about Apollo Moon events in the film are fairly well known -- still cannot and do not account for the numbers and Beetles in the film, nor see anything but general insights about there being two realities in the film: lies and truths. Jonny is unique, though, in talking of "shining" as a double reality, in an unreality, with doubles for people. We will see that all but the directly Apollo reference and passing references to other events, is neatly accounted for by one specific propaganda event.

So, unfortunately, for all of the incredible compendium and many insights he achieved, Jonny remains puzzled except for the general meaning of "alternate reality" in history, and conspiracies at top levels being one kind. Weidner, too, really accounts mainly for only one scene and its fallout in another scene, by mentioning Apollo.


What is the general idea coming from ruminating on claims that there were mass conspiracies? Mass deception, trickery, murder of truth and people


If these conspiracies happened, we really all should realize it is tragic for the participants, most of them, and tragic for history and science. Also persecution of free thinking on such thoughts means we would all have to realize that though not all free thought has good content, there is a dumbing down about such subjects, if these are true. Kubrick would be ruminating on these ideas, if he is using PID as even imagined to be true (and/or Apollo as hoax or imagined to be).

And then we would have to realize that black budgets, intelligence service propaganda, hidden deaths and warmongering through bigotry are often related to a -- if these cases are true -- a sense that "lots of people cannot lie" or that "truthtelling would be obvious" or the case has had no persons making revelations, no forensic issues found, and must be untrue.

We do not have to think that Kubrick knew of various conspiracies as true, nor consider them true ourselves if he thought them true, to study whether he used the notions of some of these cases for conspiracy (group lie).

But we should know right off the bat that none of these assumptions about how groups behave is actually accurate about group behaviour. When a group is involved in some kind of self-serving lie, the people do not have to be a coherent group in any other way: everyone can have different reactions within that group, or at least the same ones but at different times. People can feel loyalty to the *lie* rather than the truth, at least in key moments, long enough not to tell, for various reasons, in every situation known to humans. It is only with no authorities who want to listen or when there are threats, that there is very little attempt to talk to the wider culture, but it has happened in so many crimes involving more than one person knowing, that talking about it is fraught with difficulty.

It might seem odd to ask, but, even if the Beatles had nothing to do with the idea, could it be the main theme of the movie, and the novel, in the subtext and plot?

My own arguments about Kubrick and King below did not come about because I simply "sought" them. People can find (put down as "read into" rather than "interpret") things in the film, and as long as the things are there, they can be interpreted, individually or in combination, in reasonable ways.

There will be a huge amount of very relevant material we will discover, partly through Jonnys53, the intense compiler and interpreter with masses of material to back him up. It is where he *does not know quite how to explain why Kubrick would be so interested in doubles and mass manipulation*, and where he *does not quite know how to explain some of the specific numbers in the film*, where we will be giving an interpretation.

Our interpretation will be, also, with a weight on the title and Beetles, not because titles cannot become unmoored from a final project's meaning, or Beetle cars always reference the Beatles, or even that Beetles referencing Beatles have to mean the artist is interested in the Paul is Dead rumour, but rather that *all aspects fit the theme*.

Where they do not, there is a tangent sense; a sense that mass manipulation in general is now the theme without only being Paul's death as one specific rumoured instance of mass manipulation.   Finally, where they do not touch on mass manipulation at all, the ordinary themes people usually ascribe come in: family issues, drinking alcohol as a risky behaviour, cruelty as a simpler theme and so on.


Jonnys53 again, talks of the "reversal" but suggests "we" put Jack up on the wall now, *for the future* and not in a scrapbook. I would say we do (as Sir Paul, the replacement) but we also *do not*, that in reality Paul was the "shining, beautiful" one and the replacement is the mirror, our trouble to figure out and troubled by his own "demons". So in one sense, at times, Jack is Paul and at others it is Danny who is Paul, as a youth.

Let us see one of the things Jonnys53 has to say of the final "photograph" of Jack, or with Jack "interposed" into it. He calls the picture "a fake", but in a sense it is real, a past self, his *double*, is it not?, even though the *faces remain the same* to our deluded vision of what happened. Remember, we will find that what was made clear in the *deleted scene* and in other ways Jonnys53 talks of, the visions *are* real, like present-past and past-present visions to the mind, with real effects in the now. So why would a photo which confuses how and when "Jack" or his "double" lived once, after showing the events in the now to be real *as illusion*? Well, if Jack is *like* the replacement for Paul, in this way, then Paul's own original life is the truth, but Jack "now" is alive as the replacement is, an illusion *as* Paul but real nonetheless! And the illusion *is real*, as we keep believing it:

--------------------------------

Stanley Kubrick added yet another brilliant twist to this movie (maybe the greatest hidden twist in movie history). In the end as the camera zooms in on that center picture we, the audience, are the only ones there in The Overlook’s lobby. And each one of us as we sit in our chairs watching becomes an integral part of this film. This should come as no surprise because Stephen King got the idea for the title "The Shining" from a line in John Lennon's "Instant Karma", "We all shine on". And our vision is exactly the same as all the rest in the film, “It isn’t real”. Jack was never in The Overlook in 1921 but we, never realizing that it’s us doing it, “Shine” his image to the spot on the wall where thanks to Stanley Kubrick’s suggestions we've been led to believe he was, and belongs; back into the Overlook’s past. And we grant Jack his wish, “I wish we could stay here for ever, and ever, and ever.” In this final vision his only existence is on that wall. Nothing more, nothing less. We've “Shined” him into that picture on the wall. Now he’s where he belongs, in the Overlook frozen a second time for the rest of time, “for ever and ever and ever”. Jack's not in the dusty old scrapbook like Grady, he's on the wall - dead center with “all the best people”. Throughout this entire movie we’ve been guided by the art of Stanley Kubrick’s simple suggestions and are unshakenly positive in our belief that the photo tells us that Jack Torrance was there in a past life. Possibly as the reincarnation of Grady The Overlook’s caretaker who murdered his wife and kids and put both barrels “of his shotgun in his mouth”. But again we’re seeing a reflection, the exact opposite, of what we thought was real. Just like the 2 reflections seen backwards in Wendy’s mirror, "Redrum" and Stovington. Jack was never in The Overlook during a previous life in 1921 because the picture is a fake. But he is now, “for ever and ever and ever”; and you are the one who did it. It’s a vision of Jack’s future. Stanley Kubrick got the idea for the black and white picture from Stephen King but you, with your special ability given by the movie’s brilliant director, are the one who put him there on that wall.


------------------------

We know Kubrick did things extensively planned; he did sometimes improvise but it was not common. He was, though not perfect, a perfectionist.


Two interesting items on illusions (one about cells and senses) -- kind of a tangent, but manipulation and accidental discoveries are discussed:
"Sensory illusion causes cells to self-destruct" November 19, 2015 http://phys.org/news/2015-11-sensory-illusion-cells-self-destruct.html

It was big, big business and intelligence services would have to help -- for the sake of the money flow, cultural prowess and *ability to run a social experiment*.

Stephen King wrote his 1977 "The Shining" novel with a Beatles theme woven in, no matter what. But did he have the idea of Paul's death also threading through his inspiration at times? Even if he did not know of the real death, he might well have thought as Kubrick at least did, to use the rumour at least. The title itself came from a John Lennon song ("We All Shine On") and the car driven is a VW Beetle. There is more, which we will get to, but Kubrick took this even further, it turns out, in his 1980 film. Whether by rumour (more public in 1969, but actually started at the time of death, in 1966), or whether by knowledge, the theme of Paul's being dead is in both the novel and the movie. We will see that King actually played on several Paul death themes in the novel.

Even if it was due *merely* to the big 1969 flap about the older rumour, Kubrick is, at least more likely, to have known that the flap was real, simply due to the fact that the extensive use of thoughts about doubles and the numbers of Paul's life and death (death in 66= death at 24).

It is ironic in the extreme, that the most exhaustive and insightful scholar -- yes, unofficial scholar, going by Jonnys53, an unofficial art analyst -- of the movie The Shining, whose work is on the Web and whose main article, a compendium, is gratefully replicated (mirrored) at the end of this article, mentioned the Paul is Dead clues of the Beatles in his first paragraph, but never thought that that mystery (or rather, crime case) is what the main thread is, for the subtexts he finds so extensive in the movie.

I did not initially think of the connection to Paul's death, but I have not seen anyone else write about so many of the aspects, together; if they have, that is fine. I still feel this needs a wider audience. You will find points, as I said, about Paul's death and about Apollo's hoaxing, below.

But even if Kubrick had been only playing on those as *ideas*, which he was not only doing, the ideas are there.


Apollo hoax is there, psychology is there, a bit of occultic and paranormal stuff is there, all of it pointing to lies and cover-up if you know the background, a "mirror world" of reality. But one whole set of themes does not *fit these things well, as sole themes*. What is the faceless boy? (In the original novel.) What is the "accident" he dreams of? And why the link to not only VW Beetles (in stunningly appropriate ways for Paul is Dead, PID as a theme), but also 42 and 24 constantly in the film? Finally -- and at the end, literally finally, there is the doctored photograph, timeline, confusion of identity and doubles.

In an Epilogue section ...
We will include a section on Apollo as hoax or non-hoax, a section on a few objections to the Paul McCartney death case, my original posts on Kubrick's "The Shining" (which also list some others, not all others, who in the PID community have suggested that Paul's death as rumour or fact was included in the movie), and the full Jonnys53 blog page.

But first:

PID and "A Clockwork Orange", Kubrick's 1970 film on CIA/Tavistock Mind-control and Propaganda


About Clockwork Orange (1971 Kubrick film):

A 1971 Kubrick masterpiece on CIA (etc.) mind control and propaganda, it turns out he also put in the propaganda which covered up Paul McCartney's death, as well. In the wild car scene, there are a bunch of crashes or near crashes.

1. It is a handsome young man driving

2. There are four together, which is part of the movie anyway, but suits what happens in this scene perfectly for PID

3. They are nearly decapitated under a truck -- they drive underneath, implausibly -- (head injury as a major part of the crash scene at Paul's death was a feature of the story from the clues and now from other information),

4. A white VW Beetle is upended off the road. White VW Beetles are long associated with Abbey Road cover, 1969, the year the rumour hit big in the USA. The license plate was seemingly incorrectly thought to be related to the clue structure on the album, but one way or the other, the white Beetle car was or became part of the reference structure later in the history of the issue. We will cover more about that, below.

5. A motorcycle is present as well, having a crash, an up-ending, like the Beetle. Paul had had a motorcycle crash about three quarters of a year before he was killed. It is also incorrectly and (deliberately) confusingly placed at the time of year of his actual death, in the Anthology book.

6. At the end the worst crash does occur, a van into a truck. It is not a joke, therefore, a true thrill scene, though there is joking in the narrative: people would likely be killed in at least one of these situations.

All of these things together are a perfect multiple reference to Paul's death. The cementing would be the white Beetle, but also to make the attribution we should know of The Shining, which follows this, and all the Beatle clues (references) themselves, and that Paul really died. Once we know the whole thing, it becomes clear that this scene was intended; before that it is a striking likelihood, or a strong possibility (depending on how much one knows beforehand about the rumour and how insiders and persons, such as Kubrick, who were aware of intelligence service black operations, would and did feel as they learned of lies the public were not formally told).

Would you tell? You would do it like Kubrick. You would know this had to involve intelligence services and you would keep your mouth shut, would you not? Most people would. Others might make a ripple behind the scenes, but get killed or threatened before telling, or just give up when no-one wanted to tell. How much could you do, as one "weird" person telling, without direct proof? Not much. Right? Of course.

The person who posted this scene and showed its relation to PID, is known as Rutheria Matheos. She posted today, November 18, 2015, what she had not noted before in the movie.









We now know that the rumour started long before, in the UK, at the rough time of the death  in late 1966 (naturally it did!), for which there is plenty of evidence. If Kubrick was referencing the death or rumour, he was doing so after the first big expose period, which was, yes, 1969. The more recent expose period has been since roughly 2010.

In this film several references are made, in quick succession. The hinging point is a white Beetle as a kind of clincher. In context with methods of death or injury in the scene, numbers of participants, associated other accidents, the attribution will be clear. It is only possible or probable, on its own, even so, but given what else we know, about Kubrick and the Beatles and intelligence operations, in terms of the case, it is a clear example. Then we will move to the Shining, whose subtext of images is extremely detailed in how often Kubrick references themes from PID.

Remember, the clues and references by Kubrick or the Beatles themselves, are part memorial (eulogy) and part revelation. Cover-ups do tell what they do, if there are emotional reasons or people feel hopeless to betray each other but want to tell somehow, or feel like they have. This is perfectly normal. Most of a "cover-up" and "how could one miss this if it were so" is about how the public -- or any duped official -- feels at first, not about whether there is a case for its being so.

Anyway, the actual VW White Beetle on the cover was not owned by John Lennon (though he also owned one, it seems):





In this case, John is putting a stethoscope for one as if dead, on the road. His mother died on the road, but with a Beetle car, and white (or other light colour), John would be referencing Paul's death here, after the use of the white Beetle on Abbey Road cover, deliberately at that first time or not, but thereafter deliberate. This is true even if Paul had not died, correct? Yes. Because by 1971, when this photo was taken by Yoko Ono, the rumour itself was known. Proving that Paul actually died is not reliant upon such clues and memorials alone.


Anyway, the one on the cover of the album was in fact owned by someone else. http://www.sebeetles.com/abbey_road-2

The Beetle could not be towed away according to the photographer (or he was told that).

Since we can now know Paul did die and that clues were planted, we can consider the use of that view, including the Beetle, to be deliberate, along with the dark police van on the right of the view.

The license plate was not necessarily deliberate, though the later rumour took it to be -- in spite of the fact that Paul would have been one year short of the statement which it looks like is on the plate: "28 IF [alive]", from "LMW 281F".

But the use of the White Beetle for the photo, and certainly in clues thereafter may well have been planned. The car was parked there or near there for some weeks while the owner was away. (Some confusion at this link: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-196009,00.html, where the plate was issued and when: http://www.numberplates.com/private-plates-issued/issued.asp?regnum=LMW%20281F&img=lmw281f_220509.jpg&int=0)

Was Paul killed in or by a white car (not necessarily a Beetle), or was the white thereafter convenient for a ghost Beatle (white ghostly, heavenly image)? One way or another, it became re-used for referencing the issue.




Epilogue in 4 Parts:


1. Apollo as hoax or not, equitably treated for a decent decision


Of course, not Paul as dead and the replacement living a lie, but instead *Apollo as a lie* is the main big lie that Kubrick was supposedly obsessed with, according to conspiracy theorists. And I use that term not as a pejorative, or an assumption on the other side, that they are right, but as a technical term, to mean any people who have a finished explanation for a group crime in a specific instance, or who  posit that there is an explanation that says that there was a group crime in a specific instance.

A great overview (audio, on video) is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdAfTNe56kE




Given that NASA engineers are still having problems getting manned missions past the Van Allen belts at all, according to this NASA engineer, below (see video below the Van Allen letter), who is talking of our plans to get to Mars, it is impossible or extremely unlikely that we got past them before? No? Yes? --

According to Van Allen himself, in a letter whose provenance (source) is now confirmed, it would be long trips which would be the danger. But a) was he in on the ruse by NASA and felt it was better to keep the secret, b) was he not told of the lie but NASA had not decided to risk it, c) did NASA go in fact?

Here is the letter:



Well, the man below is young and Van Allen himself said the time period and place in the belt the astronauts to the Moon would undergo, would not be fatal, as we saw in the letter above. A discussion about this letter, laughing at those who suggest that NASA did not go and that Van Allen was, or "had to be" in on a deception, is here: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html

However, should the engineer's comments not make a question begin?



This is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE


As to most people's initial objection about the Apollo missions, there is the idea that we had to put laser mirrors on the Moon by hand to a) get laser reflections off the moon (untrue, as the next text in the image below shows us, and b) to get laser mirrors onto the Moon because there are some today (untrue that we needed hand placement of mirrors in 1970, as the Russia mission link below the image will tell you):

Indeed, in 1966 already, laser beams were successfully reflected to Earth off the Moon's surface, without mirrors and had been for four years. This does not start the direct proof that we did not go to the Moon with manned missions, but it does begin to unravel the wrong perceptions people have about the case, since mirrors for laser measurements from Earth were supposedly planted on the Moon by people on location. There are mirrors there now, though: mere months after Apollo 11 (the first Moon landing claimant mission), in 1970, however, there was already a mirror-placing robot, by the Russians, called Lukhonod, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1



One last remark for the moment about Apollo: what about Russia? Conjecture within reason, i.e., within an understanding that the case could be faked, must be fully entertained. What would Intelligence Services do if Russia faked Gargarin's going (a risk to their star astronaut), and then vice versa, if the US faked going? They might not know for sure right away, or they might have disagreements inside them. But either way, each country would have those who wanted to use the information for back-channel, not public rioting and world war three. Here are some considerations: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm


Whether or not Paul died, or the Apollo missions had a serious lie involved (that we did not get out of Earth's orbit), people should understand that there are strong indications that Kubrick was promoting such ideas as well. But of course, in fact, once one knows the details and that both things were true -- that there was a hoax on the public that Paul did not die, and the truth is called the Paul is Dead Hoax, while the Apollo missions were a compartmentalized lie for many reasons, so the missions are an Apollo Moon Hoax -- then Kubrick's role directly in telling us (see, people do tell, just not with fanfare!) becomes much clearer.


The issues for Apollo are largely the technology of suits, craft, amount of backpack battery power (no A/C), the space in the LEM (not enough at torso height for 2 suited men with backpacks because of cupboard areas jutting out at neck height), photos (though that still allows a landing, but not the video and photos), the Van Allen and the "perfect trajectory". Or you could just watch the clip of the astronauts faking the faraway shot by using a transparency on the window in near-earth orbit at the time they were supposedly 1/2 way.

Those who say there was no lunar crater and want to make a fine point there, miss the main point: the blast would have kicked up a lot of dust and rocks. There is also no background noise for the lunar landing worth mentioning. Nothing is a *perfect* piece of evidence, but within range of reason, not what you *prefer from some worldview hope*, things can be relatively excellent pieces of evidence, which in a full argument should sway us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1UzHcavypY



This video above mentions the lack of a crater or kicked up dirt ... and mentions other things.

The answers from those who wish to debunk the position are here, but note: having dust somehow blown away from the landers, though intellectually possible is not realistic, nor is the lack of background overwhelming sound on the broadcast from the landing claim, and no major dust blast around the jets is also (like "magic bullets") contorted to become possible. However, is it really?

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-lunar-dust-on-the-landers-footpads = Doubters of a hoax, on why there is no lunar dust on the lander footpads.

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module = Doubters of a hoax, on why there is no blast crater, though the issue is not only about a crater but of how there no significant blast area at *all* visible and no strong dust in the pictures (film) of the landing while the "LEM" lands.

I cannot cover all of the areas of implausibility and impossibility about the Moon issue, of course. But I do want you to know the objections to the objections, to judge for yourself who is stretching credulity. For the real objection people have is that it is *unpalatable* that there would be a lie, or that it would be *impossible or nearly impossible* humanly, to keep a lie or to motivate people to lie. The reality is far different: under security oaths and patriotic feelings, big budgets and compartmentalized project knowledge, plus a few threats (and deaths, such as that of Apollo 1, if you look into that, for there was cyanide gas in the chamber and the crew was wearing seatbelts while they burned to death), the "stretch to credulity" all becomes quite credible, and the question only then is:

"Was it a lie, likely, or not?"
rather than,
"Is it too awful and big to be a lie?"

There is an excellent interview here (and another is listed below as well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHbr_J4ZNs (audio on video and video) -- with a documentary on many of the issues about Apollo as fake, plus an interview with Jay Weidner who discovered how some of the anomalies, especially backgrounds, indicated Kubrick was the main film advisor for the NASA -- compartmentalized -- cover-up.

The whole show is worth seeing, but also has discussion specifically of The Shining, for several minutes, starting at 1 hour 33 minutes and 20 seconds in the link above: https://youtu.be/jXHbr_J4ZNs?t=1h33m21s, starting with a movie which Kubrick did not make, that is, Toy Story, compared in a key scene with Kubrick's The Shining, having both Launchpad 39A details in them, and then goes on to discuss The Shining a bit more.)

The hexagon pattern and the trucks surrounding it, not only fit Lunchpad 39A, but where's the rocket? Well, Danny stands up (going up), but Danny's sweater has a rocket on it and the word "Apollo" is on it, while room 237, which he goes to next, was changed from 217 in the novel, and at the time of the Apollo "landings" and the making of "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Kubrick, the estimated mean distance from the Earth to the Moon was 237,000 miles. And the wife sees "A11" not so much All (Ls) are on the secret book, in "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" and Jack Nicholson comes in to say his personal work of art (like Kubrick's insider life) is a hellish experience and a risk from an employer (like a part of the governmental lie as your employer) -- and a deviation again from the novel.


Top image credit: http://veryaware.com/2012/10/trailer-watch-as-others-obsess-over-the-shining-in-room-237, Bottom image credit: http://www.idyllopuspress.com (the latter is incomplete, from both credits given at http://curbed.com/archives/2014/03/27/exploring-the-fan-theories-inspired-by-the-shinings-decor.php)


That key scene where Buzz Lightyear, the astronaut character in "Toy Story" realizes he is not so great, and *not real*, has the same flooring and a similar wallpaper in the background:



Do some people in Hollywood agree with us, having looked into the Apollo case? Seems so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdAfTNe56kE (different and excellent audio interview on video, about the Apollo landings as physically having to have been faked, and socially explicable)

Here is more on Jay Weidner's work, and on Oleg Oleynik's parallax experiments (that is, using laws of optics known since about the 14th century):
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/faking-moon-landings-the-parallax-experiments
Unfortunately, the GIF (moving image) which he discusses from Oleynik's work on the photos, which shows people a parallax demonstration using a factory, is not displaying correctly at that link. For Oleynik's original work and that GIF itself, without Weidner's comments and context, see http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Oleynik ends up incorrectly deciding the projection was rear-screen projection, but it was front-screen projection, as Weidner's details on the technology for projection shows, in the article by Weidner above but particularly at http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf but at least Oleynik's demonstration scientifically shows, the mountain images were, at most, 150 yards, not many miles, away from the foregrounds.

That is Weidner's original paper on the background screens, sewn together for "front screen projection" with glistening glass beads, in other movies by Kubrick and in Apollo photos.

And there was no discovery during those flights, of the 3rd Van Allen belt, recently discovered in 2013 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/third-van-allen-radiation-belt-makes-appearance-around-earth) which the astronauts should have noticed as an uptick on their geiger counters, which they had on board, if they could have survived the radiation at all.

Right? Yes.



2. A few objections answered for Paul McCartney's death


No-one says (to my knowledge) that Brian Epstein and Parlophone Records (or even EMI, which does have a military intelligence connection directly in one of its branches) have intelligence services at beck and call. However, 1. the Beatles' own funds, taxed, and the commerce generated by their works, allowed Wilson's UK government not to devalue the pound, so they were a very big concern to MPs and businesses, 2. intelligence services are embedded in every major industry, sometimes in a way that the industry is embedded in them, in a sense, for willing people, who think they are being patriotic in some ways, take stories and instructions from -- and provide information to -- such services.

So if -- and he did -- Paul died, by accident or murder, an attempt would be likely made to continue the band. Normal regrouping would not be likely, a new bandmate overtly would seem an ugly option to this band of near-brotherly affection. Ironically, though, a clandestine operation would well seem, would it not, less ugly than trying really to replace Paul consciously, to the members themselves? Ironically, yes. To you, he was replaced; to them he was not. Behind the scenes thoughts would run like this ... if they dared do it. And they would not.

But intelligence services were more at arms length, not loving Paul himself; suggesting the "unthinkable" to their confused and wishful egos, saying the country would go bust (or some such hyperbole) and maybe saying it would come out eventually anyway, would be intriguing and hardly immoral to them.

People have different views on a matter. Can I, the writer, say "they thought this and this?" -- not in the absolute sense. But that a decision was made and this is the way it would have been possible, is possible for me to say. Since it was done ... or even if you say "if it was done" ... there is a way, and if it was done, it was this way, for these sorts of reasons. 


We should digress, though, onto Clockwork Orange and discuss the White VW Beetle on Abbey Road cover, 1969.


3. My original posts about "The Shining"


Here are the two posts I made about that, using the top "The Shining" information sites.
My original posts can be found here:
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2015/02/did-we-land-on-moon_13.html

Clare Kuehn February 28, 2015 at 11:13 PM:

Kubrick's semi-insider status allowed him to know of many things, as Weidner has so brilliantly shown.
About "The Shining", an aside:

-----------------

Post on Paul McCartney's death (PID - Paul is dead) mentions the following (among other inaccurate things on the following thread) http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/63786/thread :

*** From Johnnys53 blog:
://jonnys53.blogspot.com/.../what-you-may-or-may-not-have...
"The brightest and most obvious yellow items are Jack’s 2 special possessions that each play a significant role in the movie. The yellow Volkswagen (changed from red in the novel) brings him to the Overlook...
...If you know where to look, in what may be the most brilliant example of something being hidden in plain sight in a movie, Jack’s yellow Volkswagen also changes color for one shot before his interview at the beginning of the film.
The WHITE VW, lower right, is the only VW in the parking lot. Look closely at the hoods and windshields of the other two yellow cars on the left and you’ll see they aren’t VW’s."
1 yellow, 1 red, and 1 white Beetle.
Number of Beetles?
3.


When is the red Beetle? It is not in the beginning, but rather it is crushed dead so to speak, in the scene discussed in the points below.

-------------

And from post here, It turns out that there is a crushed beetle (red) :
http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/63662/thread:

Nearer the end of the film....there is also an image of a VW beetle crushed under a lorry during the snow storms...fwiw.
here's that picture of the crushed beetle....sorry is not very clear. [Picture now not displaying]

------------

A later comment on the thread mentions that a yellow beetle drives at the beginning, a white is in the parking lot at the end and a red crushed beetle is in the middle of the film
http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/63798/thread :

In King's book, Jack's Beetle was RED.
So...it went from red to yellow to white.
In addition, Halloran (Scatman Crothers) drives past a crushed red Beetle later in the film, on his way to (get an axe in his heart) "save" Danny. ;D
Imagine Dragons' music video uses The Shining and 2001 A Space Odyssey and other Kubrick films, to show Illuminist symbolism and Apollo fakery, plus references Paul McCartney's death.

-------------

Many VW Beetles are shown (one crashed), it gives a scene playing on the Abbey Road cover (which in turn is one of several memorials of the car impact as a concept), and shows a photo of Paul -- himself -- plus emphasizes the use of twins ("doubling").

Why the death theme from Paul's murder and replacement was inserted into the particular movie The Shining or into the music video or The Shining itself, I don't know, but maybe because it fit well with the fakeness of the Apollo landing. Anyway, the video from Imagine Dragons, a music group, took on the themes: http://illuminatiwatcher.com/the-shining-symbolism-in...

--------

Maybe the reason Paul makes an appearance in the Shining in the Beetle references is related to
http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/64699/thread :

a) the twins as a Gemini who was killed and replaced -- a twin was doubled.

b) that Stephen King based the title on John Lennon's Instant Karma "We all shine on" line.

------------
Que sera sera.
Anyway, love Weidner's work on Kubrick. Thanks, Jay!!!



Clare Kuehn February 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM:


This amazing post on The Shining's use of 24 / 42, lots of mirror shots (through the looking-glass, shall we say) and use of 21 repeatedly,

http://jonnys53.blogspot.ca/.../what-you-may-or-may-not...

Can be interpreted now. Paul was born in 42; there were supposed to be 4 Beatles but there were 2 in one of them; 2 from 1 is 21 and 2+1=3 remaining is 21.

The 66:6 (666) and 666 individual shots mentioned is of course evil and magick together, but also Paul died in 66, a kind of 666 when 9 is flipped to 6: 1966.




4. The full main blog page by Jonnys53, on "The Shining" film and, to some degree, the novel, is appended below



I wanted to put in here Jonny's full main Webpage, as an homage and as reference. I cannot include all the blog pages, on so much more in the movie (the Music, etc.). He does not understand why The Shining has "mirrored", as he says, and "inverted" the novel, except to mention the Apollo issue and a general sense of lies in culture, Jonny's article is exhaustive, almost. (As I have shown, he does not understand the 3 Beetles and why the *crash scene* is the red Beetle, partly invisible in the snowy day, like propaganda obscuring the truth, as a key to why so much mirroring is going on in a John Lennon-themed title, about murder and car crashes.) It is worth mirroring (as we say) his work, here, in full. Kudos, Jonny, and you deserve a Ph.D. for your massive undertaking, despite missing the key issue (among many possible issues Kubrick could have framed his tale of deception around), but a Ph.D. does not have to be the last word. And thank you, Jonnys53.
Here is the link to the main blog page: http://jonnys53.blogspot.ca/2007/06/what-you-may-or-may-not-have-seen.html


-----------------------------------------------------

Saturday, June 9, 2007

What You May (or may not) Have Seen Hidden In The Shining




For over thirty years Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of “The Shining” has left perplexing questions in the minds of everyone who’s seen it; and time has been powerless to put this enigmatic movie out of our collective consciousness.



...............I hope you'll enjoy what I’ve written here.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning” - Albert Einstein



Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” was created with the sole purpose of leaving audiences searching for answers to a mystery that has no solution. After viewing it we end up scratching our heads over its unanswered questions and many unforgettable enigmatic images. But it’s what’s hidden in this movie that is truly fascinating. You’re going to find out that the most unbelievable aspect of “The Shining” is what you didn’t notice, right there on the screen. And it’s what you didn't notice that’s important. Everyone expects strange things to happen in a horror story but nothing like what I’m about to show you in this article has ever been seen to this extent in a movie before. It’s similar to the clues to Paul’s death on Beatles albums and Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” synchronizing with The Wizard of Oz. Both are suspected but have never been admitted to by the artists, both were well hidden, and both were discovered by fans. What’s different here is that most viewers never knew or were even searching for clues to anything. Something is lurking beneath the surface of this masterpiece, hidden from our view. And Stanley Kubrick fools the audience into believing everything he tells us - without question. “The Shining” is truly a unique experience.



No one in filmmaking has ever done anything like this. Even with today’s CGI and any other nonsense they can come up with no audience has ever seen anything similar to what Stanley Kubrick hid under the radar in this film. There’s never been a more enigmatic movie experience than the “The Shining” and I’ve got an interesting story to tell. My journey started on a summer day in 2005 when I was indulging in a seemingly insane hobby; hunting for common visual errors, movie mistakes, in one of my favorite movies. But it wasn’t visual errors that I ended up finding. I had “one of those pivotal moments in life that unleashes a previously unimaginable chain of events”. A moment of sheer luck where I discovered much more than I ever bargained for. Discoveries that will change everything about how you view this movie, forever. Much more than one would think possible has been purposefully hidden in “The Shining” and the audience never realizes how Stanley Kubrick, just like any great magician, has our total attention in the palm of his hands. Directing our eyes to whatever spot on the screen he wishes. Everyone loves a great mystery and with some help knowing where to look it’ll become very obvious how much there is to notice, and how many cryptic secrets The Overlook hotel actually holds.



Many attempting to explain this film see things that aren’t there and wonder, why? I’m saying ‘look at it differently and see what you’ve missed’. If you’re trying to unravel the greatest enigma in film history you need to use a microscope, not a magnifying glass from a Cracker Jack’s box to look at it? In attempting to understand Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” we have to separate fact from conjecture and two things must temper any discussion; what we know and what we don’t know. A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. There are a lot of "theories" about this movie but the key to everything that’s hidden here is in three things that are not "independent" of it. Three things we know that cannot be changed or disputed; 1) the images that Stanley Kubrick placed in his finished product, 2) the dialogue in the finished product, and 3) the exact way he used and altered Stephen King’s source novel to make it his own. I use all three in this blog and they can’t be altered, debated, or ignored. This is the starting point that must precede any attempt at explaining the mysteries held in this work. We start with what we know for sure and move forward, and this is what I’ve done.



I didn’t come up with what you’re going to be reading off the top of my head. I’ve used un-doctored pictures, correct dialogue and exact alterations of the source novel and for some there may be a certain frustration with not being able to change the unchangeable but they are what they are. Stanley Kubrick created it that way. All that’s needed is a little help knowing exactly where to look. What I’ll show you in this blog is not a theory, it’s simple and accurate observation. It’ll be clear to you after reading this that I work as well as think well "outside the box" but thanks to Stanley Kubrick’s intense perfectionism it's all there; unless you choose to ‘overlook’ what you don’t like. He placed everything needed to understand this film up there on the screen.



Did you ever notice in watching Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” that you never hear any classic horror film noises? A door never squeaks, a window never slams, the floor never creaks, no chimes, elevators don’t clang, loud winds don’t howl through the halls blowing out candles. There’s never a moan or a ghostly whine and we never hear a clock tick; The Overlook never makes so much as a single sound. Yet because of this film everyone knows the name of the most famous haunted hotel in history. No shadows, no laughter, no crying either, and very little physical contact, Jack rarely touches Wendy throughout the entire movie. It’s a very different experience than what we’re used to! In this visually enigmatic masterpiece we’re left with many unanswered questions, some of which I'll attempt to shed new light on in this article.



... Is The Overlook as haunted as people think?
... Why does he want us to notice a certain set of numbers?
... Why was so much changed from Stephen King’s novel?
... What’s significant about cast members being filmed entirely in the ... reflection of a mirror?
... Why are there so many hard to notice items that visually
... disappear, re-appear, move around and change color
... throughout the movie?
... What's the significance in his use of color?
... Why did he place a crushed red VW in one scene?
... Which cast members actually have this very special supernatural
... ability to “Shine”?
... Where did Jack Torrance go in the end?
... Why so many hidden Indians?
... Why did he delete a scene at the end?
... And the biggest mystery of all, what are we being pointed to in
... the date at the end of the movie?



Stanley Kubrick brings ‘hidden in plain sight’ to a brand new level in "The Shining" and just like the reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs or the exact age and size of the universe, as new things are discovered old explanations that do not include these new discoveries don’t work anymore. He’s controlling what we're looking at and he’s also controlling the exact point where our eyes are focused on the screen. “The Shining” operates on more than one level as the director holds blatantly obvious tidbits in front of us to peek our curiosity then lets another hidden image, you may not have noticed, contain the real meaning. He wants us to enter a special room. A place that holds our deepest fears. Our own room 237, a place that frightens us to the core. He places the key in the door for us and turns it. All we need to do is walk in. It’s like experiencing a Jackson Pollock masterpiece. On the surface it appears to be simple paint splatter, “just the story of one man’s family quietly going insane together” but if you look closer “The Shining” becomes a cinematic maze of hidden clues and purposeful visual anomalies just begging to be discovered by viewers. It’s an exercise in visual manipulation by the master that eventually leads us to a mystery outside of the movie itself. I’m no sycophant but I find Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” intriguing and I’m going to attempt to show you just how great a genius Kubrick was. So be warned. Sounding a lot like Jack, “You got a big surprise coming to you.” If you read this to the end you’ll never be able to look at this movie the same way again as I've written one of the most in-depth visual studies on "The Shining" that has ever been done, and I've included almost 500 pictures to back it up. Turn back now or you may discover how brutally easy it was for Stanley Kubrick to fool us.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the audience were able to watch "The Shining" and then leave comments for Stanley Kubrick to look at? I like reading the comments people leave at the end of this blog but it seems that most people skim and don’t really understand the point I’m trying to get across. I’ve tried to present all this in an easy to read fashion. But my problem was that I discovered just about everything you’re going to read at different times. The hardest job was tying everything together and attempting to present it in a logical sequence. Unfortunately many things are mentioned several times. One thing I think we all can agree on is that Stanley Kubrick didn’t explain his movies, he leaves that up to you. At first I was a little perplexed because the pictures from the film and alterations he made to the novel are so obvious but I still get nonsensical comments posted. Then I heard something on the news that made me feel a little better; a third of those polled don’t believe that global warming exists and almost fifty percent don’t believe its cause has anything to do with the human race. At his first trial almost a third of people polled believed that O.J. was actually innocent. “Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery” By Norman Mailer is an excellent book, but if you believe in an assassination conspiracy you probably won’t agree with his assumptions no matter what he proves in it. Showing what’s obvious really means nothing, as some will not alter their beliefs even when proof of the opposite is right in front of them. Challenging a person’s core belief system is almost impossible. I’ve discovered in writing about “The Shining” that people who love this movie and have no agenda are fascinated by what I’m going to show you. But if someone has strong beliefs about this film and my proofs don’t fit with their particular ‘theory’ they’ll probably try and trash me and what I’ve written (but at least we can all agree on one thing; Pluto should be reinstated as a planet again).



This was a massive undertaking on my part and as the blog grew I had an increasing problem finding certain ideas that I had written. So I recently added this; you can click here and take a peek at my Frequently Asked Questions / Resource Page. It’s a topical table of contents in question form. But if you jump around to much you’ll miss a lot and things will not make sense. In an attempt to make this an interesting read as much information as I could is crammed into the first few paragraphs of each section.



I could never have done this without Google, word searches and our computer. I’m not sure if this is a good thing though. In our new age they’ll be no more Beatles, no more Kubrick’s. The age of genius like theirs is over. We live in the era of reality TV where inability rules and rock stars have to be spoon fed to us on American Idol. A show where the writers and performers of the original music the contestants sing could probably never get past the first auditions. In the future there may be no more than 15 seconds of fame, with just a computer terminal linking everyone; shrinking all our minds together into one.



With the photos I’ve included I'll attempt to bring you inside this fascinating movie in a way you've never experienced a film before. They're from my Warner Brothers DVD. I also add many interesting links; Here’s a classic British TV commercial for “The Shining” that aired in 1980. And for the perfect background ambience as you read just open this blog in two browser windows and click on the Music Link in the second window at the end of each section for a You Tube link to the great music from “The Shining”.

................................Music



And now “What You May (or may not) Have Seen
................Hidden In The Shining”.




Where Are The Special Numbers Stanley Kubrick Wants Us to Notice?

............."I see it, but I don't believe it" - Georg Cantor



It wasn’t just a room number (217 in the novel becoming 237 in the film) that Stanley Kubrick altered, he changed almost every number mentioned in Stephen King’s novel and added quite a few of his own – for no apparent reason.

I saw “The Shining” in it’s first theatrical run in 1980 and I’ve loved it ever since. My only minor criticism was that I felt the final chase scene didn’t look real enough. The sprayed on snow and well above freezing temperatures noticeable in their breath were a distraction to me. That aside it’s been one of my all-time favorite moves ever since. But I never imagined I would be writing about something trivial that I noticed in 1980 and remembered in the back of my mind ever since. Stanley Kubrick may have somehow done something to us here. I went to a hypnotist once and in the last session he tried to plant a sneaky suggestion in my mind that I would return to him at a later date and I feel the same thing has been done to me with this film. Maybe some form of autosuggestion has been placed into our minds that draws us back to watch time and time again. It could have something to do with what I accidentally noticed on the screen. I remembered through the years that Danny wore 2 sweaters with numbers on them. Danny's sweater in the bathroom scene is obvious, number 42. But I remembered something else; a second sweater with the number 11 on it.

Few noticed this because it’s a mistake on my part caused by ADD. I’m always looking at something other than where the master illusionist wants me to be looking; it’s actually a design that’s made to look like the number 11 but had I not made this little mistake in 1980 you wouldn’t be reading this today.

I decided to start my blog out with the numbers, as he made certain ones so easy to spot, and I will tell you ahead of time that I believe Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice these numbers. The end of this blog is littered with the comments of those who do not agree but they will never convince me they aren't there on purpose (and interested posters are continuously finding new ones). What he's done is just to obvious and when you look at the 42 on Danny's sweater,

than look at them watching “Summer of 42” on the TV,

and think of Jack’s line in the beginning of the movie, “See, it's okay. He saw it all on the television.” It’s obvious that Stanley Kubrick is gently whispering something in our ears. Just look at your moving index finger and say this in a voice like Tony, “There’s something in the numbers Mrs. Torrance, did you notice?" The same ones keep popping up, over, and over, and over. Readers of the novel notice and comment on the biggest departures Stanley Kubrick chose to make in the movie. Changing the topiary into a hedge maze, a Roque mallet into an ax, one boiler into two, Dick Hallorann’s death, etc. A less obvious but nonetheless fascinating alteration is that almost all of the numbers mentioned in the novel are different in the movie. It’s not just the obvious one I mentioned before, Room 217 changing to Room 237. Most have been changed for no apparent reason. Stanley Kubrick points us to the same set of mysterious numbers, beckoning us to notice them. People comment a lot about what I’m going to show you but there are 2 camps when it comes to seeing them. For me there are just too many instances where they pop up and they’re way to obvious. When I point them out you’ll either believe it or you won’t. From the very first shot to the last, Stanley Kubrick includes far too many obvious references to the same special numbers to be just a coincidence. Everywhere you look in the major scenes of the film through casual observation or simple math the same set of numbers turn up in some fashion. 12, 24 their inverted images 21, 42 and component numbers can be easily spotted in character actions, sounds, dates, props, possessions, time codes, durations of shots and scenes, and even the music we hear. Again many have been changed from what they were in Stephen King’s novel for no apparent reason.

I’ve looked at and noted major occurrences in the movie and this doesn’t mean other numbers can’t be found in actions and props. What I’m saying is, it’s clear Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice these specific numbers and knowing this led me to the last shot of the movie, and what I believe is part of it’s explanation.



Where are some of the most obvious occurrences of the numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice?

Where are some of the most obvious occurrences of the numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice?

12

There is only one enigmatic room in the movie that Danny isn't supposed to go into, Room 237, and its individual numbers add up to 12.


The Overlook has only one call number; it's KDK 12 (“KDK 12 calling KDK 1”).


There is only one set of bloody elevators and they're always stopped on floor 1 and 2.


Only two times are given in the movie's black frames, add them together (8 + 4) and you get 12.



There's only one song playing over the final credits and it's "Midnight, The Stars and You" by The Ray Noble Band.


....and Stanley Kubrick doubled only one name from Stephen King's novel, Grady. In the movie he has 2 names and they both contain the same number of letters; Charles Grady = 12 Letters and Delbert Grady = 12 Letters.


21

There's only one enigmatic final shot in the film and there are 21 pictures on the wall with a 21 in the date and a :21 in the time code. And as a very astute anonymous poster noted there are 2 candles and 1 shadow visible on the wall.


Jack only works on one novel and Wendy stops at line 21 as she pulls the page out of the carriage of his typewriter. When she first spots it, we hear her thumb through 24 pages of the novel in the box.


The money shot in the Hedge Maze is when Danny fools Jack and there are 21 full footprints in the snow in this scene.


... And as Trevor an astute commenter noticed, there are 21 pieces of mail behind the receptionist when Jack walks into The Overlook for the first time.



24

There's only one mysterious date in "The Shining" and the numbers of that date 7/4/1921 added together equals 24.


There's only one master staircase in The Overlook's Colorado Lounge where Wendy clobbers Jack, and counting the platform which is also a large step there are a total of 24 steps to the top of it and 6 steps on each side.


Wendy pulls on the storeroom latch 24 times.


Danny’s first vision of the blood coming out of the elevator happens only once and it's exactly :24 seconds long, to the frame.



42

Room 2 x 3 x 7 = 42.

An anonymous poster found this gem; ”All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”, (letters and spaces) is 42 characters long.

There's only one recognizable movie clip we see and it's from the “Summer of 42”. It also just happens to be the scene at :24 minutes into that movie.


Danny wears the number 42 once on his T-shirt in their bathroom.


Jack breaks down their apartment door with his ax only once and it takes him exactly :42 seconds, from first frame to last to do it (when we see him first hit it with the ax to when he pulls the ax out before opening the door). We also hear Jack hit the bathroom door 12 times with his ax.


And don't forget Stanley Kubrick edited it so that Wendy swings the bat 42 times. With the first swing being in this shot right after Jack says, "How do you like it".




Why in the credits did Stanley Kubrick place 21 double letters in the cast’s names?

The movie was created and edited this way and Stanley Kubrick did it for a reason. All these things happen only once; one room Danny's not supposed to go into, one recognizable movie clip, one doubled name from Stephen King's novel. One mysterious date, one set of bloody elevators, one song playing over the final credits. There’s only one master staircase in The Overlook's Colorado Lounge, one novel Jack works on and one time that Wendy reads it, one set of call numbers. And Jack breaks down their apartment door only once. These are all major scenes in the movie and the same set of numbers keep popping up where probability tells us they shouldn't. You're not seeing things. Like the 21 pictures in the last shot and the year in the date having the same number in it, 1921, and the time code on your DVD player indicating 2 hours and 21 minutes. But if you're skeptical explain this from the credits? It's the most famous deleted scene in movie history; the mysterious deleted hospital scene at the end of "The Shining". We would never know anything about this important scene if it weren’t for the movie’s credits. I'm not exaggerating, it’s quite possibly the most famous deleted scene in movie history as it was part of the finished work and was actually shown to audiences for a few days before being excised from the film by Stanley Kubrick. How many other deleted scenes were taken out after the theatrical release of a film? What’s a little odd is the names of the cast members from that final deleted scene are still shown at the end of the movie. Considering Stanley Kubrick is one of the most renowned perfectionists in the history of movie making, this is very sloppy indeed; unbelievably sloppy unless that deleted scene is actually an important and intentional part of the movie and we're supposed to notice it. Could it be because there were already 21 double letters in the cast’s names in the credits that he didn’t want to take the time to change? I don't think so. What other movie contains a deleted scene that becomes part of the folklore of the finished product (as all Kubrick aficionados know about it)? A perfectionist would die rather than have something like this obvious and horrendous movie mistake staring them in the face; "forever, and ever, and ever". You’ll have to forgive me for not taking everything in the "Shining" saga at face value but Stanley Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing. If he was contemplating the removal of that scene he would have also had a different set of credits ready to be inserted. He worked on the film for 5 years and had plenty of time to think about this problem. He also had plenty of eager help to do it for him. It’s the same as the numbers on Danny’s sweaters. He’s pointing us to something contained in the credits. He wants us to notice and think about the double letters (the 21 double letters) and ponder over just exactly what's contained in that now lost scene. It's all just another part of the show, something else for us to try and figure out. Deliberate and obvious. Some websites indicate that all the deleted scenes added together equal 3 minutes which would have made the running time of the story from the original final cut 2:24 rather than 2:21 in duration as it is now. Both durations still contain one of the numbers he wants us to notice. Look at how, for no apparent reason, (Larry) Durkin and (Bill) Watson's first names were left out of the credits yet the deleted actors names remain. He’s toying with us, beckoning anyone to notice these anomalies and wonder what it all means. He's almost hitting us over the head with them.

Jack To(rr)ance.................Jack Nicholson
Wendy To(rr)ance...............She(ll)ey Duva(ll)
Da(nn)y............................Da(nn)y (Ll)oyd
Ha(ll)ora(nn).....................Scatman Crothers
U(ll)man..........................Ba(rr)y Nelson
Grady..............................Philip Stone
(Ll)oyd............................Joe Turkel
Doctor.............................A(nn)e Jackson
Durkin.............................Tony Burton
Young woman in bath...........Lia Beldam
Old woman in bath..............Bi(ll)ie Gibson
Watson............................Ba(rr)y De(nn)en
Forest Ranger 1 .................David Baxt
Forest Ranger 2 ................Ma(nn)ing Redw(oo)d
Grady Daughter.................Lisa Burns
Grady Daughter.................Louise Burns
Nurse.............................Robin Pa(pp)as
Secretary........................Alison Coleridge
Policeman.......................Burne(ll) Tucker
Stewarde(ss)....................Jana Sheldon
Receptionist.....................Kate Phelps
Injured guest ...................Norman Gay


Skeptics think this all had to have happened by chance. But there’s much more than just the cast member’s names. There are other numerical anomalies. He didn't just do this to the names in the credits. Look at some of the items that Stanley Kubrick doubled from Stephen King's novel for no apparent reason; 1 furnace becomes 2 furnaces, 1 elevator becomes 2 elevators, 1 typewriter becomes 2 typewriters, 1 Grady becomes 2 Grady’s, 1 woman in the bathroom becomes 2 women in the bathroom, 1 Overlook becomes 2 Overlooks, two unseen Grady sisters from the novel (aged 8 and 10) become twins that appear to Danny. Also all the children have 2 years added to their ages; Danny is 5 years old in the novel and becomes 7 years old in the movie, Grady’s girls are 6 and 8 in the novel and they become 8 and 10 in the movie. I talk much more about doubling in "The Shining" in this later section, "What Do Delbert Grady and Danny's Friend Tony Have in common?". Clues are in just about anything you can imagine and almost everywhere you look. He's doing everything except belting us over the head with them.

To look at more examples of how these numbers show up in the movie click here.



Where are some examples of how Stanley Kubrick edited “The Shining” so that specific scenes would have specific time codes?

I've shown major and important images from "The Shining" but what's happening visually is just the tip of an iceberg. You may think this is nothing more than playfulness on Stanley Kubrick’s part but there’s something else that you could never possibly perceive while enjoying this masterpiece. It's what you can't see, what's invisible, that's truly amazing. They must be important, because for some reason the same set of numbers have been invisibly embedded into the very structure of the film. The four things I'm going to bring up now are absolute proof that Stanley Kubrick edited "The Shining" so that the time codes and the positioning of specific shots would come out in precise ways. I’ll show them now but discuss them in detail later in more pertinent sections.

1) The 4 shots filmed in the reflection of a mirror have specific numerical time codes that include this same set of numbers - 11, 11+24, 11+42, and 11+1:10 which are also found on Danny’s sweaters (remember that we see an 11, another double, on Danny's Apollo sweater). I discuss these 4 shots in the section, "The Significance of Mirror Shots".

2) The shot when Jack gulps down his drink in front of Lloyd has a specific numerical time code of 666 (66 minutes and 6 seconds into the film) and I'll discuss it in this section, "What Happened To Jack At The End Of The Movie?"

3) The shot of Jack entering room 237 has a specific time code that places it exactly half way between the beginning and the end of the story. I'll discuss it later in this section and also in the section, "Is The Overlook Haunted or does it "Shine"?".

4) The 2 words filmed in the reflection of Wendy’s mirror (the words murder and Stovington both seen in reverse) have specific time codes and among other times we also see them exactly one quarter of the way from the beginning and three quarters of the way from the end of the story. I’ll discuss these later in this section, “The Significance of the Mirror Shots”.


In the US DVD version Stanley Kubrick has the same numbers we see on Danny's sweaters, dates, and room keys pop up in the time codes of major shots in the movie. In each instance when the time code hits :12 or :21 minutes someone sees a vision and all have a duration of exactly to the second of :12 or :24 seconds. In each instance when the time code hits :24 or :42 minutes a cast member comes to a pivotal spot where they make an important discovery and each has a duration of exactly to the second of :12, :21, or :24 seconds.



Where are some examples of how Stanley Kubrick edited “The Shining” so that certain shots would have a specific elapsed time?

Having so many major shots precisely timed out to the second (and having durations of the same peculiar numbers :12, :21, :24, or :42) cannot happen by chance. The odds of 4 individual shots filmed in the reflection of a mirror (that I will talk about in a later section) having the same number also included in each of their time codes are astronomical (more than 141 cubed). Its obvious; we’re being pointed to these numbers throughout the movie on Danny’s sweatshirt, room numbers, movie tiles, dates, etc. Time codes are only half of what’s going on here. Look at how the numbers figure in each time, not only in the time code but also in long durations of scenes or short durations of individual shots (the odds of this happening by chance are astronomical). "The Shining" is Stanley Kubrick's mathematical maze. He edited it so it would come out that way.

00:12 minutes into the film. The end of Danny’s first vision of the blood coming out of the elevator (exactly :24 seconds in duration from when he sees it to the last bit of blood).


00:21 minutes into the film. “Kids can scare you to death.” Danny’s first vision of the two girls from when we see them to when they go out of his view (exactly :24 seconds in duration).


1:12 minutes into the film. Jack’s first and only vision of the woman in the bathroom. From seeing the tub to when he slams the door of room 237 (exactly 3:24 minutes in duration).


1:21 minutes into the film. Jack’s vision of balloons during the party (exactly :24 seconds from when he first sees the balloons, and they are in our view for exactly :12 seconds).


2:12 minutes into the film. Wendy's vision of the old bloodied gentleman saying, “Great party, isn’t it” (exactly :12 seconds in duration).


2:21 minutes into the film. The very last and most perplexing vision in the whole movie “Overlook Hotel July 4th Ball 1921”. Where there is an interesting problem, as everyone with the ability to see visions is either dead or has left the building (exactly :24 seconds in duration).




00:24 minutes into the film. Jack discovers the Gold Room for the first time (exactly 1:24 minutes in duration).


00:42 minutes into the film. Danny turns the doorknob as he discovers room 237 (when he looks up and we see the door to the end of the scene exactly 1:12 minutes).


1:24 minutes into the film. The Party scene when Jack meets Delbert Grady for the first time (the entire scene lasts exactly 9:21 minutes).


1:42 minutes into the film. The first time Wendy discovers what's in Jack’s novel (exactly :24 seconds from when we first see “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” to when she looks at the entire novel in the box).



Precise time codes of major shots ending in the same set of numbers like these do not occur by chance. Here's more proof that Stanley Kubrick has edited scenes so that time codes come out as precise numbers. At first I didn’t read Stephen King’s novel but listened to it on my I-Pod and the spot where Danny enters room 217 is almost exactly at the halfway point of the story Chapter 25 (Page 148). In the movie the opposite happens as now Jack enters room 237 at precisely the same spot, 1:11, exactly at the halfway point of the movie and this happened because Stanley Kubrick edited the movie so that the first half is a mirror image of the second half.

At exactly one quarter into the film, :35 minutes, we see Jack’s reflection in Wendy’s bedroom mirror and the word “Stovington” is inverted on his shirt.

Than at exactly three quarters through the film, 1:45 minutes :35 minutes from the end, Tony sees another inverted word, “Redrum” for the first time in a vision.




Is there any outside proof that Stanley Kubrick planed a numerical substructure in “The Shining”?

It would be ludicrous to entertain any idea that Stanley Kubrick would never hide numerical clues (or anything else) in one of his movies. I get a lot of negative comments about this but how could anyone possibly know something like this, and if you do please enlighten me at the end of this blog? I watched the movie “Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures” and they show something interesting; the first page of his copy of the script and we see 2 examples of how he was thinking about embedding Stephen King’s room number 217 somewhere in the movie. Among several other numbers on the cover he prints these that were never used, “Their address - 217 N. Elm”, and “Feb 17, 2/17”. This is more proof. The point I’ve made is obvious.



To look at more time codes and durations containing these numbers click here.



Stanley Kubrick didn't put up a sign in the reflection of a mirror telling us, "I hid something in The Shining". That doesn't mean any of this is wrong. The numbers :12, :21, :24, or :42 are showing up way to much to have happened by chance. Their appearance in character actions, on Danny’s sweaters, names of other movies, room numbers, radio call numbers, the number of pictures on the walls, and elevator floors makes you wonder and absolutely cannot be explained away. Stanley Kubrick wanted us to notice them for a reason. Something’s going on in “The Shining” on a massive scale and I’ve only scratched the surface. He creates an elaborate mathematical maze in the editing of this film. We may never know exactly how it all fits together unless each scene is plotted, and each shot is counted out second by second. Scenes (like the 2 shots I just showed you in Wendy's dresser mirror) at the end of the movie may have a mathematical relationship with scenes in the beginning of the movie. There may be a symmetry going on that no one has dreamed of that may even involve other movies. It's silly to think this wasn’t done on purpose and, as you’ll see if you read this article to the end, the numbers have a meaning and point to something outside of the movie. If you're still skeptical about whether Stanley Kubrick actually did this on purpose take a crack at explaining the duration in seconds on these three shots. The pictures are taken on the first and last frames and the values are exact to the frame. How can they all end up with the same odd duration of :21 seconds?

Jack enters The Gold Room


We see Grady for the first time exactly 2 minutes and 21 seconds later.


The very last frame of this scene is exactly 9 minutes and 21 seconds after the first frame.


Finding these numerical occurrences was not a difficult task. All I did was look at the important scenes in the movie. After all there's only one mysterious room in the movie, there's only one time Danny discovers it and there's only one time Jack goes into it. The first time Danny sees the twins happens only once and the same with the bloody elevators. Well over 95% of every time code I looked at amounted to something. It was actually quite easy once I realized what Stanley Kubrick was doing. There was one annoying thing I couldn’t find though. The song over the final credits is an obvious reference to the number 12, "Midnight, The Stars and You" and I thought for sure the western that Wendy was watching when Jack calls her at the beginning of the movie would be another reference to the number 12, “High Noon”, but it isn’t. It’s from the 1952 film, “Carson City”. It references the number 21 as the newspaper shown to Kincaid several scenes earlier is issue 21.





What I’ve noted here is quite accurate. The time durations he used are exact to the second (even though some are exact to the frame). The numbers were easy to spot because I knew what I was looking for. I know how tempting it is to go right to the end of this blog and post a comment about how wrong I am, or how you just disagree. Or my favorite nonsense comment; how "you can make a set of numbers mean anything you want". The director himself is pointing us to them; I didn't create any of this, it's an observation. And an accurate observation at that. These numbers popping up on sweaters, movie titles, and time codes cannot be altered or debated; they are what they are and the movie was created that way. You can have any opinion you like as to why or how all this happened but please mull it over for a while before you come to the inaccurate conclusion that it didn’t happen. Disagreeing with me is not enough, you should be able to show some proof of how you know Stanley Kubrick didn’t purposely edit “The Shining” so that certain scenes and shots would have the same numerical time durations as the numbers we see on Danny’s sweaters. Everything I’ve written in this blog must be taken as a whole in order to see the full magnitude of what he’s done here, and you should read on.



I’ve put a special place here for you to post if you’ve noticed secret numbers in other movies.


Anything you notice in "The Shining” put here.

Anything you notice in another movie or anywhere else put here.



................................ Music

The Differences Between The Novel And The Movie.

..........
“A film is not a book.” - Roger Vadim



What important visual message was Stanley Kubrick showing us in this shot filmed in the same mirror that Wendy later sees "Redrum" in?



I bet you never thought about how important this is before. 2 words are seen in the reflection of Wendy’s bedroom mirror; not just “Redrum”. Stanley Kubrick takes seemingly insignificant words and sentences from Stephen King's novel and makes them come alive in his movie. The fictitious town of Stovington, Vermont is mentioned in 4 of Stephen King’s novels, and it’s the only direct visual link in the movie to his novel. What’s printed on Jack’s t-shirt is meaningless to moviegoers but it’s a well-known name in Stephen King circles. It’s interesting. For some strange reason Stanley Kubrick chose to show it to us backwards, “NOTGNIVOTS”. This is his sign post on the road that’s telling us exactly what’s been done to Stephen King’s story. Stovington is reversed because we’re looking at its reflection filmed in Wendy's mirror. The very same mirror we'll see the reflection of "Redrum" in later in the film. The inverted word is placed there as a metaphor and as I’ll prove to you we’re viewing Stephen King’s entire novel the same way, in a mirror; Stanley Kubrick’s special mirror, his version of “The Shining” where everything turns out to be an inversion of what you think.

I can’t think of any other movie where reading the source novel was so enlightening and my blogsite is the only one I’ve ever seen that successfully connects the dots between the film and the novel. Many writers skim the surface when trying to compare the novel with the movie and than simply give up. You absolutely cannot have a through understanding of Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” without looking at what he did to Stephen King’s story. Ignoring the novel is crazy. Readers often wonder why certain things were changed but no one spends the time to understand just exactly what he did when he altered the original story. I thought it would be a good idea but I read the novel only after I’d been well absorbed into this project. I had no idea what I was looking for but upon reading it I quickly noticed one simple three letter word that opened up the entire film for me. Something else has been cleverly hidden in the same fashion as the numbers I spoke about in the last section. Something Stephen King has never said anything about even though he had to have noticed right away. Stanley Kubrick, being one of the most intense perfectionists in modern cinema, didn’t randomly alter things from the novel as many readers think. He’s inverted them. Like looking at the image of Jack I just showed you in the mirror. The image we see is the reverse of what’s real. In the next section I discuss how important mirrors are and much of the film is not just changed (like the numbers 12 and 21, 24 and 42, and 11) from the novel but is actually an inverted mirror image (the opposite) of what happens in the novel. It’s hard for readers to remember the color of “Daddy's battered red bug” as it’s only mentioned once on page 25 of the novel. The word “red” jumped right out at me. In the novel they’re brought to The Overlook in a red VW and have a yellow snowmobile up at the hotel. In the movie they’re brought to The Overlook in a yellow VW and have a red Sno-cat up at the hotel. They're also saved in a red Sno-cat. In the movie Jack throws his yellow ball and in the novel Danny plays with his red ball. Stanley Kubrick didn't just change the colors, he inverted the colors Stephen King uses in the novel for these major props. Look once at the VW in the opening credits of the movie; you’ll never forget that yellow color. Ask anyone who’s seen the film, they will be able to tell you what color the VW is. Ask anyone who’s read the novel and they probably won’t. The color changes are obvious and are a crucial part of the explanation of what’s happening in his movie.The colors of the two main vehicles in the story are just the beginning.



How did Stanley Kubrick alter Stephen King’s novel?

Stanley Kubrick altered something about every single aspect of the novel. Everything! Nothing was left untouched. You may be thinking that I’m incorrect in assuming that the film is a mirror image of the novel because he didn’t invert everything; he couldn’t. He couldn’t invert the title or the names. It wouldn’t have remained “The Shining”. He couldn’t invert room 217 to 712. There is no seventh floor in the hotel. He couldn’t invert time. What he didn’t invert he simply altered in some other fashion. He couldn’t literally invert the rooms where the story takes place so he did something different. Except that they seem to be in the same hotel (are you sure they are?) Stanley Kubrick was very meticulous in changing all the places from the novel where the scenes in the movie occur. Not one major thing happens in the movie’s Overlook in the same place it did in the novel’s Overlook. It’s unbelievable that no one seemed to noticed this or comment about it!


What happens in room 217 in the novel happens in room 237 in the film.
What happens in a red VW in the novel happens in a yellow VW in the film.
In the film Danny has his seizure at their apartment outside The Overlook. In the novel it’s inside The Overlook.
Hedges in front in the novel. Hedges in back in the film.
Jack works in the basement in the novel and in the movie he works upstairs and never goes into the basement.
There’s no Gold Room in the novel. Jack meets Grady and Lloyd in the Colorado Lounge not The Gold Room.
In the end of the novel Wendy and Jack have their knock down fight in the hallway outside their apartment.
“Redrum” appears in the novel inside their bathroom. In the film it appears outside their bathroom.
The final chase takes place inside The Overlook in the novel, not outside like the film.
Wendy is also severely beaten in the novel. In the end of the film she’s never touched by Jack at all.
Even Mr. Ullman's office was changed. In the novel Jack has his interview in the Manager's office at the beginning of the story, in the movie Mr. Ullman has been changed to the General Manager.
In the film the shed where the snowmobile is stored is attached to The Overlook. In the novel it isn’t.
The movie starts in Jack's VW. The novel starts in Mr. Ullman’s office.
In the film Dick Hallorann talks to Danny inside The Overlook. In the novel they’re talking outside in his car.
In the movie the doctor is a woman who sees Danny at their apartment. In the novel the doctor is a man who sees him in his office.
In the novel “Redrum” is seen by Danny before entering The Overlook. In the movie he sees it after they are at the hotel.
If he didn’t change the exact location he alters something else about it. Like Larry Durkin’s Conoco becoming Durkin’s Auto Supply or the cold pantry becoming a common storeroom.

The location of The Overlook has even been altered. In the novel the Torrance’s are in Colorado. In the movie The Overlook is in Oregon as we see early on when we’re shown The Timberline Lodge, which is located on Mount Hood in Oregon. Don’t let the Colorado State Flags all over the Colorado Lounge fool you. What we see in the beginning of the movie, when Dick Hallorann returns near the end, and every time there's a long shot of the hotel is located in the state of Oregon; not Colorado. Stanley Kubrick even hints at this in the dialogue when Jack talks to Lloyd, “Best God damned bartender from Timbuktu to Portland Maine, Portland Oregon for that matter.” I try to prove everything that I’ve written in this blog. If you don’t agree that Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook is in Oregon - click here.



He did a perfect job and none of these alterations can be ignored. As I’ll discuss later, he’s also done this with the dialogue and the plot. He’s turned the novel inside out and no one ever realized to what extent he accomplished this. Stanley Kubrick has taken Stephen King’s work and held it up to a mirror, and what we’re seeing in the movie is that reflection. A reflection where, in typical Kubrick fashion, just enough obvious changes are puzzlingly noticeable (The Hedge Maze and colors) and just enough, like the title, is left alone so as to not give it all away. He didn’t even leave the names alone as 3 were altered. Charles Grady exists only in the movie and not in the novel where Delbert Grady is both the “caretaker” who kills his family and the ghost who lets Jack out of the cold pantry. In the novel the main character’s name is John Daniel Torrance (page 22 chapter 4) and his nickname is Jack. In the credits we see that in the movie his real name is simply Jack Torrance. Danny's pediatrician is named in the novel and not in the movie. And was this an accident? Jack Nicholson and Danny Lloyd; Jack Daniel’s. Stanley Kubrick left nothing untouched and the alterations are hidden exactly like the numbers he dares us to notice. Even the credits are reversed as Stanley Kubrick’s name only appears in the beginning and not at the end of the film.

If you're interested in looking at more of the differences I've noticed between the novel and the movie, and how closely they relate to each other click here.

If you have preconceived ideas the reversals he made to the novel that I discuss are shocking. Especially when you think of how he was able to hide all this in plain site. But if you “go check it out” what I’ve written is quite correct. It’s not only correct but it can’t be debated, altered or most importantly dismissed. It is what it is. In the novel he noted that readers would never know what “Redrum” meant without looking at the word in a mirror and he created a movie that can’t be truly explained without looking at it in a mirror. A stroke of pure brilliance. Red is yellow and yellow is red, a true reversal of the source material and, as I show throughout this article, these reversals are crucial to understanding all of the mysteries this movie holds.



Perfectionism without attention to detail can be a real train wreck but when a true perfectionist works we average people look on in wonder at the world wind of intensity they create. When you think about the scope of the reversals here, the minute details that were altered and the time it must have taken, it’s a marvel to see and should be appreciated by all. Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” may truly be The Eighth Wonder of the world of cinema. Here’s an interesting example of the inversions (and doubling) Stanley Kubrick made to the novel. The Grady girls, the most famous twins in history, aren’t twins and never appear in the novel. This is a huge reversal and can't be ignored. Danny only meets up with the lonely invisible spirit of a single child in the playground in Chapter 34 (page 197). “... Now, in spite of the snow-dazzle, he thought he could see something there. Something moving. A hand. The waving hand of some desperately unhappy child, waving hand, pleading hand, drowning hand. (Save me O please save me. If you can't save me at least come play with me... forever, and forever, and forever.)” In the movie instead of one unseen child we now see two children who repeat the line together, twice, “Come and play with us. Come and play with us, Danny, For ever and ever, and ever.” Here’s another interesting example of his inversions. In the novel Danny sees but doesn’t understand what “Redrum” means and he mentions it to several people throughout the story. In the movie this is all reversed and Danny never sees “Redrum”. If you look closely during that moment in the story it’s Tony that sees it, keeps repeating it, and writes it on the bathroom door, “Danny’s not here Mrs. Torrance”. Totally reversed; and Stephen King’s fans never noticed. The chapters and page numbers I’ve included in my blog are all from Stephen King’s 307-page version.



How did Stanley Kubrick invert Stephen King’s scene with the old woman in the bathroom?

It’s impossible to pinpoint when Stanley Kubrick decided to alter the novel the way he did but Stephen King’s style of adding many details to his work may have been part of it’s appeal to him. He definitely had a brilliant source novel providing him a lot to work with. Here’s another great example indicating how Stanley Kubrick shows us inverted mirror images of plot points from the novel. Take a look at the entire scene with the old woman in the bathroom. In the novel it’s Danny who disobeys Jack and Dick Hallorann by stealing the master pass key and going into room 217 where he sees a dead women in the bathtub. In the movie we’re shown an entire reversal of this. First of all it’s not a pass key and it’s all ready in the lock, and if you look very closely Danny never disobeys anyone as he doesn’t walk into the room. It’s Jack that walks in and sees not 1 but 2 women in the bathroom of room 237. It’s just like Grimm’s fairy tail “Hansel and Gretel”, where the old woman entices the children only to eventually turn into a witch. In the novel Jack never sees anyone as he enters the bathroom only to find an empty tub with no woman in it. He only thinks he hears her after shutting the front door, and she rattles the doorknob. He never sees her, never embraces her and never kisses her. It’s obvious everything in this scene except the names of the characters has been inverted. Don’t forget the bathrooms are in different rooms. In the novel it’s 217, but in the movie they’re in 237. It’s so subtle and barely noticeable unless you stop and really think about it, and the entire movie is like this from beginning to end. Stanley Kubrick is beyond meticulous, even the person who pulls the shower curtain in the bathroom is reversed, in the novel it’s Danny but in the movie he never touches it, it’s the woman who does. Much of the film’s dialogue is also inverted. In the novel Dick Hallorann says this, “People who shine can sometimes see things that are gonna happen, and I think sometimes they can see things that did happen. But they're just like pictures in a book.” (page 60, chapter 11) and he says later (page 150 chapter 25) “I don't think they can hurt you ... they're like pictures in a book ... close your eyes and they'll be gone.” If you notice what he says is not definite, “I don't think…” In the movie this line is very cleverly reversed because when Danny, after seeing a vision of the twins hacked to death, talks to his finger it’s Tony who repeats the line they both heard, “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said. It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real.”, and Stanley Kubrick now makes this statement quite definite. And remember we never actually hear Dick Hallorann speak this line in the movie Overlook’s kitchen, it’s Tony that says it. In the novel the place where Danny and Dick Hallorann have this conversation is outside of The Overlook in Dick’s car, this has also been reversed to inside the Overlook’s kitchen while Danny has ice cream. The reversals just go on and on.



Who is Tony in the film?

Tony is explained much better in the novel. He’s Danny’s subconscious mind that protects him just like any other normal person’s subconscious does. Tony is part of him. Some believe that Tony is actually Danny from the future because of this line at the end of the novel, “And now Tony stood directly in front of him, and looking at Tony was like looking into a magic mirror and seeing himself in ten years, the eyes widely spaced and very dark, the chin firm, the mouth handsomely molded. The hair was light blond like his mother's, and yet the stamp on his features was that of his father, as if Tony — as if the Daniel Anthony Torrance that would someday be — was a Halfling caught between father and son, a ghost of both, a fusion.” But he isn't, Danny sees Tony that way only once at the end of the novel. Only when Danny actually has a future after his ordeal at the hotel is over. Stephen King is telling us that he's going to live. What’s unusual in this story is that Danny has the ability to “Shine” therefore his subconscious also has that special power. Stanley Kubrick made a huge inversion here as now Tony can’t be seen, in Stephen King’s novel he could be seen by Danny. Tony evolves in the novel and physically gets closer and closer to Danny as the story progresses. The film’s Tony is a mirror image of Tony in the novel, and stays the same throughout the whole story. Stanley Kubrick alters something special about the other ‘spooks’ in his film. In the novel mirrors are only important referring to the word “Redrum” and Lloyd the bartender and Grady never speak to Jack with a mirror present. In the movie this is altered as Jack speaks to both while looking directly at himself in a mirror. We never see Jack and any of The Overlook’s other ‘spooks’ together without a mirror being present. When he talks to Grady in the storeroom Jack doesn’t see him because there’s no mirror present. Stanley Kubrick’s attention to detail is unbelievable.

It may take a while for all this to sink in. Many do not agree that the movie is an inversion of the novel but (click here) take a look at how meticulous Stanley Kubrick is as he inverts the entire scene with Danny and the pediatrician. It’s from chapter 17 “The Doctor’s Office”. Side by side with the novel it’s easy to spot how the details are reversed.



Not only did he alter Stephen King’s novel but it appears that Stanley Kubrick may have left a special message just for him in the middle of the movie. Click here for one of the more interesting hidden shots you’ll ever come across in any movie.



Does Stanley Kubrick “Shine” a special word into the minds of Stephen King’s readers?



This inverted word is a very special visual message “Shined” from Stanley Kubrick to the readers of Stephen King’s novel. He’s telling you what he did to ‘The Shining”. Just like “Redrum” only makes sense when seen in the reflection of Wendy’s mirror, Stanley Kubrick created a movie that’s the same as the word “Redrum”; it will never truly make sense unless viewed in the genius director’s special mirror”. “The Shining” is a mirror image of “The Shining”. Just to show how confident he was in what he was doing he placed that reverse image of Stovington, as viewed by us, in the opposite side of the exact same mirror where we later see "Redrum" as the word murder. And don’t forget we see the inverted word “Stovington” at exactly one quarter into the film, :35 minutes, and we see the word “Redrum” for the first time exactly three quarters through the film, 1:45 minutes - :35 minutes from the end of the story. If you fold the time line of the movie at its center the two shots are mirror images facing each other at precisely the same spot, like visual bookends. How interestingly obvious; he placed mirror images in the same mirror at mirrored points in his film. It's clear; he’s pointing us to the movie's mirrors. Something important is hidden in their reflection and I'll discuss this later.



.......“Words of wisdom, Lloyd, my man. Words of wisdom.”


“Redrum” is the most important word in the story and it’s probably where Stanley Kubrick got the idea to invert Stephen King’s novel in the first place. I just mentioned that in the novel Danny sees, but doesn’t understand what “Redrum” means. It’s an enigma like “Rosebud” in “Citizen Kane”. The most famous single word in movie history. In fact “The Shining” is the exact opposite of “Citizen Kane” where the enigmatic word “Rosebud” is given to us to ponder throughout the film, only to be explained at the end. In “The Shining” nothing but a mirrored lake is shown in the beginning and the iconic July 4th photo at the end answers nothing at all. In the novel the first time we read “Redrum” is near the beginning on page 23 (Chapter 4) where Danny “Shines” and Tony shows him what the future holds. Before they leave for the hotel, he shows him the word in a vision from the bathroom mirror of their future home, The Overlook; “He couldn't read! But got a sense of all, and a dreamy terror floated into the dark hollows of his body… Now he was in a room filled with strange furniture, a room that was dark. Snow spattered against the windows like thrown sand... Outside there was a hollow booming noise, like a dreadful door being thrown wide... Across the room was a mirror, and deep down in its silver bubble a single word appeared in green fire and that word was: REDRUM… A shaft of light coming from another room, the bathroom, harsh white light and a word flickering on and off in the medicine cabinet mirror like a red eye, REDRUM, REDRUM, REDRUM…"

Stanley Kubrick inverts all this and as I mentioned before Danny never sees the word “Redrum”. Don’t forget what Tony tells us in the film’s dialogue, “Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance.” In his catatonic state after being beat up it’s Tony speaking through Danny that sees the word, keeps repeating it, and writes it on the opposite side of the bathroom door. In the novel it just appears in the mirror, and (Chapter 37 - Page 210) Wendy is not even present when Danny sees the word in the flesh. “Redrum’s” position is also a total reversal as he sees it on the inside of the bathroom, in the medicine cabinet mirror. When we see it in the movie it’s now Wendy in bed who sees “Redrum” on the outside of the bathroom door in her vanity mirror. Don’t forget one really important thing; when Danny looks at “Redrum” in the novel's mirror he sees it backwards. The word in his mirror is still inverted and it’s not until the end of the novel, in another reflection in a clock, that Danny sees the real word and realizes that it's “murder”. In the novel he sees a reflection of a reflection. In the movie we see it first on the bathroom door than it must be seen in the mirror before it makes any sense. Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece must be viewed in a mirror before making any sense. Everything is the reverse of what it appears to be.



Where is the obvious symmetry that Stanley Kubrick created with “The Shining’s” time codes?

Stephen King has “Redrum” appear right at the beginning of the novel (Chapter 4 - Page 23), but Stanley Kubrick places “Redrum” in a very special spot. As I mentioned before, it’s precisely three quarters of the way through the film, to the minute. As Jack questions Wendy after she looks at his novel, Tony visions “Redrum” on the door. But the word is not seen in the flesh until later on their bathroom door. If you divide the running time of the movie (2:21 after Warner Brothers logo to the July 4th photo) into equal quarters you get :35 minutes and a few seconds. In fact several major inversions to the novel occur precisely at :35 minute intervals. Just in case you’re into numbers that’s two of the special numbers he wants us to notice added together, :24 + :11. Stanley Kubrick has created a movie where the running time is obviously symmetrical.



:00 minutes – The very first thing we see, the yellow VW, reversed from the red VW in the novel.

:35 minutes, one quarter into the film - We see Jack‘s reflection from the left side of Wendy’s bedroom mirror and “Stovington” is in reverse on his shirt (In the novel it’s Danny, not Jack, who wears a green sweatshirt with “Stovington” on it - Chapter 2 - Page 12).

1:10 minutes, exactly half way through the film – As he walks into room 237 Jack “Shines” that image into Dick Hallorann’s mind causing his return to The Overlook. The reverse of the novel where Danny walks into the room and sees the woman and Jack never sees her at all.

1:45 minutes, three quarters into the film – “Danny’s not here Mrs. Torrance” and Tony sees “Redrum” on the bathroom door. Tony never sees “Redrum” in the novel and it doesn’t appear on a door but in a reflection in the bathroom mirror.

2:21 minutes - An inversion of the novel where The Overlook is destroyed, Jack burns to death, and the party is over. In the movie The Overlook survives, Jack is frozen to death and the party seems to go on as he remains frozen for a second time on the wall as the Manager “for ever, and ever, and ever”. The very last thing from the story that we see. Even the July 4 photo is a mirror image of something in the novel as I’ll explain later.



The 2 words “NOTGNIVOTS” and “Redrum” are both precisely positioned reflections eventually seen from opposite sides of Wendy’s mirror, equidistant (:35 minutes) from the center of the movie. Stanley Kubrick shows us with precision that he has indeed edited the time codes to come out the way he wished and that he has indeed inverted Stephen King’s novel. This must have been the most difficult cinematic feat for Stanley Kubrick to accomplish. It was a lot of work to set up similar scenes at equidistant spots in this film. There are several other occurrences that are time symmetrical in “The Shining” and I’ll mention them again at appropriate times in this article. The red Calumet can appears behind Dick Hallorann’s head as Danny “Shines” to him in the storeroom :27 minutes from the beginning of the film. The same cans appear behind Jack’s head at precisely :27 minutes from the end of the film as he “Shines” and talks to Grady. The visions of the bloody elevators are an omen of death. When Danny sees his vision of the bloody elevators it’s :11 minutes into the film and Wendy sees Dick Hallorann’s dead body at precisely :11 minutes from the end of the film. Wendy has the exact same vision of the bloody elevators :08 minutes from the end of the film and at precisely :08 minutes into the film Mr. Ullman tells Jack about the Grady murder suicide. At :59 minutes into the film Jack has a dream about killing his family and at :59 minutes from the end of the film we first see Grady who tells Jack to kill his family. Jack looks into the Hedge Maze miniature at :40 minutes into the film and Wendy looks into “All Work and No Play Makes Jack a Dull Boy” at :40 minutes from the end. Wendy uses the radio at :49 minutes into the film and Jack destroys the radio :49 minutes from the end. Jack throws the ball :37 minutes into the film and Wendy holds the bat :37 minutes from the end. 1:09 minutes into the film Wendy tells Jack about the woman and at : 1:09 minutes from the end of the film the woman touches Jack. :13 minutes from the end of the film Wendy has a vision of the 2 gentlemen in the room and at :13 minutes from the begining of the film Danny talks to the pediatrician.


This is no “theory” on my part, it’s a fact. But he’s beckoning us to notice something else. There’s one perplexing image in the movie that’s symmetrical in exactly the same way. Stephen King wrote this, “He was reminded of the 3-D movies he'd seen as a kid. If you looked at the screen without the special glasses, you saw a double image — the sort of thing he was feeling now. But when you put the glasses on, it made sense” (page 233, chapter 43). It’s the 3-D daydream that Jack has of the Hedge Maze and as you’ll find out in "The End" of this article, much has been hidden by the director inside that image.



How was dialogue from the novel altered?

I’d only looked into this recently, but Stanley Kubrick ever so slightly alters the character’s lines that were taken directly from the novel - for no apparent reason. Like;

The novel’s, "I think I'll have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs every time I come in," Becomes, “I feel I'll have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs every time I come in.”
The novel’s, "Looks sort of like a doc, doesn't he?" Becomes, “Well anyway, he looks like a Doc, doesn't he?”
The novel’s, “... there until sometime next April." Becomes, “they were going to be there until next April.”
The novel’s, "Now I'm really glad you asked me that, really glad.” Becomes, “Now I'm awfully glad you asked me that, Lloyd...”
The novel’s, “White man's burden, Lloyd my man.” Becomes, “White man's burden, Lloyd my man. White man's burden."
The novel’s, "And a pleasure it was. Ma'am, are you a Winnie or a Freddie?" Becomes, “Mrs. Torrance, your husband introduced you as Winifred. Now are you a Winnie or a Freddie?

The novel’s definition of cabin fever, "It's a slang term for the claustrophobic reaction that can occur when people are shut in together over long periods of time.” Becomes, “a kind of claustrophobic reaction which can occur when people are shut in together over long periods of time.”



When a line from the novel is exact he simply has a different character saying it;

“How did you know we called him 'Doc'?” In the film Wendy says this line. In the novel Jack says it.
"Great party, isn't it?" In the novel it’s a partygoer, “a man with a green ghoul mask on.”, not an injured employee that says this line (if you look closely the old British gentleman with the injured head is the Gold Room’s Maître d'). These alterations may seem trivial but they’re part of a much bigger picture.

Stanley Kubrick subtly does something else that helps explain much of the movie. In the film Jack speaks 2 of the ghost’s lines from the novel;

In the novel Dogman says (Chapter 41 page 228), “Not by the hair of my chiny-chin-chin," In the film it’s now Jack that recites from The Three Little Pigs, “Come out, come out, wherever you are! Little pigs, little pigs, let me come in! Not by the hair on your chiny, chin, chin. Then I'll huff, and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in.”
In the novel Danny only meets up with one ghost that’s a child (he never sees the Grady girls in the novel). He sees a hand waving and the child says (Chapter 34 Page 197), “Save me O please save me If you can't save me at least come play with me... Forever. And Forever. And Forever.” In the film the Grady girls say this, “Come and play with us. Come and play with us, Danny, forever and ever, and ever.” But later in their bedroom Jack repeats the end of it, “I wish we could stay here forever... and ever... and ever.”





Sometimes it’s shocking to see how a screenwriter changes your favorite novel for the big screen. I remember reading “To Kill A Mockingbird” and being surprised to find out that Arthur 'Boo' Radley talked to the children. They changed this in the screenplay and I believe not having him speak throughout the story created a mystery that added much to the movie’s appeal. I can see how fans of the novel could be a little perplexed at what Stanley Kubrick did but you must admit he did an unbelievable job and Stephen King really couldn’t say much about the alterations as he gave his permission to the director Warner Brothers chose to film it.

Here’s a great clip of Stephen King talking about Stanley Kubrick on You Tube. Again after seeing the film he described Kubrick’s film as “a big beautiful Cadillac, with no engine.” Several years ago a question was posed to Stephen King in USA Weekend (March 6-8 2009); I have always heard that you never really liked Stanley Kubrick’s version of “The Shining”. He answered; “My problem with ‘The Shining’ was never the adaptation. I certainly didn’t mind the idea that it was more psychological than supernatural. What I didn’t like was that I thought it was cold, and I always resented that. I’m an emotional writer. I think that’s why I’ve written so many things that people term “scary” or “horror”. I’m not that interested in what you think all the time, but I am interested in what you feel.” I feel both stories are brilliant in their own special ways. But what could he be insinuating here, “more psychological than supernatural”. I’ll discuss his interesting choice of words in a later section.

I’ve looked into the rumors of where the actual Overlook Hotel that inspired Stephen King’s novel is located? Click here.



................................ Music

The Significance Of Mirrors In The Film.

................. “Look in a mirror and one thing's sure;
..................... what we see is not who we are.”
................................ Richard Bach

The very first thing Stanley Kubrick shows us in “The Shining” is a mirror reflection. We see a beautiful mountain range but only half of it is real, the other half is a beautiful inverted mirror image seen on the surface of a peaceful calm lake. While pondering the July 4, 1921 photo in the last shot of the film I was looking at the 21 pictures on the wall when I just happened to glance down at the time code underneath 2:21. That's how I quickly discovered that something was hidden in the time codes of this movie. Mirrors do not play a large roll in the novel and if Stanley Kubrick is showing us his special mirror image of Stephen King’s novel there must also be tremendous importance in his use of mirrors in the movie. The key to the puzzling date is hidden in the mirrors. 12 and 24 are the mirror images of 21 and 42, and just as "Redrum" is the mirror image of murder. Wendy gives Jack breakfast in bed and his reflection in the bedroom mirror may be the spot when we are first shown the true reverse image of his madness. Again it’s precisely one quarter of the way into the movie.



Why does Danny have 2 sweaters with numbers on them?

The numbers 12, 21, 24 and 42 are being spoon-fed to us but there is one more that isn't. I've mentioned it before and 11 is the toughest of the numerical clues to spot. The number 42 is obvious but Danny, as he plays in the hallway, also has the number 11 on another sweater below the word Apollo. And Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice it. Stephen King did his homework while writing the novel as the prophet Daniel in the Bible had a little bit of the “Shine”. Stanley Kubrick does his homework too as the ancient god Apollo (the sun god) also had the “Shine”.


4 major shots in The Shining are filmed entirely in the reflection of a mirror. Notice how the number 11 (twin ones and a mirror image of itself) figures into each time code. These numbers are Stanley Kubrick's invention and the time codes of the mirror shots shown below are, 11, 11+24, 11+42, and 11+1:10. The odds of these 4 major and unique shots (filmed in the reflection of a mirror) coming out with these specific and accurate time codes by chance are close to zero. I discovered this and they are what they are. Stanley Kubrick planned it out ahead of time and the number 11 is the most deeply hidden clue in the movie. 11 is the linchpin for understanding what the other numbers mean. Notice how he includes one of the other 4 numbers that continue to pop up in the time durations again and again. Some interesting things occur randomly in life (click here) but so many precise time codes occurring in a film in the scenes where characters are filmed in mirrors didn't happen by chance.

Danny’s reflection as he talks to Tony in the bathroom mirror (the duration is :24 seconds exactly and the time code is :11 minutes).

Jack’s reflection in the bedroom mirror as Wendy gives him breakfast (the duration is 1:21 minutes exactly and the time code is :35 minutes, :24+:11).

Jack’s reflection in the bedroom mirror as Danny comes in for his truck (the duration is :24 seconds exactly and the time code is :53 minutes, :42+:11).

Wendy sees the Redrum reflection in the bedroom mirror (the duration is :04 seconds exactly and the time code is 2 hours and :01 minute, 1:10+:11, 121 min.).




Where did Stanley Kubrick place the number 11 in the dialogue?

In the novel (Chapter 34 - Page 197), “…come play with me... forever, and forever, and forever” is nine words. In the movie the same line, “…come play with us Danny, for ever, and ever, and ever” has been changed to contain 11 words for no apparent reason. There’s an obvious emphasis on the separate words and when Jack says a similar line it’s also 11 words. “I wish we could stay here forever... and ever... and ever.”

Look closely at this picture of Jack’s vision of the Hedge Maze. Inversions and mirror images are included everywhere in this movie. I’ll show later how important this image is as it holds all the clues to the explanation of what the date in the last shot in the movie means. The number 11 is also here in this obvious Indian design where the Roman Numerals X and I can be seen. Don’t let the shadows Stanley Kubrick added fool you, notice that it's not only a left/right mirror image of itself but also a top to bottom inversion.






Is Jack actually speaking to himself each time he looks into a mirror?

I explain this in the next section. Scenes with mirrors directly in front of him are an indication that Jack is “Shining” and his “ghostly” visions occur when one is present. When he's with the old woman or speaking face to face with Lloyd and Grady, Jack's actually looking at himself in that mirror. Listen closely, none of the "ghosts" utters a sound without Jack looking straight into a mirror. It’s because he’s speaking to himself. This doesn’t happen with any of the other visions that Wendy or Danny see.

Don’t forget that gold, “Shines” also. Jack's visions of Lloyd at the Gold Room bar with mirrors in front of him.


Jack’s vision when he first speaks to Grady. Even though you can’t see them in the shot the Gold Room bar with all its mirrors are facing him. As Jack turns to the right and looks into them he sees his reflection as Delbert Grady spills the Advocaat on him at the party.


The vision of Grady in the bathroom with mirrors facing him on the right.


Room 237 with mirrors inside.


Room 237's bathroom, which has mirrors all around, and facing him as he sees the old woman.


Danny’s vision in his bathroom with a mirror in front of him.


There’s more significance to the mirrors than you may think. One appears when you least expect it. In their drive up to The Overlook the mirror is not obvious. But if you look closely even though they’re alone on the road Jack constantly looks in the rear view mirror of his yellow VW,

and an unnaturally large pile of luggage, that couldn't fit in a VW if the engine and all the passengers were removed, appears at the end of the journey (without a shred of luggage on or in the car or any indication of any outside help as theirs is the only vehicle heading towards the hotel.). How could this happen? In a horror movie about the supernatural. Either things are moving around by themselves or maybe Stanley Kubrick simply made a mistake. Something is moving them.



In the movie cast members who “Shine” have the power of telekinesis. They can move things with their minds. Stanley Kubrick visually shows us this and I’ll prove it with pictures in the next section. I'll also show how Jack has the ability to “Shine” but doesn’t know it (or we’re not supposed to know that he knows it) and mirrors, as well as the colors yellow or red, are present in his possessions or surroundings when he does. In the kitchen on closing day while talking about others with their special gift of “Shining”, Dick Hallorann says this to Danny, “But, there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it, or believe it”. Who do you think Stanley Kubrick is referring to when he has Dick Hallorann say this? There are only five main characters in this film.



Where does Stanley Kubrick appear in “The shining”?

Audiences used to love to spot Alfred Hitchcock when he’d make appearances in his films and Stanley Kubrick’s appearance in “The Shining” might have real significance to the story. It’s so noticeable. I’ll show you the screenshot of the spot (exactly 3:24 into the film - that’s 3:35 minus the :11 second Warner’s intro) but you’ll need to watch the film closely to actually see his face moving behind the camera in the reflection from Mr. Ullman’s window. A window that couldn’t possibly exist; as later we see the other side of the wall after Wendy sees the old bloody gentleman who says, "Great party, isn't it?" It’s interesting that Jack is also looking right at Stanley Kubrick’s reflection. The same way he looks at Lloyd’s reflection, Grady’s reflection, and the old woman’s reflection later in the film. Could this mean something?

As I noted before we would never know that the word "Redrum" is murder if we didn’t see it in the reflection of Wendy's bedroom mirror. We also will never understand what "Overlook Hotel July 4th Ball 1921" means in the final black and white photo of this movie if we don’t look in the mirrors again. The most deeply hidden clue in Stanley Kubrick's “Shining” is in the mirrors and explained in The End of this article.



................................... Music


Things That Move Around, Change Color Or Just Don’t Seem Right.

“You can fool all the people some of the time…” - Abraham Lincoln


In “Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon” (1943) Holmes refers to a theory of Edgar Allan Poe in his story “The Purloined Letter” that, “the best place to hide something, is where everyone can see it” and this is precisely what Stanley Kubrick does in “The Shining”. Hide in plain sight! But where did he get the idea to secretly hide something in this film? Stephen King wrote this in the novel, “But now things had been misplaced. Things were missing. Worse still, things had been added…” (page 133, chapter 21)

Something’s been “added” to the movie In a big way. The "Shine" in the film is not the same as the 'shine' in the novel, and Stanley Kubrick chooses a most ingenious device to depict this change. “Can you see the Indians in this picture?” Stephen King asks this question on page 133 of his novel. But he never shows any of them to us. Stanley Kubrick does though. He has them, “sneak up behind” a cast member twice. Anyone who doesn’t utilize the novel when trying to understand this film only knows half of the story.


“… it was the ones you couldn't see that would sneak up behind you…” Stanley Kubrick makes this so obvious but how and why did the Indians get there? The “Shine” in the movie is not the same as the ‘shine’ in the novel. As I noted before Stanley Kubrick created a film that’s symmetrical. The red Calumet can appears behind Dick Hallorann’s head at precisely :27 minutes from the beginning of the film and the same cans appear behind Jack’s head precisely :27 minutes from the end of the film.



What is the film’s definition of the “Shine”?

This scene may not hold the record but Scatman Crothers was made to do 148 takes sitting there explaining the ‘shine’ to Danny. “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see." We’re viewing a mirror image of the novel where Jack didn't possess the "Shine". It should come as no surprise to anyone that by the very definition Stanley Kubrick gives us of the “Shine” in his story, Jack now possesses this ability to “notice… things”. The exact same “things” Danny notices. Visions of The Overlook’s previous guests. The visions of Grady’s daughters that Danny sees are no different than the vision of their father that Jack sees. They’re seeing things that only, “people who 'shine' can see." They both possess the “Shine”. We’re told this by Stanley Kubrick, “But, there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it, or believe it.” The dialogue from the film explains why they can see certain of The Overlook’s previous guests. But there’s an even bigger secret that Stanley Kubrick’s hidden in his film. How and why did the Calumet cans appear behind Jack and Dick Hallorann’s heads? The secret lies in what the director did to the three items that move supernaturally in Stephen King’s novel.

At least once in your life you’ll notice a continuity error in a film because many items move between shots in movies without being touched by a cast member. Unless considerable effort is made in production it’s almost impossible for filmmakers to stop these visual anomalies from happening. They're all over. Any time in a movie where you see a clock, a chair, or a prop that an actor handles, watch the next shot closely as you'll probably see a movie mistake. In “The Shining” there are a lot of continuity errors but Stanley Kubrick does something unusual that I’ve never seen in a film before. He knows mistakes are going to happen and that people will notice them so he uses this to his advantage as an integral part of the story. Not only are things hidden in the alterations of the source novel, time codes, and mirrors but something’s hidden in what look like average everyday movie mistakes. Unless you’ve looked closely at the source, Stephen King’s story, it would be impossible to put all this together. We're not talking about just clocks here. This is a film about the supernatural “Shine” and many items appear out of nowhere. It’s a mistake to entertain the idea that Stanley Kubrick would never place what appear to be common continuity errors purposely into a movie. He simply doesn't advertise this fact. He's turned simple movie mistakes into an integral part of the supernatural visual aspect of his story, and I believe it's a first on any scale. It’s pure genius and it’s exactly the kind of idea you’d expect a genius to come up with. Remember; “.... things had been misplaced.... things were missing.... things had been added…”


If you’ve read the novel it’s easy to spot that the few people who “Shine” can do three things, (1) they can see visions from the past or the future, (2) they can speak to each other telepathically over any distance and (3) Danny can read minds. But with all this paranormal ability they do not supernaturally animate objects. You have to be very clear on this. Only The Overlook is able to move things supernaturally in the novel and it’s done many times to scare the Torrance’s. Stephen King gave the hotel this power but not the characters. After what I showed you in the section on the differences between the novel in the movie, it would be ridiculous to think that Stanley Kubrick would’t tamper with the very essence of Stephen King’s story, the “Shine”, in the same way he tampered with everything else. After all there were no authorities around to stop him. I can prove that just like he did with most everything else of importance from the novel Stanley Kubrick alters the abilities of the characters that “Shine”, and he does it without anyone realizing. He creates a mirror image of the the supernatural ability that’s already been established in the novel. The pictures, dialogue and alterations he made to the source novel will show that in his Overlook people who possess the “Shine”, 1) do not have the ability to read each others minds as Danny did in the novel. (2) They can supernaturally “Shine” animated vision’s into other’s minds, something that only The Overlook could do in the novel (what a chilling concept, someone in the film’s Overlook has the ability to project images of ghosts directly into the minds of the other characters). And last (3) they can supernaturally alter objects. Moving and making items and possessions disappear and re-appear (on the screen, right before our eyes). Something that was only alluded to in the novel, but never actually done. Don’t think for one minute Stanley Kubrick would pass up an opportunity to take a certain line from Stephen King’s novel and run all the way with it. Stephen King gets into our minds and electrifies our imaginations with words. Stanley Kubrick works with an entirely different set of parameters. He electrifies our imagination with images. He uses this special paranormal phenomenon of the “Shine” to spookily move things around throughout his film. It’s just to easy for him. Operating in a visual realm he took this idea I just mentioned directly from the pen of Stephen King, “But now things had been misplaced. Things were missing. Worse still, things had been added, things you couldn't quite see, like in one of those pictures that said ‘Can You See The Indians?” Reading the novel I wondered about what he was talking about but Stephen King never expanded on this sentence. In the novel’s haunted hotel he brilliantly chose to supernaturally animate the fire hose, the hedges, and the elevators rather than make other items disappear, re-appear and move around on the Torrance’s. In Stanley Kubrick’s visual arena he took this sentence and found a way to make all sorts of things move around, change color, disappear and re-appear between shots in his Overlook without the audience noticing. And the proof of this is in what he chose to do to the three items I mentioned that move supernaturally in the novel. They all remain totally motionless throughout the film. He shows us what he’s done to Stephen King’s novel by creating the mirror opposite of what occurs in the novel; those three items don’t move an inch in the film when the Torrance’s are living there.



What are some examples of continuity errors in other films?

Again anyone wishing to understand “The Shining” must realize that the visual game played here is considerable and done in such a crafty way so as to look like garden variety continuity errors seen hundreds of times in just about every movie ever made. It might be expected that things in a supernatural ghost/horror movie will move around by themselves but what a brilliant way he chose to make items secretly appear, disappear or change; have them look like common continuity errors seen in all other movies. If you happened to spot one of these how could you ever know that it's actually an integral part of the film? Look at the most famous continuity error of all time; Dorothy caught red handed not wearing the Ruby Slippers as she dances with the Scarecrow in "The Wizard Of Oz". This is a rehearsal take that I believe the editor deliberately slipped in as a joke.


Or this rare makeup faux pas from a movie with very few continuity errors, "The Exorcist" where they forgot to paint Regan’s ears.



Or what could be falling out of the tree in the opening credits of “Gone With The Wind”? It took a while to figure out that it wasn’t a dead cat. What we’re seeing are live birds being deliberately dropped out of the tree in a sack so they would fly off towards the camera in the next few frames.


Or this scene from “Easy Rider” that will always amaze me. Dennis Hopper shows the astonishment on the little girl’s face just before she sees the old guy taking out his false teeth.


The audience doesn't know a thing. Literally, if you blink you'll miss this stuff. It's the same in "The Shining" which I believe contains the second most famous continuity error in the history of film, and you probably never noticed it. I’ll show it in a later section.


Stanley Kubrick’s clever deception is believed by some ‘experts’ to be common continuity errors like these, but they’re wrong. He’s so good at this that most wouldn’t be able to tell an actual error from what’s done on purpose. It’s impossible to prove which movements in the movie are deliberate and which aren’t but the proof that there are deliberate movements comes from what he did to the three items that The Overlook supernaturally animates in the novel. I still get a lot of variations on this comment from those who criticize my blog. They claim that what I’m going to show you later in this section, items that move between shots when they shouldn’t or change color when they shouldn’t, are only explainable as common crosscut continuity errors. They're not deliberately added for us to notice. Anything that moves between shots in a movie is an error in continuity but there’s no law in film making stating that what appear to be continuity errors cannot be purposely placed in a movie by a filmmaker. It's now Stanley Kubrick's Overlook. He knew precisely what he was doing and he released his finished product exactly the way he wanted it to look, and no one can prove that any of these movements are, in fact, errors at all.



What is the most revealing alteration Stanley Kubrick made to Stephen King’s novel?

Deliberately adding what look like common movie mistakes is precisely what Stanley Kubrick did in “The Shining” and they are truly part of the story. This is obvious to anyone that looks, but again the proof of this is found in reading Stephen King’s novel. Before looking at some of the deliberate continuity errors from the film I’d like to point this out; in the movie there’s not one major visual aspect of the novel that’s been left out. Some things just need to be searched for then you can say ‘I never noticed that’ when they’re pointed out to you. One of the best and creepiest parts of the novel was what I mentioned a few paragraphs ago; when The Overlook animates certain objects for its guests. It’s classic horror and it’s absurd to think that Stanley Kubrick would leave out such a great visual plot point from the novel. The three items I referred to from the novel that The Overlook animates were all out in the open and obvious, and “it only happens when you’re not looking” (chapter 34, page197). The Hedge Animals, the fire hose, and the elevator all moved on their own. But what Stanley Kubrick does to these three items in the movie just cannot be denied or ignored. He hits us over the head with this. He’s showing us a mirror image of what happens in Stephen King’s novel and no one can dispute that these three items glaringly, and hauntingly, remain totally motionless throughout the entire movie instead of moving by themselves at the behest of the demonically possessed Overlook. Stanley Kubrick is “Shining” something right into our minds. The Overlook is the most famous haunted hotel in history! Look at these three items all you like, because they will not move (or make a sound). "I didn't see that at all." Says Jack about the fire hose after he noticed that The Overlook made it move in the novel (page 174, chapter 30).

The motionless elevators that never change floors (when the Torrance’s are living there the elevator doors only move in their visions - not in the hotel itself)

... and hedge maze are obvious,

but here’s the fire hose. You may not have noticed it but Stanley Kubrick didn't forget it, and it doesn’t move either.


None of the three budges an inch. Look closely at the elevator’s floor indicators. They don’t even change when we’re not looking as you might expect in the most famous "haunted hotel" in history. Rugs, light switches, clocks, artwork, and sofas all move by themselves or just disappear throughout the film but the elevators don’t budge. The elevator in the novel was surely possessed. Now it appears clear that we’re looking at a mirror image of Stephen King’s story. What The Overlook moves supernaturally in the novel doesn’t move an inch in the movie. What The Overlook possesses in the novel it does not possess in the movie. This is obvious and done purposefully. He’s pointing us right to it, and anyone attempting to explain “The Shining” must mention this obvious inversion of the novel. It cannot be ignored.

Now that you’re aware of this it’s clear that looking at the way he reversed so much from Stephen King’s novel, it’s left open for Stanley Kubrick to mysteriously move any other object that’s not one of the three that move in the novel; as unbelievable as this sounds, it’s precisely what he did. Something disappears reappears or changes color in almost every scene in the movie. And things in the film move when you’re looking right at them not, as in the novel, “when you’re not looking”. We’re to busy looking at a nude woman that we missed the playfully disappearing shower head behind the love birds.


Skeptics come up with all sorts of explanations as to what's going on here. It's a mistake, he took the nozzle out because it didn't look right in the shot, ‘blah blah blah’. But this is what you would actually expect to happen in the most famous haunted hotel in history; things moving around by themselves caused by a paranormal supernatural power. Can you prove which is the right explanation? Stanley Kubrick didn't overdo it but the pictures of what happens around the main characters do have an explanation.

It’s very important to realize that the power that moves the objects in the novel, possession by The Overlook itself, has been changed in the film. What moves around supernaturally in Stanley Kubrick’s film is the product of characters that have the very special ability to “Shine”. That’s what this movie is about; “Shining”, and just like the numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice, the movements I’m speaking about are easy to spot when someone points them out to you. Readers of this blog will believe what they want but what Stanley Kubrick did here is obvious. We can expect things in his movie, other than the three items mentioned from the novel that remain totally motionless, to move by supernatural means. This is precisely what he does. Again that supernatural power is "The Shine”.



What moves around supernaturally in “The Shining”?

The first item I ever noticed that moves when it shouldn’t happens after Jack scolds Wendy. He’s looking right at her and a second sheet of paper reappears back in the typewriter carriage after he pulls the first one out and rips it up (an Adler; the same brand used by “the fuhrer” and changed from an Underwood in the novel). Watch the movie after he finishes scolding her as another sheet appears right out of thin air back in the typewriter again ready to be typed on. Jack never touched it and more importantly the audience never hears a thing. This appears to be magic and it’s just the beginning.



The piece of paper reappearing in the typewriter can have only three possible explanations. It’s a mistake, The Overlook did it, or Jack did it. There are no other explanations. It can be ruled out that Stanley Kubrick didn’t notice this obvious mistake as he precisely edited the shot that way for a reason and we all saw it happen. If you think The Overlook did it you’ll have to explain how the same strange movements, that I'll show you, also happen to Danny before he ever enters the hotel. And also happens to Dick Hallorann well outside of the hotel's influence as he sits in bed in Florida. If Jack is the one that put the piece of paper back in the typewriter, as he’s the only one there, then he must possess a supernatural ability enabling him to do it without making a sound. There is no other explanation. The piece of paper appears back in the typewriter as if by magic. This is by no means a stretch of the movie’s reality as it's in the title of the story and if you don't agree with me - proceed to the end of this blog and prove it to me.



Where is visual proof that Jack also possesses the “Shine”?

There’s no question that Dick Hallorann has a special supernatural ability. They both “Shine” as he communicates telepathically with Danny in the storeroom (:27 minutes from the beginning of the film). As he does something moves again as if by magic, and we all saw it happen this time also. During the thought transfer a red Calumet can appears out of nowhere on the left next to and behind his head, only to disappear in the very next shot when he stops "Shining". It happens because he's "Shining" with Danny.



When Jack talks to Delbert Grady (:27 minutes from the end of the film) the exact same thing happens again as we now see several red Calumet cans appear out of nowhere. Now the can’s positions are reversed being on the right side behind his head. They also weren’t there when Wendy dragged him in. They just appear out of thin air.



Look at the similarities in the two scenes;

They’re both in the same place.
They’re both talking to someone in a supernatural way.
And the same red Calumet cans appear out of nowhere on the reverse side of the shelves. Behind their heads and out of their view.

The red Calumet cans are not a common run of the mill movie mistake; they’re part of the film. They are there. We can all see them and they’re important for understanding the story. You simply can’t say Dick Hallorann is “Shining” and Jack is not when the exact same bizarre thing happens behind both of them. They’re both doing the same thing, producing the same result and Stanley Kubrick is hiding something in these movements. It should be no surprise that Jack also has the ability to “Shine” as Danny is his son (Dick Hallorann and his Grandmother both had the “Shine” also). But Stanley Kubrick also tells this to us in the dialogue. I use this sentence a lot in my blog because it explains so much. “But, there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it, or believe it”. This sentence is crystal clear and can’t be un-explained. If you don’t believe me answer these two questions; who do you think Dick is talking about in that last quote and what other paranormal phenomenon can you come up with that made the Calumet cans appear out of nowhere? The film is about “Shining”.

They both have the same ability. It’s no stretch of the movie's reality that Jack also “Shines” in the storeroom. The increase in the number of cans indicates how much more of this ability he has over Dick Hallorann. This helps answer one of the most perplexing plot errors of this movie. How is it that Dick Hallorann who can see visions, inexplicably doesn’t know that Jack is hiding around the corner with an ax at the end of the film? Jack can simply out ”Shine” Dick Hallorann who is unable at that moment to utilize his special ability to foresee the end of his life.

As he speaks to his vision of Grady (he’s actually speaking to himself) notice the red box of (24) "Golden Rey" pimentos that also move between shots just like the Red Indian did earlier. "Golden Rey", an obvious play on the word shine where Rey (a word the Spanish used for the Mayan Indian's kings) is pronounced ray (like a ray of sunshine). Stanley Kubrick is giving us obvious clues that Jack has and uses his special hidden ability to “Shine” to unlatch that storeroom door. We see another play on the word ‘shine’ earlier in the film when Danny stands in front of two red "Texsun" boxes as well as two red "Golden Rey" boxes as Dick Hallorann speaks telepathically to him. After Wendy brings Jack breakfast in bed we hear another play on the word shine, “I made ‘em just the way you like ‘em, sunny side up.” Or how about the place where Jack meets his first so called ‘ghost’, The Gold Room with its ceiling that looks like rays of sunlight emanating from the stage area. Gold, like the characters in this film, without a doubt, “Shines”.







Where is proof in the audio that Jack possesses the “Shine”?

There’s something else in this scene that lets us know that Jack has the ability to “Shine”. As we look at Danny obviously posed next to a different red “Golden Rey” box of sliced pineapples, get out your copy of the movie and listen to the sound we here during this scene (:27 into the movie).


There’s no doubt that Danny is “Shining" as he talks telepathically with Dick Hallorann in the storeroom. The weird sound effect we hear is also part of the scene and alerts us to this as well as the moving Calumet can I just showed you. How can you say that Jack is not doing the same thing when Stanley Kubrick has us hear the exact same weird sound effect as he visions Wendy and Danny playing outside throwing snowballs at each other in the snow (:46 into the movie)? When Dick Hallorann "Shines" and sees the vision of room 237 again we hear a similar sound effect (1:11 into the movie).

Listen when Jack walks into The Gold Room (1:03), “Shines” and has his first vision of Lloyd. We hear a similar sound again.



Are Danny and Wendy actually seeing the same vision of the bloody elevator?

Again, he doesn't overdo this but each character has at least one scene where Stanley Kubrick intentionally does something that tips us off to their special ability. When Danny sees his vision of the bloody elevators we know it’s a product of his “Shine” (:11 min. into the film). This is never disputed. Then how can it be any different when Wendy has frame for frame the exact same vision of the bloody elevators at the end of the movie - 2:14 into the film (:11 min. from the end). If this happened just once there would be no way to use it as proof of the characters special ability. But when it happens to all of them what Stanley Kubrick has done becomes obvious. The symmetrical placement of these two scenes can't be ignored (:11 seconds from the beginning of the film and :11 seconds from the end).



They're both seeing exactly the same vision of the bloody elevators and you cannot say that Danny is “Shining” when he sees his vision and Wendy is not “Shining” when she sees her vision. They're exactly the same. Danny doesn't "Shine" it into her head either. Stanley Kubrick goes way beyond meticulous to show us that this just doesn't happen here because the scuff marks on the floor in front of the elevators point us to something important. The point of view is different each time they see the bloody elevators so even though both are seeing the same thing frame for frame each vision is totally unique to that character. The scene was shot with two adjacent cameras (Wendy’s on the right and Danny’s on the left) giving each character their own unique point of view of the same event. What thought Stanley Kubrick put into this project.





Is it Tony, or someone else that shows Danny his first vision of The Overlook?

This is how I knew Jack was “Shining” images into the other’s minds. Stanley Kubrick puts it in the dialogue. Look closely at what Danny says just before the first vision in the film;

Danny; Tony, why don't you want to go to the hotel?
Tony; I don't know.
Danny; You do too know, now come on tell me.
Tony; I don't want to.
Danny; Please....
Tony; No.

Tony says a definite, “No” and in this situation “No” means “No”. It’s crystal clear. He refuses to show Danny anything about the Overlook when asked. The vision of the twin elevators that Danny sees in his mind is coming from somewhere else. It’s coming directly from someone that is looking at something inside The Overlook at that very moment. The vision is coming from his father.

I’m going to use this quote a lot, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see." Stanley Kubrick is explaining to us that the visions the Torrance’s see inside The Overlook can only be experienced by those who possess the “Shine”. Well Wendy and Jack both see visions. From the very definition we’re given by Stanley Kubrick; they both posses the “Shine”. Wendy's ability becomes more apparent in the film in direct proportion to her state of mind. But just like with Jack, it happens only after they both see something inside The Overlook. It’s something on Jack's desk. Just like Dick Hallorann and Jack in the storeroom, Wendy’s doing the exact same thing. The pictures Stanley Kubrick placed in his film can’t be changed. They all prove the same thing. Wendy can “Shine”; she sees the same visions as Danny, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see."



Why does Dick Hallorann return to The Overlook?

Stanley Kubrick has Mr. Ullman’s tie changes color right before our eyes for a reason in these two sections of the same scene.


In the novel Dick Hallorann says this to Danny, "If there is trouble ... you give a call.” and Danny calls him several times. In the movie Dick Hallorann never says this line and Danny never calls him for help. There’s another reason why Dick returns to The Overlook from sunny Florida. Here’s the explanation he gives on the phone to Larry Durkin at the gas station, “They've turned out to be completely unreliable assholes. Ullman phoned me last night, and I'm supposed to go up there and find out if they have to be replaced.” We can only go on the information that Stanley Kubrick has given to us and it’s the only explanation there is. Any other interpretation is just a guess, or wishful thinking on the part of those who don't agree with me. What’s in the dialogue is crystal clear as Dick Hallorann’s character never lies or exaggerates anything to anyone in the film. How can this statement be true? He explicitly says that Mr. Ullman ordered him to go back to The Overlook and it’s the only reason given by Stanley Kubrick for his return. But how on earth does his boss know what’s happening at the hotel as we know that Wendy tells the ranger the phones are out before the scene in the airport? Mr. Ullman knows because he has the same ability to see visions as the others. There’s absolutely no violation of the movies reality here. Stanley Kubrick simply has another person viewing the same vision of Jack walking into room 237 as Dick Hallorann is seeing, and Mr. Ullman is viewing it at the exact same time. Jack “Shines” the image into their minds and now they know at that moment that Jack's seen something inside the hotel that he shouldn’t have been looking at. He’s slipping into insanity; it’s been cleverly hidden from the audience that Mr. Ullman obviously knows this also. He’s a good general manager and Mr. Ullman got on the phone immediately after seeing the vision of Jack in room 237. It really isn’t very important but Stanley Kubrick being the ultimate perfectionist gives us solid information that this is what happens. We know how much time passes between Jack going into room 237 and Dick Hallorann’s flight. Stanley Kubrick shows us the time in black frames and it’s 8 AM the next morning when Dick Hallorann flies back to The Overlook. According to the previous black frame Jack “Shines” in room 237 on Wednesday night. So when he says this to Larry the next day, “Ullman phoned me last night” we know he isn’t lying about the time he received the call.

Like John Lennon sang in the song, "Instant Karma", that inspired the title of Stephen King’s novel.... “We all ‘shine’ on”! Those words from the song have been turned into the movie's reality. In Stanley Kubrick's Overlook that means Mr. Ullman too. He “Shines” and watches the exact same freak show image of Jack in room 237 with the old woman that Dick Hallorann is seeing. It has to be the supernatural; in "The Shining's" reality there’s no other explanation as to how his boss would know something was wrong and order Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook. It’s now Stanley Kubrick’s "Overlook" and he can give the special supernatural ability to "Shine" to any character he wishes. Again, Stanley Kubrick puts this in the dialogue so there’s no confusion to the fact that he’s doing it, “But, there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it, or believe it”. When Grady says this line to Jack in the bathroom, “Did you know, Mr. Torrance, that your son... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation? Did you know that?” Jack is speaking to his subconscious, Grady, who already knows that Dick Hallorann is on his way back to The Overlook because he “Shined” to him. The proof that Danny doesn't call for help is in this fact; Dick isn’t alerted when you would expect, after Danny is strangled. It happens only when Jack walks into room 237 because he’s the one, not Danny, who “Shines” the vision into the others minds. Dick Hallorann is truly the hero of this story as Wendy and Danny would have still been stranded at the hotel if he hadn’t come back with another Sno-cat. It makes no difference whether his return to The Overlook was because he was ordered back by his boss or because of genuine concern for the Torrance’s. Heroes are ordered to do things by their bosses on an everyday basis. It doesn’t make them any less of a hero.

Stanley Kubrick's deception here is that the audience is supposed to think that Danny is “Shining” the vision of Jack walking into room 237 into Dick Hallorann’s (and Mr. Ullman’s) mind; but he isn’t. In the film he doesn’t use his “Shine” to get Dick Hallorann to come back to The Overlook and he never asks anyone for help. In fact the only time he ever says anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a call for help is when he says this, “Tony, I’m scared” after seeing the vision of the hacked up Grady twins in the hallway. In Stephen King’s novel he loudly calls for help several times but Stanley Kubrick shows us a mirror image of this and in his Overlook Danny never seeks help from anyone at any time.



How is it that in their discussion in the kitchen Danny knows about room 237, and Dick Hallorann doesn’t?

“What about Room 237?”
“Room 237?”
“You're scared of Room 237, ain'tcha?”
“No I ain't.”
“Mr. Hallorann, what is in Room 237?”
“Nothing, there ain't nothing in Room 237”

Dick Hallorann knows nothing about that room, and Danny brings it up in their discussion in the kitchen. Look closely again at what happens in the scene just before Jack walks into room 237. Dick Hallorann “Shines” as he lies in bed in Florida and what he sees is not Danny frothing in his bed but the open door with the red 237 room key in the lock. We the audience, not Dick Hallorann, are the ones who see Danny shaking and spitting as he sits in his bed. Then Stanley Kubrick quickly cuts back to what Dick Hallorann is seeing in his vision, Jack inside of room 237. You may be wondering how I’m so sure about all this? Look very closely at what happens next in the scene and you’ll realize Stanley Kubrick is showing us that Dick and Danny are seeing two entirely different visions. This is exactly the same as what I showed several paragraphs ago with the bloody elevators. Each character is seeing their own unique vision from their own perspective. Through most of this scene we’re watching what’s happening to Jack, from his point of view. He enters the bathroom, the young woman gets out of the tub, they walk towards each other, embrace, kiss, and ultimately Jack sees the old hag facing him in the mirror - laughing. Then Stanley Kubrick cuts back to Danny as he sits in bed scared out of his wits. Danny's now remembering the vision that he experienced earlier and told Wendy about; the old hag rising out of the tub. It’s obvious they’re both seeing something entirely different here as we watch her get out of the tub twice. Just to make sure there’s no confusion about this Stanley Kubrick has different makeup on the woman in each of the visions. It’s two separate visions they're both looking at. Danny is reliving the vision he saw earlier when he was strangled during Jack’s nightmare. But being strangled by the old woman was all a vision. It wasn't what really happened. Jack tricked him and made him think that it was her and not his own loving father that was doing it. I know what you're thinking. How could Danny have marks on his neck? Jack has the ability to "Shine" visions into the other's minds. He also has the ability to move things with his mind. Anything could have been wrapped around Danny's throat when he was tricked into believing he was in room 237 by his father. Danny never actually entered room 237, Jack made him think he went in it. In the novel at first Wendy thinks it’s Jack that hurts Danny but she’s wrong. In the film Stanley Kubrick reverses this and she thinks it’s the old woman. But here it’s Jack that did it.


If Danny was trying to contact Dick Hallorann both would have to be seeing the exact same vision, yet the perfectionist director cleverly hides it so well; they obviously aren’t seeing the same thing. Again, it’s Jack who “Shines” that vision of room 237 into Dick Hallorann’s (and Mr. Ullman’s) mind. He possesses the strongest “Shine” and again that’s why Dick Hallorann is unable to use his special ability to foresee what’s going to happen to him back at The Overlook, as he walks right into an ax. Look closely as there are two other things that should be noted about Room 237. It has no windows, only mirrors for Jack to see himself in, and the most important thing to notice; Room 237 has no TV.


But what if you believe Dick Hallorann is lying to Larry Durkin about Mr. Ullman calling him, or lying or exaggerating about anything else in the movie (click here if you believe this could be true)?



How do we know it’s not spooks, ghosts, or The Overlook itself that’s causing the paranormal movements that we all see when someone “Shines”?

Over ninety five percent of the movie is shot inside the hotel yet there are several scenes that take place outside of the hotel and these supernatural movements also happen in them. This can't be ignored. We know for sure Danny has a supernatural ability. After he "Shines" and sees the vision of the bloody elevators watch the yellow and red dwarf Dopey as he makes it disappear from his bedroom door long before he’s under the influence of or ever enters the hotel.




In sunny Florida, Dick Hallorann "Shines" when he sees room 237 and makes the red painting above his headboard disappear.


There's no other explanation! The exact same thing happens outside of the hotel and well before Danny ever gets there. The characters posses a supernatural ability that enables them to see visions and talk to each other telepathically; it also enables them to alter their surroundings. This is what the movie is about a supernatural ability; "The Shining", and the "Shine" is the only supernatural ability in the film. What a brilliant way Stanley Kubrick chose to alter their special ability from the novel (where they weren't able to influence their surroundings). In his visual realm he made the character’s supernatural ability look like a common movie mistake. Other characters also have this ability to “Shine”; it’s in the dialogue. Stanley Kubrick’s talking about someone!

“But, there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it,

............................ or believe it”.
.....................And one of them is going completely insane.





How could the characters in the film not know what’s happening if things are disappearing, reappearing, moving around or changing color around them?

You might be wondering about this; how could the characters not know it when something changes around them? The answer is found in a line I quoted before from Stephen King's novel when Danny talks about what he noticed (the moving Hedge Animals) and says this, "It only happens when you're not looking.” (chapter 34 page197). Stanley Kubrick takes this seemingly insignificant sentence and makes it come alive in his movie. If you observe the characters closely they're never looking directly at the object that moves. Most, like the Calumet cans, are directly behind their heads. Remember “The Shining” is a movie about a supernatural power, stuff happens. In Stanley Kubrick's visual realm the movements are intended for the audience not the characters. He reverses the sentence from the novel and now in the movie, "It only happens when [the audience is] looking.” But you do have to know exactly where to look. What's happening here couldn't be more obvious. In the reality of the movie this must have an explanation. The definition of psychokinesis (a.k.a. telekinesis) is: the power to move a physical object by thinking about it without the application of physical force. Stanley Kubrick has made it quite obvious that when they "Shine" cast members in his film also possess the ability to supernaturally move or change the color of items. There are 4 main characters in this story and Stanley Kubrick changes the number who can "Shine" along with altering their abilities.





But Dick Hallorann never says anything to Danny about telekinesis as they speak about the “Shine” in the hotel’s kitchen?

This means nothing – he doesn’t talk about “ghosts” either! Hiding things from the audience was something Stanley Kubrick definitely achieved and making what he was doing overly obvious would have spoiled the deception. The telekinesis they possess has been hidden, even from the character’s themselves. In fact as you will see later on Dick Hallorann simply doesn’t talk about anything he doesn’t know about. Again, "It only happens when you're not looking.” If he knew everything there would be no movie and the fact that he doesn't know everything means nothing. This is discussed by Stanley Kubrick in his interview about the novel with Michel Ciment. "If Danny had perfect ESP, there could be no story. He would anticipate everything, warn everybody and solve every problem. So his perception of the paranormal must be imperfect and fragmentary. This also happens to be consistent with most of the reports of telepathic experiences." The same applies to Dick Hallorann. Again we must realize that most of the characters don't know they possess the "Shine". Dick Hallorann and Danny seem to be the only ones who know. Stanley Kubrick tells us this clearly in the script. The others simply “don’t know it”.





Who opens the storeroom door for Jack?

Jack and Dick Hallorann both have the same supernatural ability. It’s no stretch of the movie's reality to see that Jack also “Shines” when he’s locked in the storeroom. It’s obvious that his ability to supernaturally move things (telekinesis), and not the ghost of Delbert Grady, is what unlatches the storeroom door releasing him. It’s exactly the same as the piece of paper that he magically reinserts into his typewriter. If you don't believe what I’ve shown already in this article then it’s actually a real ghost that lets check out the storeroom. You’ve figured it all out! But do you really believe the explanation could be that simple? Again, this is what "The Shining" is about, people with an unusual ability. There’s no law that says Stanley Kubrick can’t change, or hide from the audience, which cast members have this special ability, and just exactly what that ability is. It’s precisely what he did and if you never noticed this just look again at the unmistakable similarities in these pictures. Wendy's state of mind is desperate and after she drags Jack into the storeroom her ability to do the same thing becomes quite apparent as she changes the direction the knives are facing before she picks one up.


Later in the bathroom, she moves the same knife again. She throws it in the sink with the handle to the right, yet later when picking it back up she reverses the handle’s position to the left without ever touching it.



In the end when she doesn't need it anymore Wendy throws the knife down into the packed snow and now it disappears.



The knife also reverses position between shots when Danny "Shines" and Tony writes "Redrum" on the bathroom door. The knife reverses position each time we look at it.




This shot is continuity error heaven. But Stanley Kubrick’s fooling all the movie mistake hunters out there again because what’s really important here but hard to notice are what appear right out of thin air.

When she looks at Redrum written on the door every single thing on the bureau has moved.

But it's the red pearls that are important. They don't move, they magically appear right out of thin air because Wendy has seen something inside The Overlook that has triggered her ability. After this point in the film all the cast member’s visions are hers.




Does Wendy “Shine”?

“Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see." Wendy’s special power to “Shine” means she also has the ability to see visions of people that have been at The Overlook in the past, just like Jack and Danny’s vision of the old woman in the novel, Mrs. Massey (Chapter 38 - Page 217), who committed suicide in room 217. “Shining” also explains what this vision that Wendy has as she walks up a flight of stairs right at the climax of the movie, is all about (A shot that took 36 takes). Many believe this is Horace Derwent (Chapter 1 - Page 6) with Roger (Chapter 41 - Page 228) who are both mentioned in the novel as people who were at The Overlook years before. Horace Derwent is a Howard Hughes type who once owned the hotel, “It stood vacant until the end of World War II, when it was purchased and completely renovated by Horace Derwent, millionaire inventor, pilot, film producer, and entrepreneur." (page 6, chapter 1) When you read the novel the guy in the film looks nothing like him. Here’s Stephen King’s two descriptions of Derwent, “… after that a story on Derwent himself, a balding man with eyes that pierced you even from an old newsprint photo. He was wearing rimless spectacles and a forties-style pencil- line mustache that did nothing at all to make him look like Errol Flynn. His face was that of an accountant. It was the eyes that made him look like someone or something else.” (page 107, chapter 18). The second description is here, “The man beside the woman in the sarong had removed his fox head and Jack saw that it was Horace Derwent, his pallid blond hair spilling across his forehead.” (page 235, chapter 43). Many believe the guy in the dog costume is Roger from the novel and their relationship is related here as Jack speaks to a woman at the party, “[Harry’s] AC/DC, you know. Poor Roger's only DC. He spent a weekend with Harry in Cuba once, oh months ago. Now he follows Harry everywhere, wagging his little tail behind him. "She giggled. The shy scent of lilies drifted up. "But of course Harry never goes back for seconds, not on his DC side, anyway…” (page 238, chapter 43) In the novel what Stanley Kubrick depicts in this shot never happens at The Overlook. In fact believing that these gentlemen are from the novel is just a guess. In the movie Stanley Kubrick never tells us or even hints at who they are. Think about this; how do you know that it’s a man in the costume? Can you prove it’s a man and not a woman under there? It's the same with the woman in room 237. At first we see a young woman. But there’s no young woman in the novel’s bathroom yet everyone presumes that the women in the film is still Mrs. Massey. But we really don't know for sure. And with the film's Grady also. In the novel the ghost is Charles Grady yet in the film the ghost is Delbert Grady. He’s different.

The reason the Torrance’s can see what appear to be specific guests from the hotel’s past will really surprise you and I discuss this in a later section "Is The Overlook Haunted or does it "Shine"?.

After Wendy looks into something on Jack’s desk she sees a vision of the old gentleman who says, "Great party, isn't it?" Watch the scene closely as she reacts before seeing the vision behind her. Than she turns around to see him. Everyone believes he’s is a vision of a guest from The Overlook’s past.

He's mentioned in the novel but he’s totally different as we read about a masked guest at Horace Derwent's recurring 1945 costume party and Wendy sees him as Jack chases and tries to kill her; “She fled stumblingly down the main corridor, hands pressed to her side. The door to one of the rooms jerked open and a man with a green ghoul mask on popped out. "Great party, isn't it?" He screamed into her face, and pulled the waxed string of a party-favor. There was an echoing bang and suddenly crepe streamers were drifting all around her.” From Chapter 52 (Wendy and Jack, page 279). If you look closely in the film he's not a guest at all, he's the maître d' Jack meets as he first walks into the party.



Who moves the entrance to the hedge maze at the end of the film?

If you look closely at the end of the movie the entrance of the hedge maze moves closer to Danny before Jack chases him into it. Early on we see this area several times, and also in the hedge maze maps. There’s only one entrance to the maze and it’s not on the wall facing the hotel. Later the entrance moves from its original position to the wall 90 degrees to the left, and we now see it facing The Overlook. This can be seen best just before they escape the hotel as Danny walks straight into Wendy’s arms at the end of the movie. She’s standing right in front of the rear entrance of The Overlook where Dick Hallorann parked the Sno-cat. Earlier we see this same spot and there’s no entrance there. At first I thought Danny, in order to save his life, "Shines" and moves the entrance closer to him. But if you think about it Stanley Kubrick hardly ever shows Danny using his special ability in the movie. It’s Jack that moves the entrance in order to entice his son into the maze where he’s sure he’ll be able to trap him. Stanley Kubrick even hints about this in the Roadrunner cartoons that Danny watches - Danny’s chased but never caught. You don’t think I’m right about Danny not using his special ability in the maze scene? I bet you never realized this; Stanley Kubrick has him escape from Jack by using his wits and not his “Shine”. This fact cannot be denied. It’s incredibly well hidden but true. In a way Danny’s much smarter and able to protect himself better than any of the others (Dick “Shines” yet he ends up dead, all the “Shine” in the world didn’t help him). Stanley Kubrick has Danny survive without having to rely on his special ability. Stanley Kubrick even shows us a mirror image of, “Hansel and Gretel” (mentioned by Wendy). In Grimm’s Fairy tail the children are not trying to get away. Hansel leaves the bread crumbs as a way to find their way back home. In “The Shining” Danny fools his father in a similar yet opposite way. Now he retraces his footsteps in order to get away. Remember this, Danny never asks for help from anyone in the film at all – especially the two times his life is in peril. When he’s strangled and chased by his father, he doesn't use his "Shine" . We hardly ever see him use his supernatural ability in the movie to do anything except see visions that are “Shined” into his head by his insane father. He doesn’t possess anywhere near the “Shine” that his father does either. In fact if you look closely at the visions he sees throughout the film they’re all “Shined” into his mind by others. It’s never the other way around.






Is The Overlook itself a maze?

Absolutely not! Even though Wendy comments about needing to leave a trail of bread-crumbs, from Grimm’s fairy tail “Hansel and Gretel”, no one in the film ever gets lost inside The Overlook. Even in the Hedge Maze no one (except the crew) ever gets lost. At the end Jack looses his mind as he chases Danny, he isn’t even trying to get out of the maze. He just wants Danny and dies trying to find him. Stanley Kubrick’s real maze is hidden somewhere else in the film. He did say that the hotel’s “labyrinthine layout” produced an eerie atmosphere. He also commented that the inside of The Overlook was constructed so it, “mirrored the kind of camera movements which took place in the maze”. But the reality still is, no one in the film ever got lost. There are lots of crazy websites from writers who are totally lost inside “The Overlook’s” maze though. This is how you can test whether or not someone has done their homework when it comes to “The Shining”. Anyone who doesn’t utilize, or choses to simply ignore, Stephen King’s novel and the dialogue from the film is creating a maze for you to get lost in.



Where did Stanley Kubrick get the idea to use continuity errors for the hidden supernatural movements indicating each character’s telekinetic abilities?

I’ve often wondered if Stanley Kubrick might have gotten this idea of inserting deliberate continuity errors from Alfred Hitchcock, a director he greatly admired who gives us brilliant examples of deliberate continuity errors that aren't part of the plot in his masterpiece, “The Birds”. He’s known for the cameo shots of himself that we see in his films, but there’s something else in each of his movies that audiences have missed (but Stanley Kubrick didn't). It’s the spot where he tricks us into thinking we’re looking at something when we’re actually not. One of the biggest plot points throughout “The Birds” is that there are 2 lovebirds in the birdcage, and we’re 100 percent positive of that because we’ve seen the 2 of them in there the first couple of times he shows us the cage.

Watch what happens when Tippi Hedren brings the birdcage into Mitch’s house.


All of a sudden there are no birds in the birdcage and no one (especially her) ever notices (it’s also a different larger bird cage). Alfred Hitchcock does this all the time in his movies and must have chuckled till the day he died knowing that that no one ever noticed.

Look at the birdcage's door in this shot.

At first it’s closed than in the very next shot, it’s open.


This picture really doesn’t fit here but I always loved how they got Elvis to make a sneaky appearance in “A Hard Days Night”.


This stuff is not only in old movies; continuity errors are all over the place. Can you find the one in these two shots from “No Country For Old Men”; Frend’O. [Clare Kuehn comment: I believe Jonny is incorrect about this.]


Are you sure that’s Llewelyn Moss lying there? The dead body has a different shirt on.

The visual magic of little jokes like Hitchcock got away with can be found all over the place in movies. We’re witnessing the work of craftsmen who are the best in the world at what they do, but what sets Stanley Kubrick apart from other directors is the sheer magnitude of his deception and he, like Alfred Hitchcock, must have chuckled till the day he died knowing that no one ever noticed all this. No one ever put it together and figured out what he was actually doing after all it’s just a movie mistake, right? What a brilliant deception. These are not just visual tricks in "The Shining" they’re essential for truly understanding the film. Stanley Kubrick actually used them as part of his story.



Many items move around or disappear in “The Shining” and you can see them if you know where to look (light switches, clocks, chairs, maps, bathroom fixtures, pictures, lamps, vending machines, sofas, rugs, mirrors, and almost all of the unattached Indian art work). Again, this is so well done that proving which movements, if any, were not intentional might not be possible. But we now know how he altered the three items The Overlook animates in Stephen King’s novel and it's proof that something is going on. Once you know this it becomes obvious which are the important things that move.

Some pictures of what else moves between shots in The Shining can be viewed here.





Can people who “Shine” alter the colors of their possessions or surroundings in “The Shining”?

He didn’t make this overtly obvious to the casual viewer but he alters the colors of many props in the film. Getting back to the money shot, Jack and Dick Hallorann are both doing the exact same thing, as the Red Indian can behind their head’s moves by a force beyond the laws of nature each time. There’s no question that Dick Hallorann has a special supernatural ability and it's not any different when Stanley Kubrick has Jack do the exact same thing? If something like this only happened once I would have a problem. But it doesn’t. Numbers, time codes of related scenes, props disappearing & re-appearing, and now color. No matter how he accomplished it many items change color when they shouldn’t in “The Shining”; between shots. Wendy and Jack’s apartment changes color throughout the movie and it’s what I noticed first. Either they re-painted it from a lovely peach to a light purple color during their stay there or Stanley Kubrick did it by painting, lighting or tinting. However it happened the color of their apartment changes and that’s what's important here because I feel it’s a direct result of their ability to “Shine”. Before looking at this shot I must show you something important. Jack is staring blankly at his TV set in the scene, not a window. Some of the windows in Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook are not real. At first it appears that their apartment has 3 windows, 2 mirrors and one TV set. But this is not correct, the 2 windows on the right side of the apartment could not actually exist. We see the rear of the hotel as Danny escapes The Overlook from the bathroom window at the end of the film. There’s no way that those windows could possibly exist as their room is not at the side of the hotel. It's in the rear. As I mentioned earlier Mr. Ullman’s window in his office behind his head couldn’t possibly exist either as we know that after Wendy sees the old maître d' who says, “Great party, isn’t it” she runs down the hallway right behind his office. Some believe this is supposed to mix up our spatial orientation while viewing the film. I don’t, as most are not noticeable because of the wide spacing between the shots in the film. I feel Stanley Kubrick is just playing with the audience. Trying to see how much we will notice.


The Torrance's bedroom is not lit differently as the back wall has also been painted the same light purple color.



Danny didn't bring 2 trikes with him yet the wheels change color from white to red.




Jack didn't bring 2 typewriters either yet it also changes color.



The hallway in the final chase also changes color.


Possessions, surroundings, Danny’s trike, the walls outside their room, vending machines, lamps, items of clothing, the typewriter, the "Redrum" door, and even the paper that Jack’s novel is written on all change color in different shots. There’s no attempt to attract attention to what’s going on as some of these color changes, like the "Redrum" door, are obviously subtle making them harder to spot. Most occur in entirely different sections of the movie and would have been impossible for a theater audience to spot.

Again how he did this is not important; the colors change and a perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick would never have let this happen by accident.

To view some of the color changes he added click here.





How does Stanley Kubrick show us that people who “Shine” emit psychic energy?

Here’s another interesting and subtle touch Stanley Kubrick added to “The Shining”. Most of the electrical appliances and TVs they use in The Overlook and also Dick Hallorann’s house, noticeably, have no visible wires coming out of them.




You may have noticed that as Jack gets crazier and crazier, whenever we see the outside of The Overlook different sets of lights are on each time. Especially near the end where no one ever flicks a light switch. Throughout the chase scene different lights go on and off by themselves, even though no one is left inside the hotel. It’s a no-brainer to say that the hotel is haunted and the spooks are causing this to happen but it’s not the case at all. The TV sets, Jack’s lamp on his desk, the clocks on the walls (as well as Dick Hallorann’s TV and lamps) all have no wires coming out of them for a reason. Stanley Kubrick is showing us that these people have a special energy surrounding them. Jack's descent into madness combined with his power to “Shine” is what’s causing the lights inside The Overlook to turn on and off by themselves.




Who beat up Danny?

“Remember what Mr. Hallorann said. It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real.” You might want to think about this from that last quote; at what point did “pictures in a book” and visions that aren’t “real” change and become something that can supernaturally unlocked a pantry door or strangle Danny? In the novel Dick Hallorann’s important line to Danny is, “I don't think there's anything here that can hurt you. So just be cool, okay?" (page 60) and he never says, “It isn't real.” In the novel he isn't sure about whether Danny can be hurt by anything inside the hotel, and this is important. He simply doesn't know. Stanley Kubrick came up with the line, “It isn't real.” on his own. He's telling us that the visions in the film are different and he makes Dick Hallorann's statement quite definite, they aren’t “real”. A pure evil psycho possesses a very powerful supernatural ability, and he’s also going completely mad. The “ghosts” everyone thinks are haunting the Overlook are not real - it's Jack and his supernatural ability to “Shine” that's creating these visions for himself and the others. Unless Stanley Kubrick's using another secret language that I'm not aware of there can be no question about this as he placed the clear answer right in the dialogue, "It isn't real". The visions that he sees indicate Jack also has the “Shine” and the Calumet cans that appear behind his head in the storeroom indicate he has the power of telekinesis. I saw them move just like you did.

In the novel Danny’s left in a near catatonic state after his ordeal with Mrs. Massey’s ghost in the bathroom of room 217, and Stanley Kubrick alters all this in the film. The roughing up Danny takes in the movie is from Jack. He beat him up by telekinesis during his nightmare the same way he moved those Calumet Cans and opened the locked storeroom door. He’s able to project real images the same way Dick Hallorann was able to project his thoughts into Danny’s head. It’s exactly the same. The woman isn't real and again we know this from the script. She's just another vision like the bloody elevators, "like pictures in a book". Stanley Kubrick, through Dick Hallorann, tells us exactly what's going on in the dialogue of the film. "It isn't real", and he doesn’t lie to Danny. What "isn't real" simply cannot beat someone up.

Stanley Kubrick is so unbelievably sure of himself. He even visually puts the proof of who beats up Danny into the film. Watch the scene when Danny sits on Jack’s lap in the bedroom again. He has Jack caress Danny’s cheek and place his right hand on his shoulder (0:54:04) in the exact spots where we later see the red marks and the torn sweater. Dick Hallorann is the only one in the film that knows that the visions they see "aren't real". There are people like him (and me) who realize this, and there are people (like much of the audience) who refuse to believe it, and there are those like Grady and Jack who are loosing their minds and follow the orders of the visions in their heads. And remember that all this is a total reversal of the novel.



Does Danny ever go into room 237?

I mentioned this in a previous section and you may be wondering how I’m so sure that Danny doesn’t go into room 237 in the film. In the dialogue Wendy tells Jack this, “No. It's the truth, really. I swear it. Danny told me. He went up into one of the bedrooms, the door was open, and he saw this crazy woman in the bathtub. She tried to strangle him.” Stanley Kubrick has Wendy even swear to the truth of her statement. But you must think about this. Danny “Shines” and sees visions throughout the movie, how can we know for sure that what he tells Wendy wasn’t a vision of a woman in 237 while he was standing there at the doorway or while he was somewhere else in the hotel? This statement is no stretch of the movie’s reality because when Jack walks into room 237 and “Shines” the vision of what he’s seeing into Dick Hallorann’s mind, he sees it as real even though he’s in Florida, nowhere near that room. That's why Stanley Kubrick never shows a shot of Danny in there. He simply never walks into that room. He was fooled by his father into thinking he was in it. There’s also nothing in room 237 that can hurt anyone and the proof of this is in this statement by a person who has spent a lot of time in The Overlook and can also “Shine”;

“You're scared of Room 237, ain'tcha?”
“No I ain't.”
“Mr. Hallorann, what is in Room 237?”
“Nothing, there ain't nothing in Room 237”

It's also clear from this earlier quote that Dick Hallorann even though he’s lived there, isn't scared of anything else inside The Overlook either;

“Mr. Hallorann, are you scared of this place?”
“No, I'm scared of nothing here.”



What’s changed inside The Overlook since the Torrance’s arrived?

We can’t ignore a thing because Stanley Kubrick explains it all in the dialogue. Dick Hallorann’s last statement is crystal clear and can’t be ignored; if there was anything that could hurt Danny in room 237 he would have told him so and the fact that he doesn’t is very telling. There’s nothing in that room but an echo of a past event that only a person who “Shines” can see. Jack obviously “Shines” and can see it also. Later Grady, Jack’s subconscious, orders him to “correct” his family. He’s the only person out to hurt Danny. He beats him up during his nightmare and has the ability to make his son think it was a woman in “one of the rooms”. Jack has the ability to make his son believe he was inside room 237. Jack’s the only one out to hurt anyone in the hotel. Stanley Kubrick cleverly makes you think Danny went into room 237 because we see him standing in front of it with the door wide open and a red room key in the lock. But he never does. The director has reversed just about everything in the scene. It isn’t even the same bathroom as in the novel (room 217). This is why I’m so sure Danny never goes into that room. It’s in the precise way Stanley Kubrick altered the novel. Just think about it. In the novel Danny disobeys Jack, steals the pass key, opens the door, goes in and sees the woman in room 217 – all reversed in the film where Danny disobeys no one, doesn't steal a passkey, doesn't put it in the lock, doesn't open the door, and doesn't go in. These are the facts. It’s the same as the colors of the VW, the ball, and the snowmobile. All reversed. This is the reason there is never a shot of Danny in room 237 and anyone who really believes he went in there should post a screenshot at the end of this blog. Show me him in room 237 to prove it.



Why don’t I believe what Danny says to Wendy about room 237?

You may be wondering how I can believe Dick Hallorann’s explanation of his return to The Overlook that I mentioned before (“Ullman phoned me last night.”) yet it seems that I don’t believe what Wendy says (“He went up into one of the bedrooms.”)? Everything supernatural that Danny sees is a vision and Dick Hallorann explains it plainly to him here, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see." Wendy isn’t lying but what she says is hearsay. She wasn’t present when it happened. Dick Hallorann was present when he recieved Mr. Ullman’s call. Wendy basically tells Jack exactly what Danny told her, “Are you out of your fucking mind?” - “No. It's the truth, really. I swear it. Danny told me. He went up into one of the bedrooms, the door was open, and he saw this crazy woman in the bath-tub. She tried to strangle him.” She wasn’t there when any of this happened.

Stanley Kubrick makes sure that we never see Danny inside room 237 and this is the main reason I know he never enters the room in the film. I showed before how incredibly meticulous Stanley Kubrick is as he inverts the entire scene with Danny and the pediatrician from chapter 17 “The Doctor’s Office” in Stephen King’s novel (click here). Danny’s entrance into room 217 is an important part of the novel as he’s the only one who sees the old woman. Looking at what a painstaking job Stanley Kubrick did in inverting the doctor visit it’s no stretch, and there is no error in believing that he did this throughout the entire film. And this is why he never shows us Danny in room 237. Everyone is manipulated by what Wendy says. But in the film Danny never went in there.

Danny sees visions on a regular basis and there’s enough proof that he’s been fooled by his father into thinking he was in the room looking at the old woman? The answer to many questions about this film are in what Stanley Kubrick chooses to show us, and the answers to others are in what he chooses to tell us. We never physically see Danny in room 237. On the other hand what Dick Hallorann says is a firsthand explanation of why he returned to The Overlook. He was present when Mr. Ullman phoned him. It’s the only explanation Stanley Kubrick gives us in the dialogue as to why he returns to the hotel and there’s simply no reason, that isn’t pure un-provable speculation, not to believe what he says. You know all of this is entirely reversed from the novel where it’s not Wendy but Danny who tells Jack about the old woman and Dick Hallorann doesn’t get a phone call from anyone. This is also reversed; in the novel after he’s been attacked they see Danny at the top of the stairs, in the movie it’s at the bottom of the stairs.

This phone call from Mr. Ullman is what bothers so many critics of my blog and they fight tooth and nail about it. Either the ‘ghosts’ are real or they are in the Torrance’s minds. If I’m right about the phone call it proves that the others also have the “Shine”, and that the ‘ghosts’ aren’t real. If Mr. Ullman saw the same vision of Jack in the bathroom than they all have the ability as they all see the same visions. If these visions according to Dick Hallorann, aren’t real. Than Grady isn’t real either and Jack is the one that lets himself out of the storeroom. They must fight on.



How does Stanley Kubrick fool Michel Ciment when asked who lets Jack out of the storeroom?

Stanley Kubrick is very precise in what he lets the audience see and hear in this film. Normally ghosts aren’t able to move things (as they consist of Ectoplasm). If they were, here, they wouldn’t need Jack to kill his family; they would have done it themselves. Grady is all in Jack’s head, if he wasn’t he would have “corrected” Danny and Wendy himself just like he "corrected" his own family in 1970. Think about it for a second; Jack lets himself out of the storeroom. That’s why Stanley Kubrick never lets us see Grady open the lock, because it never happens just like Danny going into room 237. It never happened! But we hear Grady talk to Jack through the door! We also hear Lloyd pour Jack a drink that later disappears as Wendy runs into the Gold room to tell him about Danny being strangled. It's all an hallucination that, "isn't real".If a “ghost” opened the storeroom door why couldn’t he show Jack the way out of the Hedge Maze, did Grady's power disappear at the end of the film? Why doesn’t’ Lloyd help him out of the maze, he couldn’t be to busy, Jack’s his only customer? It’s obvious yet many totally misread this quote from his interview with Michel Ciment. and try to use it as proof that Grady, a ghost, let Jack out of the storeroom. The movie is a mirror image of the novel and if you read closely you’ll see Stanley Kubrick’s talking about what happened in the novel and not his film. "…What I found so particularly clever about the [way the novel was written]. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural." In fact in most of this interview unless you stop and think about it you don't really know if he's talking about the novel or the movie. Remember there’s one question he never answers about any of his films, ‘What does it mean’. The novel and film are entirely different in a very special way and Stanley Kubrick is very crafty in the words he uses and what he says. The clue here is the word "larder" that he uses to describe the storeroom. The "larder" is only found in the novel, not the film. In the interview Stanley Kubrick also says this, "… my view is that the paranormal is genuine". What on earth does that mean? The word view means opinion. “The Shining” is his film and he only has an opinion, doesn't he know? Or is he carefully avoiding certain questions about his film by talking about the novel, which is worlds away from his movie?

He cleverly keeps his secret as he tells Michel Ciment exactly what everyone expects to hear; a ghost lets Jack out of the storeroom. Again Stanley Kubrick refers to the “larder”. The word is only found once in the novel, "You're sure the larder is fully stocked?" she asked, still thinking of the Donners (page 42, chapter 8). No storeroom is ever mentioned in the novel’s kitchen, it’s a cold pantry, which is different. In the interview he’s cleverly talking about the novel and not his film. Grady and the locked cold pantry door may be the very spot that solidified Stanley Kubrick’s idea to reverse Stephen King’s novel. It’s perfect. What an idea if you're creating the ultimate puzzle; take what everyone who knows the story is 100% positive of (a “ghost” lets Jack out of the storeroom) and secretly reverse it. Hide what you're doing in plain sight. Poor Michel Ciment probably never read the novel and was totally unaware of the alterations that were done to it. No one that has experienced this film can honestly claim they could totally explain it after one viewing. It may make you wonder about how far a perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick would go with all this. If you’re still a skeptic (click here). There's undeniable proof that Stanley Kubrick has reversed or altered every major aspect of the novel except for a few names and there’s simply no plausible reason to suggest that he would stop doing this in the storeroom scene. Stanley Kubrick’s film is a mirror image of the novel and he hides what he's done by answering the interviewer’s questions about the film with what happens in the novel. “The strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products of Jack's imagination” and that’s exactly what he did. In the novel there's no question that a ghost opens the door. In the movie the ghosts are all in Jack’s head mingled together with that very special hidden ability that enables him to move things with his mind by telekinesis. It’s perfect. Kubrick's unbelievably clever and just like Dick Hallorann in the film, he never lies to Michel Ciment; just brilliantly eludes his questions.



Who rolls the yellow ball to Danny?

Something else moves as if by magic in "The Shining". It’s Jack, not a ghost, that lures Danny to Room 237. In the novel it’s curiosity that lures Danny to room 217. In the film Jack “Shines” and uses his supernatural ability to roll his yellow ball in the boy’s direction while he plays with his toys in the hallway. If he has a supernatural ability to move things with his mind, and the pictures prove this, than it’s not a stretch to see that Jack's the one that does it. It’s exactly the same as the piece of paper appearing in his typewriter and the Calumet cans in the storeroom. The Overlook doesn’t lure Jack to room 237 either. Wendy simply asks him to check it out and see if Danny’s story about the old woman is real. He sees the vision that "isn't real" and than promptly lies to her about it. This is important because he lies about everything in the film.



Who lures Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook?

Something that’s not very obvious in the film is that Dick Hallorann is lured back to The Overlook? As I mentioned before Danny has the most power in the novel and the hotel covets this power. Dick Hallorann tests Danny’s special ability as they sit in his car on page 55 (chapter 11), and tells him to use it to call him in Florida if he needs any help. That’s exactly what he does and Dick Hallorann returns and ends up saving them from Jack. The novel’s nice easy predictable ending. This is all altered in the movie and if you listen closely to the script Dick never tests Danny’s power or tells him to call for help at all. There’s a very good reason; because Stanley Kubrick reversed the novel in a big way here without anyone noticing. It’s not Danny calling for help that attracts Dick’s attention while sitting in bed in Florida; it’s now Jack that attracts him back to the hotel in order to kill him (along with his family). Why does Jack lure Dick Hallorann and not someone else? Because he’s one of the four main characters in Stephen King’s story and because Jack may be a racist.

The reason I'm so sure it’s not Danny’s call for help but Jack that lures him back is because Dick Hallorann doesn't know of anything that's going on at The Overlook before Jack walks into room 237. Don’t forget about Danny being strangled by the woman in "one of the rooms". He was almost killed while Jack is having a nightmare as Wendy checks the boilers and it’s long before Jack enters room 237. This fact can't be ignored, dumbed-down, pooh-poohed away, or un-explained. There has to be a valid reason why Dick Hallorann didn't know anything was happening when Danny’s life was in the most peril. If Danny was going to call for help it would have been then. Dick's only alerted that something’s wrong at The Overlook just before Jack sees the woman in the bathtub and not a moment sooner - he doesn't ‘vision’ Danny being strangled at all. In the novel Danny says this (page 169, chapter 28), "Mr. Hallorann got me alone because he was worried… He said this was a bad place for people who ‘shine’. He said he'd seen things.” In the novel, Dick Hallorann knows about the, costume party, the moving hedge animals and Mrs. Massey’s dead body in the tub (page 217), yet in the film he knows nothing. In the film Jack "Shines" the image of room 237 right into Dick Hallorann's mind (and Mr. Ullman's also). Danny didn't "Shine" anything into anyone's mind and Dick Hallorann not knowing about the attempted strangulation is proof of this. Dick Hallorann never sees anything out of the ordinary in The Overlook before Jack shows up. This can't be un-explained. Stanley Kubrick never has Danny use his supernatural ability to “Shine” to call on Dick for help at all; if you don’t believe this watch the end of the movie again very closely. Danny is hiding in the cabinet before Dick gets to The Overlook. He’s on the other side of the hotel, hiding. He never acknowledges that Dick’s there until he’s being killed with the ax. Even when he hears the Sno-Cat he never calls on Dick for help. Not only in the final chase but nowhere in the entire film does Danny ever call on anyone for help, or use his ability to “Shine” to get out of trouble. In the film this simply never happens.

In the film it’s Jack who lures Dick back to The Overlook just like he lures Danny to room 237. Dick and Mr. Ullman are both being lured by Jack as he “Shines” the beacon from room 237 directly into their minds. Whoever shows up he plans to kill, the same as his family. Dick Hallorann doesn’t see Danny being strangled because Jack simply hasn’t called on him yet. Jack’s ability to “Shine” evolves throughout the film and something happens that changes him from imagining, to dreaming, than to actually becoming a killer. Look closely at the film; it happens between Jack’s nightmare and his going into room 237 and it changes everything. Lloyd gives him his first drink and Stanley Kubrick makes the time code precisely 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the film when he gulps it down. It’s when pure evil enters into him. There’s something else that I’ve alluded to before. There’s something inside The Overlook that only Jack sees. None of the others see it and it’s what starts him on his mission. I talk about it later in the section, “Is The Overlook Haunted or does it "Shine"? You may think this statement of mine is wrong, “Dick Hallorann doesn’t see Danny being strangled because Jack hasn’t called yet.” But think about this; how is it that Jack is able to have Dick Hallorann walk straight into an ax at the end of the film? Jack has much more power than the others. That’s why so many Calumet cans appeared out of nowhere behind his head when he “Shines” and opens the storeroom door. Dick Hallorann can only muster one when he “Shines” and talks to Danny. The cast only sees what Jack wants them to see. He’s controlling the visions that appear in their minds and he's controlling who sees them.

Wendy’s “Shine” evolves also. Something happens that brings out her ability. She’s in the most famous “haunted hotel” in history but the ghost’s wait till the end of the film, the very last night there, to show themselves to her? She never sees any visions until after she views Jack’s novel. That’s when Wendy is scared to death and her “Shine” comes alive. Otherwise she would have seen the room 237 freak show like the others. After looking at Jack’s novel she sees several visions of The Overlook’s more unsavory guests who’s pictures aren’t hanging on the walls.



In the red bathroom when he lies to Jack, how does Grady know that Dick Hallorann is returning to The Overlook?

Jack’s loosing his mind. Grady is his subconscious and like Jack, he always lies. He knows he “Shined” the vision of room 237 into Dick Hallorann’s mind and lies to Jack telling him it was Danny who did it. Jack used his ability to “Shine” to lure Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook and, as I mentioned in a previous section, at the end of the film he uses it again to lure Danny into the Hedge Maze by moving the entrance right in front of him by the Sno-cat. Jack lures both of them. You may be asking yourself ‘Why would Jack lure anyone back to the hotel’? Well it’s an integral part of the story - Dick Hallorann has to return.

In the beginning of the room 237 scene Dick Hallorann, sitting in bed in Florida, sees a vision of something that scares the life out of him. What is he looking at? Is it the door to room 237 ajar with a key in the lock? Not so fast! That’s what the audience sees. You’ll have to look at the dialogue to answer this question because he’s obviously reacting to something well before Jack walks into that room, and we know from the dialogue that Dick Hallorann knows “nothing” about room 237. It’s easy to let this quote fly over your head but look again at what Stanley Kubrick has the only expert on “Shining” say, “People who shine can sometimes see things that are gonna happen… ” It’s subtle but obvious that he already knows what Jack’s going to see in room 237. Just before we see him stepping into the room Dick Hallorann is mortified because he already sees the old woman. In this scene he’s seeing the future. Having a vision of what Jack is imagining is going to happen in that room while we’re still looking at room 237's opened door with a red key hanging out of the lock. The same room that Danny had to bring up while talking with Dick in the kitchen, because he knew “nothing” about it. In the vision of room 237’s bathroom Dick Hallorann already knows what we’re soon going to see, and his reaction is similar to Jack’s just before he runs out of the room ready to puke.

Again, in the novel The Overlook covets Danny for his power and uses Jack to get it. What does it covet in the movie? Think about it for a second The Overlook seems to be trying to kill Danny and ends up with Jack on the wall. It’s obvious that in the movie this time, if it wants anything at all, the hotel wants Jack and not Danny. Why would The Movie’s Overlook want Jack if he didn’t have the most power to covet (or if he had no ability to "Shine" at all)? In the novel on page 254 (Chapter 46) Wendy realizes this very important part of the story. Remember this is the novel, not the movie; "The hotel caught Daddy."… And she was convinced that was true. More, she thought that Danny might be the one the hotel really wanted, the reason it was going so far ... maybe the reason it was able to go so far. It might even be that in some unknown fashion it was Danny's shine that was powering it, the way a battery powers the electrical equipment in a car ... the way a battery gets a car to start. If they got out of here, the Overlook might subside to its old semi-sentient state, able to do no more than present penny-dreadful horror slides to the more psychically aware guests who entered it. Without Danny it was not much more than an amusement park haunted house, where a guest or two might hear rapping's or the phantom sounds of a masquerade party, or see an occasional disturbing thing."

"But if it absorbed Danny ... Danny's shine or life-force or spirit ... whatever you wanted to call it ... into itself — what would it be then?
.................The thought made her cold all over."





Why is the red key so important and who put it in the door of room 237?

As Danny plays in the hallway. There’s something else that moves by itself that most forget about as they wonder who rolls Jack's yellow ball. I mentioned before in the novel Danny takes the passkey, puts it in the lock of room 217, turns it, and walks right in. None of this happens in the movie as he never touches the red room key that’s already in the door obviously turned and opened by someone else and he never enters the room. A mirror image of what happens in the novel. Who put the red key in the lock of Room 237 and who opened the door? These two mysteries of the yellow ball and the red key go hand in hand. How apropos, as I'll discuss in a later section, even Stanley Kubrick's choice of color is telling us something here as he makes them the very special colors - yellow and red – the same colors he reverses from the novel. On page 206 (Chapter 37) of the novel Stephen King writes, “He looked at the clock inside the glass dome… In front of it, slightly distorted by the curve of the dome, was a carefully carved silver key… He picked up the silver key… He placed it in the keyhole at the center of the clock face. It went firmly home with a tiny click, more felt than heard. It wound to the right, of course; clockwise… Danny turned the key until it would turn no more and then removed it. The clock began to tick… The ballroom was empty… The whole place was empty. But it wasn't really empty. Because here in the Overlook things just went on and on. Here in the Overlook all times were one… It was as if the whole place had been wound up with a silver key. The clock was running. The clock was running.
...............He was that key, Danny thought sadly.”

The movie’s Overlook wants absolutely nothing. There’s no indication whatsoever that in Stanley Kubrick’s version The Overlook needs Danny, or any of them for that matter. But in the novel Danny is “the key”, and the power, and for whatever reason The Overlook covets his power. And like putting that “silver key” into the clock and winding it, Danny’s actually winding up The Overlook and unbelievable things soon start to happen. Right after this, in this next excerpt Danny enters a different world. Again we have a mirror image of the source novel where Tony can be seen, in the movie he’s now invisible; “The clock face was gone. In its place was a round black hole. It led down into forever… Danny tottered and then fell into the darkness that had been hiding behind the clock face all along… Down and down and down and down to… Tony was far below him, also falling. I can't come anymore, Danny ... he won't let me near you ... none of them will let me near you ... get Dick ... get Dick ...” Again, none of this happens in the movie as Mr. Ullman orders Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook.

There are two important keys in Stephen King’s novel, but in the movie we see only one key: a red room key in the door of Room 237, turned “to the right, of course; clockwise”, with the door left ajar. In the very next scene we see Jack having his nightmare. No time has elapsed; Jack “Shines” during that nightmare and rolls the yellow ball toward Danny in order to lure him to Room 237. Jack, not Danny, “Shines” the key into the door and Stanley Kubrick reverses the novel yet again; it’s Jack now, during his dream, who turns the key and opens the door. In Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” Jack is the key (and the power), not Danny. But it’s more complicated in the movie because something else is reversed. It isn’t The Overlook that’s wound up by the turning of the key to room 237; it’s now Jack and the key is in the door precisely to the minute at the halfway point of the movie. After beating up Danny we see the next scene with Lloyd the bartender. He takes his first drink at precisely 66 minutes and 6 seconds; the key has turned and the clock is now running down for Jack. The drink Lloyd gives him is real. In the novel, “Jack contemplated the twenty imaginary drinks” (page 163, chapter 28) but in the film he gets a real drink as he has the power of telekinesis. He can make things appear out of nowhere just like the Calumet cans behind his head in the storeroom scene. It’s exactly the same.

The battery here is The Overlook, the evil around it, the ancient Indian burial ground it's built on, the place itself. Whatever it is The Overlook revs Jack up as he gulps down his Jack Daniels after selling his soul to the devil, “God, I'd give anything for a drink. My God dam soul”. Lloyd shows up in the shot all dressed in red and Jack is now the key to his own destruction. Like Stanley Kubrick printed on The Gold Room sign, “The Unwinding Hour.” Jack turned the key himself and in the movie’s Overlook time is not ticking forwards towards The Hotel’s destruction as it does in the novel but backwards; ticking backwards towards Jack’s reunion. Stanley Kubrick reversed everything here, in the movie The Overlook is not destroyed (as in the novel) and Jack remains on the wall “for ever, and ever, and ever”. It’s not destroyed or involved at all, only Jack is. He turned the key and The Overlook in the movie is now the “battery” that Wendy spoke about in the novel. He grows madder and madder, time is ticking backward to Jack’s final reunion with pure evil in the July 4th, 1921 picture where he will remain as long as movies are seen. “I wish we could stay here forever... and ever... and ever.” Jack’s self-fulfilling prophecy is granted to him.

In this excerpt from the novel Dick Hallorann “Shines” the image of the important clock just before the Overlook is destroyed, “It's too late," [Danny] said… Hallorann's mind was fixed with an image of a clock under a glass dome… The hands of the clock were standing at a minute to midnight… Suddenly the shine was on him, and he understood what Danny had meant when he said it was too late. He could feel the explosion getting ready to rumble up from the basement and tear the guts out of this horrid place… There was a flat explosion, a sound that seemed to exist on one low all-pervasive note (WHUMMMMMMMMM) and then there was a blast of warm air at their backs that seemed to push gently at them. They were thrown from the porch on its breath… The Overlook's windows shattered. In the ballroom, the dome over the mantelpiece clock cracked, split in two pieces, and fell to the floor. The clock stopped ticking: cogs and gears and balance wheel all became motionless.” None of this happens in Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” because we are looking at a mirror image of the novel. It has all been reversed; now it’s Jack at the end of the film, and not The Overlook, that stops ticking.





Are there other explanations for the supernatural movements I’ve noted in the film?

Before writing this article few of the continuity movements I’ve shown here were ever mentioned on other Shining sites. But since my article some that have read it and have a lot of time invested in their own ideas have come up with another explanation for these continuity movements and color changes that I’ve noticed in “The Shining”. They can’t say they aren’t there because the pictures I’ve produced prove it and agreeing with me would mean a lot of deleting and time consuming rewrites. So another explanation has been put forth; it seems now that they agree with what they refer to as my so-called “theory” that they are deliberate but noticing them has another purpose in the movie. Seeing things like moving clocks and light switches and rugs are supposed to unsettle us, add to the spooky atmosphere of the movie and maybe even scare us.

Look at the clock on the wall.



Watch the light switch on the left as it disappears.



This light switch appears later in the movie.



Are you scared yet?

You have to look closely at this simplistic explanation because there’s a reason none of this was noticed before I showed up. So much time was spent by other writers dissecting Stanley Kubrick’s psychological motives that they missed the obvious; the things that Stanley Kubrick hid in plain sight. I stuck with purely visual anomalies and was specifically looking for these continuity movements because I knew they were there and I knew just where to look. If you don’t know something’s hidden in a movie you’re not going to be looking for it, and if you don’t know something exists and it's never noticed, it can’t possibly scare you. The reason I don’t agree with this other explanation is this; now that I’ve shown them to you the cat is out of the bag and we all know where the items that move are. But there’s a big problem with the assumption that Stanley Kubrick was trying to scare us with things like moving clocks, rugs and light switches because they were unbelievably well hidden, and this cannot be ignored. The average viewer would have to possess the memory of a savant to have spotted any of them in a theater as most occur in entirely different parts of the movie. No! I’m positive that when you think about all these pictures they will prove to you that Stanley Kubrick, in his version of “The Shining”, gives the power of psycho kinesis to certain characters (Click here). It’s all a well-hidden part of his movie, not a trick used to frighten us. “Shining” is now a supernatural power that enables people in the movie to move things with their minds. The source novel has been altered and now you know exactly where to look to see these movements. Here’s proof that Stanley Kubrick is purposely-placing movie mistakes in this film as an integral part of his story. It’s the second most famous continuity error in the history of film that I spoke about earlier. Take a crack at explaining how it got there. The July 4th picture (the most enigmatic image in the history of motion pictures) just appears the same way as the Calumet cans, out of the blue on the wall in the final shot of “The Shining”. It’s just like magic. When we see that very spot several times earlier in the film and it isn’t there. It isn't hung on any other wall of The Overlook either, it just appears out of nowhere exactly like the Calumet cans behind Jack and Dick Hallorann’s heads. Everyone with the “Shine” seems to be gone though, who do you think it this time?







The movements I’ve shown are an important part of the film. It’s so obvious and skeptics have to ignore the pictures and dialogue and put a 180 degree spin on what Stanley Kubrick placed in his film so that wrong explanations will somehow fit. Tony; “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said. It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real.” What do you think Stanley Kubrick is talking about? This phrase, “It isn't real.” is his invention, it’s not mentioned anywhere in Stephen King’s novel where everything happening to the Torrance’s was quite real. If the spooks aren't "real" one must come up with an explanation of how those Calumet cans appeared out of nowhere, how Jack got out of the storeroom, who rolled the yellow ball, who beat up Danny, and who put the key in room 237 and opened the door because Stanley Kubrick simply doesn’t visually show us any of it. One has to also prove that Dick Hallorann who has lived in The Overlook is somehow wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about when he says "it isn't real". Good luck! This is no theory on my part, Stanley Kubrick is explaining something important in the dialogue, "It isn't real". If you still don’t believe that Jack has the ability to “Shine” and see visions like Danny, go to the end of this blog and explain your criteria for judging what’s real and what isn’t in the film. If Stanley Kubrick tells us that Grady’s daughters aren’t real how can you rationalize that Grady is real? It's not spooks, it's something else that appears to the audience to be haunting The Overlook. Again if you have preconceived ideas the supernatural movements caused by characters in the film, just like the reversals that Stanley Kubrick made to the novel, are shocking. Especially how he was able to hide all this in plain site. But if you “go check it out” what I’ve noted is quite correct and can’t be ignored, altered or most importantly dismissed. It is what it is and may not seem right but it’s obvious and quite clear that in the movie; Jack “Shines”. He has a supernatural ability to move things and he uses it to let himself out of the storeroom; the exact opposite of what happens on page 262 (Chapter 48) of the novel. Stanley Kubrick shows us that cast members have a supernatural power to move things; psychokinesis – A.K.A. "the Shine". There is no other explanation.


Some other visual anomalies and what moves around in The Shining can be viewed here, garden variety visuals I,
and more can be viewed here, garden variety visuals II, and here garden variety visuals III.



.............................. Music

What Do Delbert Grady And Danny's Friend Tony Have In Common?

Stephen King dropped these two words, double and Doppelgänger, in his novel and Stanley Kubrick couldn’t resist finding a place for them in his film. I've found something else that’s odd and moves around in "The Shining" when it shouldn’t. It was one of the first things I ever noticed in the movie and I immediately thought it was the most common of visual continuity errors seen hundreds of times in other movies. But I never would’ve realized just what this meant and how important it is to understanding the story had I not read the novel.



How does Stanley Kubrick visually show us that each main character also has an imaginary friend like Tony?

The recurring doubling motif that Stanley Kubrick sprinkles throughout "The Shining" is quite obvious and pointing us to something under the surface of the movie. There are no important examples of doubling in Stephen King’s novel; they were added into the movie. But doubling is mentioned in it and I believe it's where Stanley Kubrick got the idea from. Tony, Danny’s imaginary friend, can be seen in the novel. This can’t be ignored as I noted before Stanley Kubrick is showing us an inverted mirror image of Stephen King’s novel, and now in the movie Tony is invisible and communicates through Danny’s voice and index finger. But he's still there if you know where to look. In the movie Tony is not only a voice inside Danny, but he’s an actual invisible entity. In fact anyone else who “Shines” in this film also has an invisible entity around them. What I’m suggesting may be a little hard to comprehend because how on earth could Stanley Kubrick show us something that’s invisible on a movie screen. This would be tough for the average director but for Stanley Kubrick it's no problem at all and the proof of what I’m saying is in these pictures. Every time a cast member’s invisible entity makes an appearance in the movie they do the exact same thing. I’ll show you the pictures first and see if you can spot where they are in each one.











Did you notice a chair moving between shots in each scene? This isn't a mistake or a movement of a camera angle. No cast member went near them and they shouldn’t have moved. It’s deliberate and it happens at least five times in the film. Stanley Kubrick shows you that they are there, the invisible entities are present sitting in a chair making themselves comfortable while hanging around and observing their host. In the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary the definition of the word Doppelgänger is; a ghostly counterpart of a living person, a double, and Stanley Kubrick put the visual evidence here in these pictures that each major character in “The Shining” has a Doppelgänger associated with them. Even though the modern Internet definition indicates an evil presence Stanley Kubrick is working from the older definition here, as only Jack’s Doppelgängers, like he, are evil. It can't be denied obvious doubles are all over this movie. What an idea Stanley Kubrick had; take Tony from the novel, make him invisible in the film and than give everybody else an invisible Doppelgänger also.

People who "Shine" in the movie each have a double.

There should be no confusion as to whether The Overlook itself is causing this because Stanley Kubrick has it happen three times in the hotel and twice outside of it. Therefore the moving chairs are happening as a result of “Shining” and not any other popular phenomena, like ghosts or a haunted hotel. It may still be hard for some readers to accept but there are no classically defined ghosts or spirits from the hereafter in this movie. What the Torrance’s see are visions inside their own minds that Dick Hallorann tells us are "not real". They are causing the supernatural occurrences themselves and this is another aspect of the novel that Stanley Kubrick has reversed in his movie.



If Jack “Shines”, how does Dick Hallorann not know it?

Stanley Kubrick lets us know, “there are other folks” but at this point you may be wondering why Dick Hallorann only seems to pick up on Danny’s special ability if these other people also have the “Shine”? In the novel Dick Hallorann meets several people who possess the “Shine”. He knows it right away and so do they (“A Shine knows a Shine”, page 217 Chapter 38). Stanley Kubrick reverses the novel again. In the movie, ‘a Shine doesn’t know a Shine’. The others don’t know that they have this ability and he plainly tells us this in the dialogue, “Though mostly they don’t know it”. Dick Hallorann is obviously not able to perceive it in them, and in the film he’s the only one we know of who knows he has the “Shine”. Then I thought about this and realized that I had a huge problem to solve because it appears that he knows right away that Danny possesses the “Shine”. How could he not know about the others the same way? There has to be an explanation for this. At first I thought that Danny’s age has something to do with him picking up on it. But that’s not it. Then I thought when Danny “Shines” in the game room seeing the vision of the twins, maybe that’s when Dick picks up on his ability. But that’s not right either, something else is happening in the game room and I’ll discuss it in a later section. These are all just guesses anyway. Then I went back to look at the scene again because I knew Stanley Kubrick wouldn’t leave out the answer. I couldn’t believe what I found; Dick Hallorann doesn’t know that Danny “Shines” at all. This seems crazy because it’s so incredibly well hidden by Stanley Kubrick in the dialogue. Look again at the question Dick Hallorann asks Danny in the kitchen, “Do you know how I knew your name was Doc?” The obvious question should have been, do you know how I spoke to you in your thoughts and said, “How'd you like some ice cream, Doc?” But he doesn’t mention the obvious elephant in the room. Because of the director’s brilliant manipulation we all just assume that Dick Hallorann starts the thought transfer between himself and Danny. This isn’t the case at all, if you look at the film it’s Danny that “Shines” first and Dick Hallorann is then able to pick up on the boy’s ability. That’s when he knows for sure and transfers a thought into Danny’s mind, probably for the first time in the young boy’s life. In the film this is so important and it proves something; Dick Hallorann only knows someone possesses “The Shine” if it’s directed at him. Again we know from Stanley Kubrick’s dialogue that there are others. And in a story with only five main characters it doesn't leave many for you to choose from. This is why something I brought up in the last section is so important. Dick Hallorann doesn’t know it when Danny is strangled. It proves that Danny doesn’t call him for help. It’s Jack who “Shining” a call out to Dick Hallorann and Mr. Ullman that eventually lures one of them back to The Overlook to be killed.



Does Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook attract people who “Shine”?

I believe that in Stanley Kubrick's story The Overlook is a place that may attract people who posses the “Shine”. That’s why the Torrance’s are there and Mr. Ullman says, “Our people in Denver recommended Jack very highly, and, for once, I agree with them.” This statement implies that he never agreed with any of the other caretakers before and his statement is very clear. Only 2 caretakers ever went crazy and tried to kill their families inside The Overlook, Charles Grady and Jack Torrance so Mr. Ullman really isn’t a very good judge of potential caretakers. Charles Grady and Mr. Ullman both “Shine” and this statement “for once, I agree with them” tells us why no other winter caretakers (there must have been plenty) other than Grady and Jack ever totally lost it inside The Overlook. It’s because they didn’t “Shine”. Mr. Ullman didn't hire Grady, his "predecessor in this job" did, but he obviously never “agreed” with any of the other caretakers they sent him during his tenure. They didn’t have the “Shine”, and he somehow senses that. These other caretakers that he didn’t, “agree” with don’t go nuts on their families either. They couldn't be driven crazy in the same way as Jack and Grady. They didn’t get “cabin fever” being locked up all winter in the hotel because they didn't have the same ability to see visions of its past guests running around. They didn’t “Shine”, and Mr. Ullman might have somehow perceived that Jack does. You must remember this is Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook, a hotel that only occasionally attracts these types of people. And as I’ll show you in this section "Is The Overlook Haunted or does it "Shine"?". There’s something in the hotel that only Jack sees, and the others never do. It’s the reason why Mr. Ullman and Dick Hallorann, who have also lived in The Overlook, don’t see the hotel’s past guests running around like the Torrance’s.





What other characters possess the “Shine”?

As I’ve shown before, cast members who “Shine” seem to have possessions that change color. It's quite obvious when pointed out. Mr. Ullman and Bill Watson both have personal articles of clothing that change between shots in the film. A perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick would never let this happen by accident in a million years. How he did it is not important; the colors change and that’s very important because it's proof of their supernatural ability.

I showed this before, watch as Mr. Ullman’s tie changes color right before our eyes.



Mr. Ullman possesses the “Shine”. It's Jack and not a call for help from Danny that lures Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook. There’s only one singular explanation Stanley Kubrick gives us in the dialogue as to why he returns to the hotel and I believe Dick Hallorann when he says that Mr. Ullman phoned him in Florida. Dick Hallorann doesn’t lie to Larry Durkin when he says it. Mr. Ullman has the same supernatural ability as the others. When he “Shined” his tie changed color just like Danny’s trike and Jack’s typewriter I showed in the last section. He also sees the exact same vision of Jack in room 237 with the old woman that Dick Hallorann saw. Stanley Kubrick makes sure that he tells us in the dialogue that all the phones are out and there is no other explanation as to how Mr. Ullman could possibly know something was wrong back at The Overlook.

Watch as Bill Watson’s pants do the same thing as Mr. Ullman’s tie did between shots. At first, in a Blu-ray screen shot, they appear to be kaki corduroy stripes with no lateral lines, later, after the first shot, we see a grey plaid design with lateral lines.




It’s obvious that all these people have the same ability. I’ve shown this many times in pictures throughout my blog but now just look at the chairs to the right of Mr. Ullman that move between shots in this scene. 6 major characters who “Shine” are present and not one of them went near any of these chairs. Their invisible Doppelgängers did and are sitting right there with them. They’re all up close, personal and operating in the present time frame. But 7 chairs move and there are only 6 characters who “Shine”. It’s because Jack is special and has 2 imaginary friends that we meet later in the film.




I believe Stanley Kubrick may have doubled the abilities from the novel that each character now posses, and he also doubled the amount of main characters that can use the “Shine”. Just like the Grady girls, who are twin actresses in real life playing non-twins in the movie, each character has a double. Stanley Kubrick makes this obvious in his film (twin elevators, twin boilers etc. - click here). These invisible entities might be the culprits behind what’s causing everything to move around, disappear, and change colors, and when a person “Shines” their invisible Doppelgänger is present in the scene as they’re doing it. The actual characters have no idea what’s going on and Dick Hallorann, the only person in the story that knows anything about “Shining”, might not even be aware of the other powers that his Doppelgänger posses. The doubles are part of their subconscious and Danny is the only one who may have the slightest clue, as he speaks to his imaginary friend on a regular basis.





What’s different about Jack’s imaginary friends?

We know Danny has one and it’s obvious that Dick Hallorann and Wendy have invisible friends also; but what about Jack? He's a different case because Stanley Kubrick lets us actually see Jack speaking to his friends. We know from the interview with Mr. Ullman that Charles Grady was an actual person who worked in The Overlook, murdered his family then killed himself in 1970. Stanley Kubrick actually gives Jack’s imaginary friend, the putative ghost Delbert Grady, an entirely different name to seemingly confuse, or point the audience to the fact that the two are entirely different (the real caretaker was named Delbert Grady in the novel, there was no Charles Grady). He's not a ghost haunting The Overlook, he only exists as Jack’s double and is his subconscious version of Danny’s imaginary friend Tony. “Is Tony the one that tells you things?” “Yes.” It’s the same with Jack. Grady is the one who tells Jack “things”, like Grady alerting Jack that Dick Hallorann is returning to The Overlook. His double is also helpful in getting him out of the storeroom without Jack’s conscious mind (or the audience’s) knowing it. All the Doppelgängers are invisible. Don’t let the fact that we see Grady fool you. It’s Jack who’s seeing him and Stanley Kubrick is letting us eavesdrop in on his vision. Don’t forget what Mr. Hallorann said they aren’t, “real”, they’re part of the Torrance’s subconscious minds. Grady and Tony may communicate without Jack or Danny ever knowing it. I’m sure this is how Danny was beat up during Jack’s nightmare. There never was and old woman, or ghost of one, in room 237 while they were in The Overlook. It was just a vision of an echo of what happened to a person who committed suicide there in the past. A vision of an actual event only a person who “Shines” can see, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see". We all know that Jack is loosing his mind, he’s talking to himself when he speaks to Grady with the mirror in front of him. Don't forget about Lloyd the bartender, he's part of his subconscious also as Jack speaks to the darkest side of himself again with a mirror there staring him in the face. Stanley Kubrick lets us eavesdrop inside Jack’s mind again. Remember Jack first sees the old woman in the reflection of a mirror. The fact is neither Lloyd, the woman or Grady ever utters a sound without a mirror being present in front of Jack's face. As the movie progresses the madder Jack gets the more stuff happens and it's his subconscious that’s doing everything. The subconscious is our minds protector. But Jack is nuts and his subconscious possesses a very special supernatural ability. Stanley Kubrick put the evidence right in front of us; if you know where to look. He’s given a madman the power of psychokinesis. Jack can move any object his subconscious wishes; with his mind.





Where did Stanley Kubrick get the idea to put Doppelgängers in his movie?

From Stephen King, of course. In the novel on page 149 (Chapter 25) as Danny walks into room 217 and sees his reflection in the mirror, “He watched his double nod slowly,” and “Yes, that's where it was, whatever it was. In there. In the bathroom. His double walked forward, as if to escape the glass.” In the movie Jack can’t escape the glass in front of him as he speaks to his imaginary friends with a mirror present for him to look right into each time.. And there’s this quote from page 37 (Chapter 6) of the novel as Wendy talks to Jack, “She had expected to discover his anger…. It was almost as though the Jack she had lived with for six years had never come back last night — as if he had been replaced by some unearthly Doppelgänger that she would never know or be quite sure of.” In the movie Stanley Kubrick makes all this happen visually. In fact, Stanley Kubrick may have conceptualized his “Shining” to be the artistic Doppelgänger of Stephen King’s “Shining”. Maybe he sees himself as Stephen King's Doppelgänger – his genius evil twin?



Someone else also had an invisible friend sitting next to him when he did his dirty work. Evans Adrian a commenter on my blog noticed this.

In the novel Grady leaves the Roque mallet along with some Gin for Jack after he lets him out of the storeroom. In the film this is all reversed and we never know where Jack gets the ax from. The ax in the photo is the same one that Jack uses later in the movie, but don’t let that confuse you the important thing that he noticed is the overturned chair, just like the one mentioned in Stephen King’s novel on page 23 (chapter 4) right after Danny’s first vision of the word “Redrum”, ”Across the room was a mirror, and deep down in its silver bubble a single word appeared in green fire and that word was: REDRUM. The room faded. Another room. He knew (would know) this one. [An overturned chair]”. The chairs we see throughout Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook are not the same style as this one but I knew if I looked through the movie I would find this particular chair somewhere in there. We see it several times right outside of Wendy and Jack’s apartment. But the thing that’s really important is that every time we see it there it’s upside down, just like in the Grady ax murder scene.



Charles Grady was also able to “Shine” and his invisible entity was sitting in that very chair before he killed his family and himself. The reason the chair is now overturned is because Grady killed himself and there’s no invisible friend sitting there any more, and if Jack was a reincarnation of Grady, as some believe, the chair outside The Torrance’s’ room would be right side up because Jack and Grady would both share the same Doppelgänger. I mentioned before I believe in the movie version of this story The Overlook may be a place that attracts people with this special ability to “Shine”. In the pictures of the moving chairs Stanley Kubrick shows us that people who “Shine” have invisible friends by their sides. The ghosts that everyone believes are haunting The Overlook may be the Doppelgängers of the current residents, and there’s no solid evidence I can find to the contrary. The visions they see are a result of their supernatural ability, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who ‘Shine’ can see.”, and one of them has the power to “Shine” the images he’s seen from the hotel’s past directly into the other’s minds. But no one is there except the Torrance family and their invisible doubles. It’s brilliant how Stanley Kubrick gave each cast member an ability that makes it appear to the audience that The Overlook is haunted, when it actually isn’t.



An interesting thing that I noted before is that almost all of the sofas, rugs and a lot of the unattached artwork disappear throughout the movie. Chairs, rugs and Indian artwork disappearing, props and rooms changing colors, clocks, lamps, shower nozzles and light switches all moving around by themselves. It’s all part of the mystery of this movie and some of these movements have a very significant meaning. It’s a byproduct of “The Shine”. A special ability that enables people to supernaturally move and change certain items of the director’s choice. Again, this is what the movie is about, “Shining”. The Torrance’s also have some hidden friends, and one of them (along with his hidden friends) has quite obviously gone completely out of his mind. It may be hard to decide which is right but cast members possessing hidden Psychokinetic abilities is so much more interesting than common ghosts, and “The Shining” is by no means your common every day ghost story.




...................................Music

The Significance Of Yellow And Red In The Movie.

............ “Orange is the happiest color.” - Frank Sinatra

The colors yellow and red are another important part in the understanding “The Shining”. I've included pictures below to show how Stanley Kubrick uses them in this film.

The brightest and most obvious yellow items are Jack’s 2 special possessions and each plays a significant role in the movie. The yellow Volkswagen (changed from red in the novel) brings him to the Overlook,

and the yellow ball (also changed from red in the novel) lures Danny to room 237. It’s Danny’s (and it’s red) in the novel but now, in another plot reversal, it’s Jack’s and may well have also lured him to the Overlook. Apearently in the deleted scene from the original director's cut, the yellow ball is given back to Danny in the hospital by Mr. Ullman possibly to lure him back to The Overlook in the future.

Look closely at the carpet. Red and yellow are prominent but it was blue/black in the novel.


Where are some examples of Stanley Kubrick’s use of the color yellow?

Danny’s yellow and red dwarf from Snow White (Dopey) before his 1st vision (I thank EvanVolm for letting me know that this wasn’t a Smurf as I first thought).


Their yellow bathroom door with red writing on it.


The yellow border of Room 237’s bathroom.


Jack’s novel is written on yellow paper.


And don’t forget the Advocaat that Delbert Grady spills on Jack at the party, it's also yellow.




Red also seems to be prominent in "The Shining" and it took me a while to figure out what was happening. Surroundings and possessions which are entirely yellow or red are obvious and have been noted by many but never fully understood. Stanley Kubrick got the idea for the colors from Stephen King’s novel where Dick Hallorann smelled oranges when he “Shined”. Being that smell can not yet be adequately brought across to a theater audience Stanley Kubrick made the brilliant decision to use the two pigments a painter mixes together to make the color orange, then use those as a visual device to indicate “Shining”. Jack’s yellow VW and the red Calumet can behind his head in the storeroom. Red and yellow equals orange just like the walls of Dick Hallorann’s bedroom in Florida as he “Shines”. Red and yellow were mentioned very little in Stephen King's novel and weren’t an indication that someone was "Shining". Stanley Kubrick has changed this in the movie and both red and yellow are indicators that a cast member "Shines".





Where are some examples of Stanley Kubrick’s use of the color red?

The red key to room 237.


The red bathroom in the Gold Room where Jack has his vision of Grady.


The red Calumet can as Dick Hallorann "Shines".


The red Calumet can again and Jack’s red jacket as he "Shines".


The red elevators.


Danny’s red sweater as he "Shines".


The red picture behind Dick Hallorann while he's “Shining”.


The red lipstick.


Red darts just before his vision of the girls.


The important number 42 is red on Danny’s sweatshirt in his bathroom before the vision of the bloody elevators.


And of course; Redrum




If you read the novel you’ll note how hard it is to find what colors the VW and snowmobile are because each is mentioned only once. The red VW is in Chapter 4 “Shadowland” (page 25), and the yellow snowmobile is in Chapter 33 “The Snowmobile” (page 188). Again, red and yellow were used very little in Stephen King’s novel and weren’t an indication that someone was "Shining". But I believe in the movie they are. Stanley Kubrick makes this as visual as possible.

It isn’t just the numbers or time codes or colors or mirrors or what was changed in other ways from the novel. It all has to be taken together as I noted two sections ago. When you look at the color reversals I’ve noted together with what moves around and disappears throughout the movie, something massive is going on and viewers invariably will make their own decision on what it is. Just look closely again at everything that moves or disappears than at Wendy and Jack’s bedroom, Danny’s trike, and Mr. Ullman and Bill Watson’s clothes during the interview and as Jack says, “you’ll see what I mean”.




................................ Music


Is The Overlook Haunted Or Does It "Shine"?

“A Shine knows a Shine”, Dick Hallorann from page 217 (Chapter 38) of the novel.


I've alluded to this several times already. There's something in "The Shining" that Stanley Kubrick visually places right under our noses that’s the explanation of where the "ghosts" in the film come from. Only Jack looks into it. Stanley Kubrick took something directly from Stephen King's novel yet most readers have missed its importance in the film, and most viewers don't even know what it is or why we're seeing it. It's the key to understanding Stanley Kubrick's Overlook and it's why Stephen King said this in the quote from USA Weekend that I showed in an earlier section, “My problem with ‘The Shining’ was never the adaptation. I certainly didn’t mind the idea that it was more psychological than supernatural... " If, as most mistakenly believe, the film follows the novel how could he say it’s more "psychological than supernatural"? If you read this section to the end you'll understand what I'm talking about.

By now you’ll either accept what I've pointed out in earlier sections (that Stanley Kubrick is purposefully moving things around between shots, making artwork rugs and sofas disappear, changing the colors of cast member’s possessions, and deliberately trying to make us notice a set of numbers in his movie) or you will not. I did produce screen shots from the film to prove it; but it still may take a little time for some to realize what he's done. Maybe this is all just a big mistake on my part. Sounding a little like Jack as he mocks Wendy, "maybe I’m just seeing things", even though the alterations to the novel that I’ve shown in this blog are precise and cannot be disputed. But this is a horror flick about people who possess an unusual ability and we should expect strange supernatural things to happen. By this point you may be wondering why I don’t believe the obvious; that The Overlook is possessed, and causing things to move around by themselves throughout the movie? Why am I coming up with all sorts of controversial explanations that no one has ever thought of before? After all The Overlook is the most famous haunted hotel in history, just ask anyone who’s heard the story and they’ll tell you. But after viewing this movie do you really think it's that simple?

People are in 2 camps when it comes to who or what is controlling things in “The Shining”. At this point I’ve mentioned it several times and it should be no secret that I believe Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook is not haunted (and I believe he's the only director that could pull something like this off without anyone suspecting). This idea came to me after reading Stephen King’s novel and my belief is not a theory as the dialogue taken from the film and the alterations he made to the novel are exact and can't be ignored, “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said.... Danny. It isn't real.” Examine your criteria for judging what’s real and what isn’t in the film. If Stanley Kubrick tells us that Grady’s daughters aren’t real how can you possibly say that their father Grady is real? They’re the same – a vision seen by someone who posses the “Shine”. If Stanley Kubrick reverses the colors of the main props in the film (and so much more), how can you not expect him to reverse the most important plot point of the story; is The Overlook haunted? But how on earth can anyone prove something like this without Stanley Kubrick being around to ask - and to explain. If we could ask him he probably wouldn’t tell us anyway. So, I’m writing this now well after I thought this blog was finished because I just keep discovering new things about this fascinating movie. It will not stop, it keeps “pulling me back”.



How does “The Shine” work when Dick Hallorann knows Danny’s nickname is Doc?

What I’m now going to explain started out with a little problem I had. From the story we know that Dick Hallorann has the supernatural ability to “Shine” but when he uses his special gift how does it actually work? I was looking at this interchange and it lead me to one of the most important and fascinating secrets in this film (I say, “one of the most important secrets” because there are so many);

Dick Hallorann: Well I think we can manage that too, Doc. Come along now. Watch your step.
Wendy: Mr. Hallorann, how’d you know we call’em 'Doc'?
Dick Hallorann: Beg pardon?
Wendy: Doc. You called Danny 'Doc' twice just now.
Dick Hallorann: I did?
Wendy: Yeah. We call him Doc sometimes, you know, like in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. But how did you know that?
Dick Hallorann: Well I guess I probably heard you call him that.
Wendy: Well, it's possible, but I honestly don't remember calling him that since we've been with you.

Dick Hallorann says to Wendy, “I guess I probably heard you call him that.” and this bit of dialogue is the explanation of how the “Shine” works. We never actually see this happen in the film but he’s telling her the truth; he actually heard her call him “Doc”. It’s undeniable as Stanley Kubrick gives us plenty of evidence that people who possess the “Shine” can hear conversations that occur out of earshot and can see things happening over long distances. At 1:45 into the movie Danny, sitting in their apartment, is able to use his ability to listen to his parents conversation before Wendy clobbers jack with the baseball bat. When Jack, inside the hotel, has his vision of Danny and Wendy walking in the center of The Hedge Maze at 00:39 he not only sees it but he’s also able to hear what they’re saying outside the hotel. There’s also room 237 that is seen by Dick Hallorann all the way in Florida. So what Dick Hallorann tells Wendy is the truth. He used his special supernatural ability and heard her call Danny, “Doc” before they met. That’s how he knows the nickname. Stanley Kubrick cleverly includes this in the dialogue also so there’s absolutely no confusion as to when Dick hears her use the nickname “Doc”. “I honestly don't remember calling him that since we've been with you”. His attention to detail here is unbelievable as all the bases are covered. Wendy uses the nickname a lot and obviously knows she said it earlier in the hotel before they all met Dick Hallorann for the first time. Here’s how it happened in the novel. "[Dick Hallorann] snapped his fingers as if he had forgotten something. "What's my name, now? I guess it just slipped my mind." "Mr. Hallorann," Danny said, grinning. "Dick, to your friends." "That's right! And you being a friend, you make it Dick." As he led them into the far corner, Jack and Wendy exchanged a puzzled glance, both of them trying to remember if Hallorann had told them his first name." He didn't, and in the novel this is where Dick Hallorann knows that Danny can "Shine" (page 51, chapter 10). In the film this is reversed and we're alerted to the "Shine" when Dick Hallorann knows Danny's nickname is "Doc", not when Danny knows Mr. Hallorann's first name, Dick. A total mirror reversal.



Can Dick Hallorann or any of the others read minds, like Danny does in the novel?

Dick Hallorann can hear conversations out of earshot but can we ever be sure if he was able to know the nickname "Doc" by reading Wendy’s mind? This is such an important question. Unbelievable attention to detail again as the answer to this is also in Stanley Kubrick’s dialog. This simple line is so easy to pass up as being unimportant as Jack says, “Mr. Hallorann, I'm Jack, and this is my wife, Winifred." It's her actual name and Jack never uses the nickname Wendy in The Overlook before they meet Dick Hallorann. Not only do we never actually hear the name, Wendy, but Stanley Kubrick shows us that example of how she's introduced and there’s no evidence that Jack doesn’t introduce her to everyone they meet in exactly the same way. Jack says, "Hey Babe" when he calls her up after the interview, and even Mr. Ullman never calls her Wendy as we always hear him say Mrs. Torrance. The nickname Wendy is simply never heard in The Overlook until later. This is the point of a seemingly meaningless fluff sentence Stanley Kubrick added to the dialogue, “Mrs. Torrance, your husband introduced you as Winifred. Now are you a Winnie or a Freddie? - I'm a Wendy.” It’s obvious that Dick Hallorann doesn’t know her nickname is Wendy and there’s only one reason for this; when he “Shined” he never heard anyone call her Wendy inside the hotel. He doesn’t read her mind at all; he simply never heard the name Wendy. There should be no confusion here; Stanley Kubrick points us to this by bringing up the two nicknames, "Doc" and "Wendy" and Dick heard only one of them with his special ability, not the other. He knows Danny's nickname and doesn't know Winifred's. "Now what kind of ice cream do you like Doc? – Chocolate? - Chocolate it shall be." Do you see how obvious Stanley Kubrick makes this, Dick can't read Danny's mind or he would have known the answer to that question. This is one of the alterations Stanley Kubrick made to the novel that I spoke of before. In the novel Danny is able to read peoples minds. In the film people who possess the “Shine” don’t read minds. The opposite thing happens. Images are "Shined" into people's minds.



Is The Overlook haunted?

Now the reason I’ve brought all this up is because it has everything to do with The title of this section; whether or not The Overlook is haunted. It's so important because it proves who has the ability to “Shine” in the movie. Like Dick Hallorann said, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who ‘Shine’ can see.” They all see the visions of previous hotel guests because they all possess the same supernatural ability. This is not an opinion or a theory on my part; it comes directly from the script of the movie itself – and all of them see the visions I’m talking about. Either there are real card carrying spirits of it’s previous guests or the Torrance’s’ are imagining what they are seeing in the hotel. There’s no other answer and most have probably made up their minds about this long before reading my blog. But you should consider this; what we in the audience perceive as “ghosts” can actually be something quite different. Grady, his daughters, the party guests, and the old woman are all visions of former guests from The Overlook’s past. And there is a difference between a ghost and a vision. “Well, you know Doc, when something happens it can leave a trace of itself behind. Say like if someone burns toast.” He’s talking about visions of things that have happened in the past, not “ghosts” and only people who possess the “Shine” can see these visions from the past.

The images Stanley Kubrick shows the audience of former hotel guests and employees are coming directly from inside the minds of those who possess the supernatural ability to “Shine”. The very same special ability we're told enables them to see these visions. When Dick Hallorann says “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see", Stanley Kubrick is telling us only people with the “Shine” can see these visions. Jack and Wendy see visions because they “Shine”. Dick Hallorann knows all about Danny’s ability and he's making the boy aware that he might be seeing visions of past events during his stay at the hotel. These images may appear to the audience as ghosts but the fact that they’re inanimate visions inside the Torrance’s minds is clear from reading the script. The implication of what Dick Hallorann is saying here, “it's like pictures in a book “, "it isn't real", is definitely not ‘and by the way Danny if you happen to see any twins walking around they aren’t real but what your father sees, well that’s real’. What he’s implying is that any spooks that Danny, or any one else, might be seeing are “not real”. What Tony heard Dick Hallorann say is not specific to a certain “ghost” or he would have said so. He doesn't tell Danny what any of them look like. And if we know that the Grady twins, that Danny sees before his discussion about "The Shine" with Dick Hallorann, aren’t real then none of the other “ghosts” are real either. “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said. It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real.”

I believe Stanley Kubrick put an almost unbelievable twist to his version of The Shining and no one realizes it. He’s totally inverted Stephen King’s novel where The Overlook was obviously possessed and the cause of everything supernatural that happened in it, and this is what Stephen King was talking about in that quote I just mentioned, more "psychological than supernatural". Many don’t agree with me and the end of this blog is littered with negative comments to this effect. If you're one of these skeptics just look at your index finger and in Tony's voice repeat Stanley Kubrick’s dialogue over and over, “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said.... Danny. It isn't real.” The statement can't be un-explained. It comes directly from an expert on the “Shine” and couldn’t be clearer; the Grady twins Danny’s seeing aren’t real. They can’t hurt him, and like the other visions would definitely not be able to unlatch a locked door for Jack or for that matter be able to beat up Danny. As I showed two sections ago, something else is happening and causing those physical manifestations. My problem in getting this across is that visually from the audience’s point of view, there's no difference between an actual ghost haunting a hotel and an inanimate vision of a past guest created inside of a character's head. How can anyone watching this film possibly discern whether what the Torrance’s see are products of their own minds or actual “ghosts” haunting The Overlook? To us on a movie screen they would both look exactly the same. And that “was” my problem; they would all “look exactly the same”. If cast members have the ability to “Shine” and see visions, how could I possibly know whether these visions are products of their own minds or actual “ghosts” haunting a possessed Overlook hotel? Again, it has to be one or the other. There’s nothing else to go by except the source novel, but Stanley Kubrick reversed so much. How could he not be tempted to take what every person that knows the story believes, and secretly reverse that also? Stanley Kubrick has us guessing, and fooled, all the way to the end about what’s really causing the Torrance’s visions. I can’t think of one other director that could think up or would even try to pull off a deception like this. When Stephen King said about the film, more "psychological than supernatural"; what do you think he was talking about? Jack could have gone mad anywhere and it may have started a long time before the movie starts. Wendy has been in The Overlook for months yet the “ghosts” waited till the end of the film, the final night as she fears for her life, to appear to her. Throughout the movie she’s seen nothing out of the ordinary. It’s clear that her state of mind after seeing Jack’s novel is what brought out her ability to “Shine”. Then she’s able to see the visions of her worst fears that she couldn’t see before. Jack says in his interview, “She's a confirmed ghost story and horror film addict”. Being chased by her insane killer husband wielding an ax would make anyone scared to death and this coupled with her special ability to “Shine” is what makes her see visions of what appear to us as spirits from the great beyond. Did you know that “ghosts” are only mentioned 2 times in the movie, and each time has something to do with Wendy. Wendy and Jack’s “Shine” seems to evolve as the movie progresses. It’s their current mental state that brings out the special abilities that aren’t obvious to us at other times. Wendy simply doesn’t see any visions until the end of the movie when she’s fighting for her life. In the novel Jack’s possessed by The Overlook, and in the movie we’re led to believe, that it possesses him again. Reversing this without the audience noticing is truly a masterful deception on the director’s part. If you ask anyone who’s seen this movie on the face of the earth, except me, they’ll tell you they’re sure The Overlook is possessed and controlling poor Jack. Everyone believes this, but do you really think it's that simple? I'm saying that the exact opposite is true and;

I will prove it to you.

We’re looking at yet another inverted Kubrickian reflection; the opposite of what we all thought was real. More of the same mirrored alterations he made he made to the novel. And again this is no theory; like the VW and snow mobiles, what's red is now yellow and what's yellow is now red, and in typical Kubrick fashion not even remotely obvious. So very well hidden.





Why doesn’t Dick Hallorann know about room 237 or any of The Overlook’s ‘ghosts’?

One thing has always bothered me and I’ve mentioned it several times earlier. We have a real dilemma here that appears, on the surface, to be a major plot error in Stanley Kubrick’s dialogue. Hardly anyone ever brings this up when discussing the movie because if you believe the hotel is haunted you have to ignore or try to un-explain what I'm going to discuss now. Why doesn’t Dick Hallorann tell Danny any specifics as he talks about their ability to "Shine" in the kitchen? He does in the novel. He tells him all about room 217, Mrs. Massey, the maid, and lots of other stuff; why does Stanley Kubrick have him know nothing about the most important room in the hotel? Dick Hallorann has lived in the Overlook for some time and has the same ability as Danny. He can see and hear the exact same things that Danny can. Dick had to have seen the exact same visions of The Overlook's previous guests. Danny sees the vision of the Grady twins just before he meets Dick Hallorann. If they were lingering around the hotel like "burnt toast" Dick would have known about them. Why doesn’t he warn the boy about this cast of spook show characters they’re all going to meet during their stay? If The Overlook is truly haunted by certain "ghostly" members of the Grady family, Lloyd the bartender, and a crazy old lady in room 237 – he must have seen them also - why doesn’t he tell him about any of them? Now before you put a silly comment at the end of this blog, please read this quote very carefully,

“What about Room 237?”
“Room 237?”
“You're scared of Room 237, ain'tcha?”
“No I ain't.”
“Mr. Hallorann, what is in Room 237?”
“Nothing, there ain't nothing in Room 237”

His answer is simple yet concise, and in the context of this story quite shocking; Dick Hallorann doesn’t know a thing about room 237 at all. In fact Danny has to bring it up in their conversation; yet another reversal of the novel where Dick brings it up. He knows nothing about that room and there’s also no error in me suggesting that he knows absolutely nothing about “ghosts” either. And if he did know anything about a “ghost” haunting room 237 he would have told Danny so;

“Mr. Hallorann, are you scared of this place?”
“No, I'm scared of nothing here.”

In the interview Mr. Ullman tells Jack about the Grady murders and I get the feeling he would also be proud and mention it if his hotel were haunted too. After all he was quite truthful with Jack and did mention several horrible murders that happened there. Wendy would have loved to hear that. The place is haunted. Neither Mr. Ullman nor Dick Hallorann mentions “ghosts” because it isn't until Jack arrives that the hotel becomes “haunted” and if that's an incorrect assumption on my part; prove it. Both Dick Hallorann and Mr. Ullman have been there for years and neither says a thing about “ghosts”. Dick Hallorann is one of the true heroes of American literature, he risks his life for Wendy and Danny and in the film he gives his life for Wendy and Danny. He’s a classic hero in every sense. Yet some believe that he somehow knew something more, and didn’t want to tell Danny the whole story. He doesn’t want to scare young Danny so he tells him nothing about the crazy woman in one of the rooms who’s going to try to kill him. Think about it for a minute, this is an utterly ridiculous and unfounded assumption. Like I showed before with the nicknames, he only tells Danny what he knows. But how can this be so? How can he not know about room 237? He lives in what everyone believes to be a haunted hotel and he also has a supernatural ability that would enable him to see it’s previous guests running around? “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see." Well we know for sure he can "Shine". In the last quote Stanley Kubrick tells us that there is absolutely “nothing” in room 237. “Nothing” is in there and if there were something in that room Dick Hallorann would have known about it and would have told Danny so. He doesn’t tell him because even with his supernatural ability he’s never seen anything in any room; and “Nothing” cannot beat you up. The old woman is a vision that’s not "real". Something else attacks Danny while Jack is sitting at his desk having a nightmare, imagining himself killing his family. And again Stanley Kubrick's dialogue through the mouth of Dick Hallorann couldn’t be more precise and cannot be ignored, “Nothing, there ain't nothing in Room 237”.

Dick Hallorann has true character. He never lies to anyone in the film and Stanley Kubrick uses him to convey to the audience all the facts about "Shining" that we’re aware of. He doesn't know and doesn't tell Danny about "ghosts" haunting The Overlook because he's simply never seen any himself. Just like the nickname and the chocolate ice cream I just spoke about. He doesn’t read minds and doesn’t talk about things that he knows nothing about. While he’s been in the hotel he’s never seen Grady or his daughters and he knows absolutely nothing about room 237. Don’t think that he would use his “Shine” to know the future and be able to see what Jack was going to become later in the story because as I mentioned two sections ago with the Calumet cans; Jack “Out Shines” Dick by quite a bit. They don’t have the ability to read each others minds and he isn’t able to see the ax in his future! But he has lived in the hotel and would know about any “ghosts” running around.



What is the important prop that Stanley Kubrick has placed on Jack’s desk?

It appears that in Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” both Danny and Dick Hallorann have the exact same ability to see visions of previous hotel guests yet the one who’s been there the longest and knows the most about the “Shine”, has seen the least. Again, what’s the reason for this? On the surface it seems the only thing that’s changed in The Overlook is Jack Torrance walking through the front door. He also has the ability to “Shine” and brings this along with his mental illness to the hotel (click here). But there is something else! Jack has seen something inside The Overlook that Dick Hallorann is not aware of and has never seen himself. It's something that Stanley Kubrick barely lets us see and never explains even though it's probably the most important prop in the whole movie. I’ve never even seen this item mentioned in any another Internet article before mine was published. The only reason I ever noticed it was because it moves between shots every time we see it without ever being touched by anyone. I thought it was just a trivial prop and never even knew exactly what it was or it’s significance to the story until I read Stephen King’s novel. The novel is tremendously important for a true understanding of the movie – the two go hand in hand. They’re mirror images of each other, Doppelgängers “If I may be so bold, sir”. Dick Hallorann knows that things happened in The Overlook’s past and tells this to Danny, “I think a lot of things happened right here in this particular hotel over the years, and not all of them was good.” But he doesn’t know any specifics; he especially doesn’t know what any of The Overlook’s previous guests look like. But Jack does! Jack knows exactly what all the most colorful (and dreadful) guests look like. And he knows this on the very first day shortly after his interview with Mr. Ullman. Don’t forget it’s like, “pictures in a book”. But what book? In the dialogue Stanley Kubrick is pointing us to something important, something that only Jack knows about and only he’s seen. It’s the scrapbook that I’m talking about. We see it open on his desk but never really know what it is. When he looks into that scrapbook, he knows exactly what they all look like; the party goers, Lloyd, Grady’s girls, the old woman who killed herself, and the putative “ghost” - Delbert Grady; they’re all pictures in that book and with his special ability Jack makes them come alive in his mind, and than the minds of his family. The mysterious scrapbook is most important to his story and Stanley Kubrick even mentions it in the dialogue. It's easy to pass up this significant statement during the discussion in the bathroom when Jack says to Grady, “I saw your picture in the newspapers” he’s referring to the unexplained scrapbook we see open on his desk throughout the movie. It's simple, if Jack had never opened it up he would never know what Grady, or any of the others, looked like (he might not have ever gone mad either). Dick Hallorann has obviously never seen it or had any access to it. This is why he isn’t specific with Danny. He’s not a mind reader and doesn’t mention anything about the previous unsavory guests to Danny because he doesn’t know anything about them. He’s only seen “all the best” people’s pictures; if they aren't on the walls - Dick knows nothing about them. It’s Jack and his ability to “Shine” these images into the others mind's that makes all of the previous guests and the hotel itself seem to come alive. But remember what I mentioned in the beginning of this blog; Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook never makes so much as a single spooky sound, no screams, no eerie moans or groans, not a single creek. Now you know the reason for this.



When does Jack first look into the scrapbook?

We never actually see anyone look into the scrapbook but Stanley Kubrick lets us know that Jack has had an opportunity to see it right from the start of the film. Proof of this is in the script taken from the interview in Mr. Ullman's office at the beginning of the movie;

“Bill, I'd like you to meet Jack Torrance ... ”
“Jack is going to take care of the Overlook for this winter. I'd like you to take him around the place soon as we're through ... ”
“Well, before I turn you over to Bill, there is one other thing I think we should talk about. I don't want to sound melodramatic, but it is something that's ... ”
“I don't suppose they ah told you anything in Denver about the tragedy we had up here during the winter of 1970? ... ”
“(Grady) ran amok and ah ... killed his family with an ax … stacked them neatly in one of the rooms in the West Wing, and then he ah ... then he put both barrels of his shotgun in his mouth.”

The script shows that Bill Watson took Jack "around the place" after the initial interview and that Jack knows about the Grady murder suicide. He knows about the murder suicide and he immediately sees pictures of what the Grady's look like. If you missed this clue in the dialogue you would think that Jack's only tour of The Overlook occurred later with Mr. Ullman and the rest of his family. The reality is that Jack goes on 2 tours. Bill Watson takes him on his 1st tour right after the phone call to Wendy telling her about getting the job – just before Danny’s 1st vision of the bloody elevators - just before Danny has his seizure in the bathroom – before any “ghosts” appear in the film. Jack knows what the two girls look like from the scrapbook right from the start before anything supernatural ever happens. He “Shines” that image of them into Danny’s head in the bathroom exactly the same way he “Shines” room 237 into Dick Hallorann’s head as he sits in his bed in sunny Florida, thousands of miles away. Exactly the same way Dick Hallorann “Shines” his voice into to Danny’s mind at the beginning of the film. I believe Danny’s vision of the bloody elevator happens at the same moment that Jack looks into the scrapbook on his first tour of The Overlook. Stanley Kubrick doesn’t let us see the first time Jack looks into the scrapbook but don’t let the short duration of the cut between the phone call and Danny’s seizure in the bathroom fool you into thinking there wasn’t enough time. We don’t know for sure exactly how long Danny was standing at the sink. The tour with Bill Watson is when Jack had the opportunity to know about the scrapbook's existence and also look into it.
In the novel (Chapter 17, page 97) Danny has a vision in the doctor’s office. Tony shows him Jack finding The Overlook’s immensely important scrapbook on his own, hidden in the hotel’s basement, and that’s where it stays throughout the story. The hotel uses it to lure Jack, and Danny knows “that some books should not be opened”. This Sentence is so important and Stanley Kubrick utilizes it twice in his film. In the novel the manager lures Jack into the basement where he decides to write a novel about The Overlook (page 151); “He would write it because the Overlook had enchanted him — could any other explanation be so simple or so true? He would write it for the reason he felt that all great literature, fiction and nonfiction, was written: truth comes out, in the end it always comes out. He would write it because he felt he had to.” In the movie this is all inverted, as Jack writes nothing at all. He just copies the same plagiarized nonsense over and over. Stanley Kubrick is so clever; Jack isn’t a writer at all in the film. He makes the scrapbook in the film another book that should definitely, “not be opened”. He’s taken one more sentence from the novel and secretly inserted it’s meaning into his story. Stanley Kubrick craftily downplays the unexplained scrapbook placing it innocuously on Jack's desk throughout the movie but it's just as important there; only you might have never realized it if you didn't read this blog. This simple line, “some books should not be opened” is taken by Stanley Kubrick and made into a cornerstone of his story because the scrapbook in his film is where the "ghosts" reside.



How do I know there’s no basement in Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook?

Stanley Kubrick reverses the novel where the scrapbook never leaves the basement. In the movie the scrapbook is never in the basement in the first place because in his Overlook there isn’t any basement. I mentioned this before; think about the scene in the movie as Wendy runs to Jack during his nightmare. The boilers are on the same floor as the Colorado Lounge. If you don’t think this is correct watch the scene again very closely. We see the spot where Wendy appears during Jack’s nightmare earlier as Danny takes his trike tour. We can see that there are no stairs that could lead down to a basement in that area. Stanley Kubrick put only EXIT signs there, no stairs to run up, and no basement to leave the scrapbook in. Even though Mr. Ullman says this in the dialogue, “Dick, can we borrow Mrs. Torrance for a few minutes? We're on our way through to the basement – I promise we won't keep her very long.” There is no basement in Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook, it doesn’t exist.



As they talk in the kitchen, is Dick Hallorann lying to Danny about the visions he may see in the hotel?

The reason why Dick Hallorann never sees anything out of the ordinary in his time at The Overlook is because The Overlook’s "ghosts" only come alive after that scrapbook has been opened. What an incredibly well hidden plot point. Dick Hallorann has never seen the book before and it’s the reason why he never tells Danny any specifics about the previous guests from The Overlook’s past. This cannot be ignored, he obviously doesn’t know what any of them look like, and he can't tell Danny about something he's never actually seen. He does tell him that his special supernatural ability will enable him to see things though; “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who 'shine' can see.”, but he obviously can’t tell him exactly what he will see. Again just like this quote before proved,

Danny; “What about Room 237?
Dick Hallorann; “Room 237?”

Even the most ardent skeptics about what I'm implying must admit that Dick, remarkably, doesn’t know a thing about that important room. You may think that from watching the actor’s expressions alone you can imagine that Dick Hallorann is somehow afraid of that room, or that he's trying to protect Danny by telling him to, “Stay out of room 237”. Or you may know deep in your heart that Dick Hallorann is lying or maybe he’s putting on a brave face while obviously being terrified. But this is all just guessing because I can say what I believe; Dick Hallorann’s expression is that of sheer astonishment. Stanley Kubrick has hidden this so well by using dialogue instead of visual clues. He knows the audience will fixate on the actor's expression, than what he actually says flies right over our heads. It’s manipulation by a master. What we’re seeing on his face is sheer astonishment that Danny knows something about room 237, a room that Dick knows absolutely nothing about. And my explanation takes into account the two inseparable bits of information that Stanley Kubrick has given us; the actor’s expression combined with what he says. There is no way whatsoever to discern alone which explanation is correct but what's in the dialogue is utterly clear, “Nothing, there ain't nothing in Room 237”. This fact can’t be ignored or changed. He says what he says and in Stanley Kubrick’s story Dick Hallorann never lies or misleads anyone.

In the novel Danny knows that, “... they lie here. Everything is a lie and a cheat.” (page 292) This is the core of Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant manipulation of the audience and this thought never pops into anyone’s mind at all. He's in total control of what we're perceiving at any given moment. We’re taken in one direction by what we see on the screen but than we're told something entirely different in the dialogue. Both must be taken together. But it’s in the dialogue that most of the explanation of “The Shining” is hidden. What Stanley Kubrick has Dick Hallorann say in this story is the gospel truth. If the two "ghosts" of the Grady twins that he mentions in the dialogue are what "isn't real" (Remember; when Danny and Dick talk in the kitchen, Danny has already seen the vision of the Grady twins.), how can you possibly believe that Delbert Grady is not the exact same thing; a vision inside a persons mind that "isn't real" and is "just like pictures in a book"? This comes from the mouth of the expert on the subject of "Shining", not from me. If you believe that Grady's "ghost" opens the storeroom door releasing Jack it goes against the dialogue directly from Stanley Kubrick’s pen. This is a movie, not real life and Dick Hallorann is the only person that knows anything. Either you believe everything Dick Hallorann says or you believe nothing he says; there is no in between. It’s about truth and lies. If you choose not to believe everything Dick Hallorann’s character says in the movie you'll need to clarify the criteria you're using to pinpoint what's true and what's a lie. In the context of this film this will be a very slippery slope for you. What are you going to use to figure out the truth; are you going to believe only certain things he says, every other thing he says, just what he says on Tuesday, what only seems right in your mind, what fits your specific agenda? None of this alters the fact that in the context of Stanley Kubrick’s story, he’s either telling the truth or he isn’t.

I choose to believe Dick Hallorann when he says this line, “They've turned out to be completely unreliable assholes. Ullman phoned me last night, and I'm supposed to go up there and find out if they have to be replaced.” It’s his explanation of why he’s returning to The Overlook and I believe it because I never heard Dick Hallorann lie to anyone in the story. His statement is the truth and it’s proof that Mr. Ullman “Shines”. This doesn’t disturb the reality of this movie one bit, “But, there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it, or believe it” Who is Stanley Kubrick referring to in this sentence? Mr. Ullman was watching the very same vision of Jack walking into room 237 as Danny and Dick because the phones are out and he had no possible way of knowing this except by first hand knowledge. “They've turned out to be completely unreliable assholes”; Mr. Ullman knows this because when he sees that vision he knows something has happened. He knows Jack has opened the scrapbook. I’ve never seen anyplace in the story where Dick Hallorann ever lies or misleads anyone. If you’re skeptical about all this I’d like you to go through the dialogue and indicate where he’s lying and where he’s telling the truth and post it so I can know for sure. You can start by un-explaining this line that ‘The Cult of Grady’ has so many problems with, “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said. It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real.” If Dick Hallorann ever lies – go to the end of this blog and prove it! And if you can’t there’s no reason I can find why I shouldn’t believe what he says. I’m not interested in opinions; if Stanley Kubrick has him ever lie to anyone in this story, prove it.



In his conversation with Dick Hallorann how does Danny know about room 237?

One person’s vision cannot become another’s “ghost”. An inanimate hallucination cannot move something. The beating Danny gets, Jack’s yellow ball rolling toward him as he plays on the carpet, the red key in the door, and Grady opening the locked storeroom door all have the same explanation. There’s only one evil entity inside The Overlook and we know from Dick Hallorann in the kitchen that "nothin" scares him before Jack Torrance shows up. Jack does it all himself. He has the ability to “Shine” visions into others minds and can also move things through telekinesis. And he's going slowly and completely nuts. But how could Danny know about room 237 on his first day in the hotel when he brings it up during the discussion with Dick Hallorann in the kitchen? The room was never mentioned to Jack in the interview. Again the dialogue tells us Jack learns about the murder suicide from Mr. Ullman just before his tour of the hotel with Bill Watson. After looking into the scrapbook Jack knows exactly what happened to the old woman and he knows which room it is - 237. With his supernatural ability he's able to "Shine" that image and the room number into Danny's mind the same way he "Shines" the image of room 237 into Dick Hallorann's head in Florida. It's exactly the same as with the Grady twins. Think about this. How could an inanimate vision of the Grady girls that Dick Hallorann tells us "isn't real" possibly know Danny's name as he has his vision of them in the hallway saying, "Come play with us Danny .... "? There’s no way they would know his name. If they’re a vision that Stanley Kubrick tells us, “are like pictures in a book” they couldn’t possibly know Danny’s name as they would just be an image lingering around The Overlook like “burnt toast”. He would be able to see them and know what happened to them but they wouldn’t talk to him or know his name. He’d be seeing a vision of the past and nothing more. But Jack knows Danny’s name and also knows what the girls look like from the scrapbook. He "Shines" the visions into Danny’s head the same way he "Shines" the room number 237, and Stanley Kubrick's dialogue proves all this. When Jack “Shines” he’s able to make it appear to Danny that the vision of the 2 girls is actually speaking to him.



How does Stanley Kubrick’s dialogue prove the ghosts are all in Jack’s mind?

Stanley Kubrick has Jack repeat the same obvious line, "I wish we could stay here for ever, and ever, ever." as the Grady girls, "Come and play with us, Danny, for ever, and ever, and ever". In the movie Jack’s subconscious is obviously the author of this line similar to a ghost’s line in the novel, (page 197, Chapter 34). “If you can't save me at least come play with me... forever, and forever, and forever.)”. Look at this other quote from the novel (page 228, chapter 41 "Daylight"), "Get it up!" the drunken dog man cried out from around the corner. His voice was both violent and despairing. "Get it up, Harry you bitch-bastard! I don't care how many casinos and airlines and movie companies you own! I know what you like in the privacy of your own h-home! Get it up! I'll huff... and I'll puff ... until Harry Derwent's all bloowwwwn down!" He ended with a long, chilling howl that seemed to turn into a scream of rage and pain just before it dwindled off." The fact that Stanley Kubrick takes this line from Roger's I'll huff... and I'll puff ... speech in Stephen King's novel and has Jack say it in the film as he's axing down the bathroom door is so obvious. This is just beautiful. Stanley Kubrick has Jack saying the “ghost’s” lines from the novel. He’s subliminally telling us that the ghosts from Stephen King’s novel have now become Jack Torrance. Here’s something else that’s interesting about the scene of Jack breaking down the door with the ax. Stanley Kubrick may have been inspired to change a Roque mallet into an ax by a 1921 Swedish silent film "The Phantom Carriage" (Körkarlen). The date 1921 is not only in the final photo, he has it pop up several other times in “The Shining”.

Stanley Kubrick said this in his interview with Michel Ciment, “I've always been interested in ESP and the paranormal…. I thought {The Shining} was one of the most ingenious and exciting stories of the genre I had read. It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing…” This is so brilliant. What balls! He’s telling Michel Ciment exactly what he’s done to Stephen King’s novel and poor Michel doesn’t realize a thing. Now the audience cannot “suspend [their] doubt of the supernatural” for one moment. Even when the very explanation is told to them several times in the dialogue. Delbert Grady "isn't real" and in the movie his image is all in Jack's mind, he's "just like pictures in a book". A masterful deception that I know will make the heads of a lot of my readers explode. Stanley Kubrick helped perpetuate Stephen King’s brilliant creation but he makes the answer to the question of whether or not the place is haunted quite obvious in the dialogue, it “isn’t real”. What book do you think Stanley Kubrick is referring to, and just what “isn’t real”? It’s the scrapbook on Jack's desk that the, "pictures in a book" line is pointing us to. The most famous haunted hotel in history, The Overlook, and in the movie we’ve all been fooled by the master; it isn’t haunted at all. Unbelievable!





How does Stanley Kubrick indicate in his dialogue that The Overlook doesn’t “Shine”?

You might be saying to yourself that deep down I know it’s The Overlook making the Torrance’s see these visions. After all if they can “Shine” visions into each others minds than the hotel can do the same thing to them. Except the hotel doesn’t “Shine”. It’s the opened scrapbook filtered through Jack Torrance’s sick mind that makes the hotel seem to come alive for its guests. For me this is no longer a subject of debate but at one point I wondered if The Overlook actually could “Shine” like it’s guests and possibly be the cause behind the supernatural occurrences that happen inside it. It's a plausible explanation but then I looked deeper. Murders and deaths happened at the hotel but we’ve never seen and just don’t know, for comparisons sake, exactly what it was like before Jack appeared there. And I do believe that Jack is causing the supernatural occurrences inside it. Danny is the reason for what happens in the novel and we know this because Stephen King tells it to us. But with the movie we’re not so lucky and if Jack’s the reason for what’s happening there how could we ever know, not having seen what took place in the hotel before the Torrance’s arrival? But we do know someone who knows exactly what it was like before they showed up because he’s worked in the hotel for some time and also has the ability to "Shine". As I mentioned before when Danny talks with him over ice cream Dick Hallorann obviously has no knowledge of the hotel having the same special power that they posses. Stanley Kubrick even tells us in the dialogue that the hotel doesn’t “Shine” so there should, in theory, be no confusion about this. When Dick says this to Danny, “It's just that, you know, some places are like people. Some 'shine' and some don't. I guess you could say The Overlook Hotel here has somethin' about it that’s like 'shining'." We have to take this as coming from someone that knows exactly what they’re talking about. Stanley Kubrick is an expert on the use of our language; “Somethin' about it that’s like 'shining” is not the same thing as “Shining”, it’s somethin’ like it and nothing more. If you look at what Dick and Danny are talking about over ice cream you’ll see he’s simply telling him not to go into room 237, not to poke around The Overlook because with his special ability he'll see frightening things. He definitely would have told him if it was dangerous or if someone was in that room waiting to kill him and this cannot be ignored or explained away. Everyone believes that The Overlook is haunted, making Jack go insane, and causing its inhabitants to see things. But there’s not a shred of proof anyone can point to that any of this is caused by the hotel at all. If you find this hard to believe and feel that The Overlook has the same ability to “Shine” as it’s guests just think about this; as I mentioned before everything we’re told about “Shining” comes from one source, the lips of Dick Hallorann. Whether we’re reading the novel or looking at the movie, he’s the only one that knows anything or says anything about it. He’s the board certified expert on the subject and we never hear him lie to anyone. You can't pick and choose what you are or you are not going to believe from Dick Hallorann's lips. Again this is a very slippery slope. The way Stanley Kubrick uses him to hide things in plain sight from the audience has to be marveled at. At first Dick Hallorann tells Danny that, “Some places are like people. Some 'shine' and some don't." Now the audience knows that not only people possess the "Shine". But then in the next sentence he tells us that The Overlook is not one of those "places" that "Shine". I guess you could say The Overlook Hotel here has somethin' about it that’s like 'shining'." Again, “Somethin' about it that’s like 'shining” is not the same thing as “Shining”. It's just like Heaven. Somethin' about it that's like Heaven may be very nice but it’s not the same thing as Heaven.



“Nothing. There ain't nothing in Room 237, but you ain't got no business going in there anyway, so stay out! You understand, stay out!”

Dick knows that Danny with his special talent might see the echo of something horrible that happened in the hotel’s past, exactly like what he knew the maid in the novel saw; a vision of the old woman who committed suicide in room 217. In the novel, The Overlook acts as a conduit and people who “Shine” can see the channeled echoes of what’s happened in its past. On the surface it appears that the same thing is happening in the movie; but now the conduit is Jack after he opens the scrapbook.



Does Wendy see ‘ghosts’ when she “Shines”?

Wendy’s visions are also because of her special ability, and not because The Overlook is haunted or exerts any exotic powers. And she isn’t going crazy. She sees what’s happened there in the past. Listen again to the words of an expert on the subject, “Well, you know Doc, when something happens it can leave a trace of itself behind. Say like if someone burns toast.” Stanley Kubrick explains everything in his dialogue, as Dick Hallorann says, “Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who ‘Shine’ can see. Just like they can see things that haven't happened yet. Well, sometimes they can see things that happened a long time ago. I think a lot of things happened right here in this particular hotel over the years, and not all of them was good.” Wendy also “Shines” and it’s that ability that enables her to see the visions of previous guests that I mentioned earlier like the popular putative ghost of Horace Derwent,

and the old bloody gentlemen.

Both of whom many believe were mentioned in the novel.


Looking into the scrapbook is what started Jack’s visions. During the final chase scene Wendy is the only one who sees any visions and they all happen after we see The Overlook’s scrapbook closed for the first time on Jack’s desk. It’s another book that starts Wendy’s visions. She never sees anything supernatural until after she looks into Jack’s novel “All Work And No Play Makes Jack A Dull Boy”. At first I thought I had a problem with her visions because there seem to be actual “ghosts” in one of them. I can’t say that The Overlook isn’t haunted if I can’t explain what this vision is.
If you look closely we aren’t looking at “ghosts” what we’re seeing are skeletons and the first thing that comes to mind is that they’re the skeletons of the party guests that Jack imagines. But if it is it’s the remains of the party guests we’re seeing, not “ghosts” of the party guests. She’s seeing a vision of what Jack’s imaginary friends look like now, in their future. What they look like in their graves.



Where is a list of the visions in “The Shining”?

If you think about it the visions in this movie are the only occurrences that would lead us to believe The Overlook may be haunted, or is exerting any supernatural powers. This is what the director wants us to believe but his dialogue tells us something different. It might be interesting for you to stop now and take a look at a list of the visions the character’s experience in “The Shining” (click Here).



If The Overlook is haunted how did it lose all its powers at the end of the film?

If you still believe the hotel is haunted you have a tremendous and quite obvious conundrum that needs explaining and I’ve mentioned it in a previous section. For those who insist on believing that The Overlook is controlling poor Jack, and refuse to look at other explanations, think about this; how is it that the “ghosts” or “demons” that possess the hotel were able to lure him to the Overlook, show themselves to Jack, mysteriously let him out of the storeroom and help him throughout the movie, yet they couldn’t show him the way out of the maze at the end when he had a very sharp ax and the hotel was lit up like a Christmas Tree? You can say that the movie had to end somehow but how did The Overlook utterly loose all of its special power so quickly? Even when Wendy and Danny were right in the middle of The Hedge Maze. That would have been a perfect time to off them; nothing happened! Some say Jack slipped to far into madness and the hotel was not able to help or control him anymore, but this is nonsense. The Overlook never controlled any of them. This is not how a truly possessed hotel would have let it end. Throughout the movie there’s no indication that Jack’s level of mental illness did anything to hinder him in his mission as he progressively got sicker and sicker. Think about it, The Overlook didn’t loose any powers in the end of “The Shining”; it never had any powers in the first place. It’s all Jack and Jack is the key. And don't forget that he doesn't know about his special ability and this is explained in the dialogue, “... there are other folks though mostly they don’t know it, or believe it”



What about Stanley Kubrick’s Indian burial ground?

...“Where'er we tread 'tis haunted, holy ground.” - Lord Byron

It may take a little time for you to digest all this. Even though I don't, you may still believe with all your heart that The Overlook Hotel is haunted. Well there may be a glimmer of hope you can hold onto. In the dialogue Stanley Kubrick infers that there’s something else that may be haunted. I didn’t mention this in the section about “things that move” but one of the biggest and most obvious continuity errors in “The Shining” is their breath. There are scenes taking place in sub zero temperatures but you can’t see their breath, the “white plume” as Stephen King describes it in the novel. In the final chase it’s very distracting but it happens anytime they’re outside and even in the freezer scene with Dick Hallorann. This must mean something, it's just so obvious. Here's something else Stanley Kubrick has changed from the novel. The guy who takes Jack around on his first tour, Bill Watson, is related to the original owner of The Overlook. His grandfather built the place and the first soul to die there was his son as it was being built. Watson is the owner of the scrapbook in the novel. In the film we know none of this and Stanley Kubrick makes this seemingly insignificant alteration as Mr. Ullman tells us that, “The site is supposed to be located on an Indian burial ground, and I believe they actually had to repel a few Indian attacks as they were building it.” This is never mentioned in the novel but some believe the spirits of dead Indians are inhabiting The Overlook. As I mentioned several times already Stanley Kubrick is a master at using the English language and if you read the words very closely this sentence is obvious hearsay. Mr. Ullman has no firsthand knowledge of what he’s saying to them. It’s just a rumor that was obviously included by Stanley Kubrick to keep Indians in viewer’s minds through the movie (again it’s nowhere to be found in the novel). Through the years it has certainly worked well. Stanley Kubrick also adds this in the dialogue so you'll know it's all a joke as Mr. Ullman tells them the year that The Overlook was built, “construction began in 1907 and was finished in 1909.” There were no "Indian attacks" in 1907 or 1909. But even though, the Indian burial ground rumor has a lot of mysterious significance for some, because it can’t be disproved, The Overlook may actually be built on an ancient burial ground. In the novel The Overlook is possessed by evil but in the movie it’s the ground that may very well be where the evil lies. Even though we see snow, and frigid temperatures are “suggested”, the air is obviously not cold. This is worth thinking about; there may be a reason we don’t see their breath. There may be heat we can’t see that’s coming from way down in hell. But it’s still Jack that has the power in the film, and he’s slipping into insanity. In the movie there’s nothing that can be firmly pointed to which can be used as evidence that The Overlook is haunted or can even “Shine” (I also find no correlation between the scrapbook and the Indian burial ground). My explanations are just as plausible and are backed up by the film’s dialogue. If you’d like to read my take on the American Indian – “Shining” connection theory click here.



Could Stanley Kubrick actually pull off such a deception; a movie about a haunted hotel that isn’t really haunted?

The novel is so important in the understanding of Stanley Kubrick’s film. He’s showing us a mirror image of it and if you haven’t read it, and have only seen the movie, you would never know about this. The questions posed by this movie would have no answer and what I’m writing now would make no sense at all. You only have half of the story if you don’t include how he altered the novel. And if you attempt to explain the movie’s most enigmatic questions without acknowledging what he’s done; you’ll end up guessing, and probably being wrong. If you’ve gotten this far in my blog maybe you should think of checking out the novel. I know it’s hard for anyone reading this to accept what I believe that the movie’s Overlook is not haunted as it is in Stephen King’s novel, but you must ask yourself after all I’ve just shown you; where do Stanley Kubrick’s reversals to the novel stop? Would he actually not invert the most obvious plot point in the whole story? Would a perfectionist go so far and then just stop? You must be wondering about this right now, and you must be realizing; this is not Stephen King’s Overlook. Here the Torrance’s are doing everything to themselves. It’s not Stephen King’s Overlook, it’s Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook and he did go all the way. But some people still want the “ghosts” to be real and will resist any notion that they aren’t. It’s almost like telling someone there’s no Saint Nick. Hopeless, till it eventually sinks in. Stanley Kubrick could come back from the grave and explain it all but they still won’t accept what’s in his dialogue and images if it goes against a pet ‘theory’. This is what I believe "The shining" is actually about. The faith people put into this story is unshakable and Stanley Kubrick may actually be mocking that type of faith.





What did Stanley Kubrick say to others about “The Shining”?

In “Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures”, Jack Nicholson recalls that Kubrick said “The Shining" is an optimistic story because "anything that says there's anything after death is ultimately an optimistic story." Stephen King actually says the same thing when he talks about the time Stanley Kubrick called him at home and I think this conversation (1:23 into video) was where he got the idea to pose Jack the way he did in the final photo (next section). Are you still sure this is an optimistic story? Don’t think that this statement alters anything I’ve written. Stanley Kubrick just does the same sly thing to Jack Nicholson that he did in his interview with Michel Ciment. What a piece of work! Talk to him about “The Shining” and he gives an answer that pertains to the novel, and not his film. By now you should know that the two stories, like Charles and Delbert Grady, are two entirely different entities. But still ask anyone what the most famous haunted hotel in the world is and you’ll get the same answer; The Overlook, and it actually doesn’t even exist. He definitely succeeded in putting one over on everyone; Stanley Kubrick has made a movie about a haunted hotel (the most famous haunted hotel in history) that in his version is actually not haunted at all. What other director would or could even try to pull something like this off. Again the proof is in the treatment he gave to Stephen King's novel. The inversions I’ve already pointed out cannot be ignored; where do they end? Like I just mentioned, does anyone really think a perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick would stop right at the end in his alteration of the source material? I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a valid reason why he would not alter the very core of the story in the same way he altered the color of the Volkswagens and snowmobiles, or the locations of each scene. If you think about it there's not one shred of evidence anyone can point to that the movie Overlook, as evil as the ground it was built on may be, has done anything to, or affected it’s inhabitants in any way. It’s just where the story takes place and nothing more. There’s just as much evidence that they did it all to themselves, and that’s the beauty of it; the ambiguity. What I’m saying is very controversial but why would Stanley Kubrick make this point so ambiguous if his Overlook were actually (as everyone believes) haunted?





............................. Music


Why Is Jack In That Photo From 1921 At The End Of The Movie?

“Wild, dark times are rumbling toward us, and the prophet who wishes to write a new apocalypse will have to invent entirely new beasts… “ - Heinrich Heine



Stephen King gets it; that’s why he hates the film. He may not know the answer to his most puzzling question, ‘why he did this’? But he knows exactly what Stanley Kubrick did to his story. He knew the moment he saw that ugly yellow Volkswagen at the beginning of the movie. Yet for the audience the most puzzling question about “The Shining” still is and will always be; why is Jack in the photo at the end of the movie? Stephen King knows exactly what that’s all about also. You’re not going to believe it when I show you where Stanley Kubrick got the idea for the July 4th picture. The one place no one ever thinks of looking for the answer to this question is in fact the place where the secret of the final photo is. But in the film’s reality just how did it get up there on The Overlook’s wall because it only appears in that spot at the end of the film? It's a continuity error; the most famous hidden continuity error in the history of film. Every other time we’re shown that wall Stanley Kubrick has us see a different set of photos hanging there and Jack is not there until the end.

In Stephen King’s novel Jack dies inside The Overlook by burning to death in the boiler explosion that destroys the hotel. But nothing that simple happens in the film. In another reflected image of the source novel viewed in the Kubrickian mirror; at the end of the movie we undeniably see the exact opposite, Jack frozen solid outside with The Overlook Hotel still standing. But what seems to have been included in the original director's cut, shown to the first audiences and than later removed by Stanley Kubrick, is that the police couldn’t find any evidence of what Wendy and Danny said they saw in the hotel. This is very important. For all we know they imagined the whole thing (that’s something to ponder). But the audience is still left looking at the most puzzling and enigmatic picture in the annals of moviemaking.




Before I talk about where the idea for the July 4th photo came from you need to know what’s unusual about it. If you just want to enjoy “The Shining” on a basic level what’s in this article won’t matter to you, but if your desire is to delve into a deeper understand of this film we’ll need to first look very carefully at the anomalies contained in the July 4th picture. You can’t really let anything pass by. What level do you want to perceive this movie on? Are you going to believe what’s written on the photo or are you going to believe your own eyes? Stanley Kubrick purposely created a cinematic enigma that he knew viewers would be trying to understand for a very long time. In a beautifully simple way he made the ending of this movie as hard as possible to figure out because the more you look at it, the more you notice. And the more you notice, the more there is to question. No one can argue that Stanley Kubrick release a finished work looking exactly the way he wanted it to. The final shot sequence in this film took several days to complete. It was well planned out ahead of time and what we see on the screen was placed there purposely. And the source of his ideas came directly from Stephen King's novel. It is what it is and can’t be changed. It’s easy to prove that Jack Torrance’s character had never been inside The Overlook Hotel before. But it’s the opposite of what most believe because of this brilliantly manipulative seemingly iconic final picture.



Why do so many people insist that Jack Torrance is a reincarnation of a previous caretaker who had worked in The Overlook?

Stanley Kubrick includes three obvious clues that would lead anyone to the belief that Jack’s been reincarnated and had worked in The Overlook at a previous time. After looking at them you may be wondering how anyone could pose such a seemingly outrageous idea that Jack Torrance has never been in The Overlook Hotel before? But either he was or he wasn’t and Stanley Kubrick wants you to believe that he was. First Jack says this to Wendy as he gets served breakfast in bed, “It was as though I had been here before” Second, you have Grady’s famous line, “I'm sorry to differ with you, sir, but you are the caretaker. You have always been the caretaker, I should know, sir. I've always been here”.

Then we see it! Jack appears standing with partygoers in the black-and-white picture dated July 4th 1921. Ask anybody who’s seen "The Shining" if Jack Torrance has ever been there before and they will all use this photo as irrefutable proof of it. After all it does say “Overlook Hotel” and what it says has to be right, right? How brilliantly the audience has been lead by the nose to this conclusion. It's never questioned. But what if the photo is another of the film’s visions, “just like pictures in a book”? What if isn’t real?

‘Of course he's been reincarnated, I’ve seen a picture of Jack with a date under it from 1921 and I’m absolutely sure of it, it has to be true; are you f’ing crazy?’ The reincarnation theory of Jack Torrance is just that, a theory. The photo is too easy to interpret in that way and we know for a fact that Stanley Kubrick doesn’t ever make things nice and easy for viewer’s interpretation. That's why you're here reading my article. Look closely at the photo. If you really believe it could be this simple why are you reading this article? You know the answer already and you need not read any further as it will just upset you. If you think the July 4 photo shows that Jack has been reincarnated from a previous life and this is as far as you’d like to delve into Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece then you’ve already figured out the most perplexing mystery in the history of film. Why go any further?


He’s masterfully manipulated the audience yet again. On the surface the picture is just to easy to explain and Stanley Kubrick put these three specific suggestions into our heads that would lead anyone on first viewing to the conclusion that Jack Torrance was at The Overlook in a past life. But you’ve been fooled; Jack’s never been in the hotel before, hasn’t returned, and isn’t Grady reincarnated. Some people hold onto this reincarnation theory like a child's unshakable belief in Santa Claus. But no matter how hard you sound like Natalie Wood saying, “I believe, I believe” it’s just never going to be so. Yet again a master has manipulated his viewers.



"What three suggestions does Stanley Kubrick use to plant it in the audience’s minds that Jack has returned to The Overlook?"

Look closely at the first suggestion; Jack’s statement to Wendy in their bedroom, “It was as though I had been here before. We all have moments of deja vu, but this was ridiculous.” doesn’t prove anything as feelings of “Déjà vu” do not mean you’ve actually been somewhere before. This is simply a suggestion “Shined” straight into our heads by Stanley Kubrick. He wants his audience to believe something. But in the film’s reality, why could Jack believe he’s been there before? Think about this. Jack also reveals to Wendy, “It was almost as though I knew what was going to be around every corner.” for a very good reason. He has the ability to “Shine”! He’s seen the inside of The Overlook exactly the same way that Danny saw the bloody elevator in his bathroom and Dick Hallorann saw room 237 in Florida. They all have the same ability to see visions, “But there are other folks, though mostly they don't know it, or don't believe it”. Jack doesn’t know it! Before he went for the job he’s seen visions or had dreams about The Overlook and this is why he tells wendy about “Déjà vu”. But this conversation from someone who sees ‘visions’ simply can not be used as proof that he’s ever been inside The Overlook before.

Grady’s famous line, “I'm sorry to differ with you, sir, but you are the caretaker. You have always been the caretaker, I should know, sir. I've always been here.” isn’t proof that Jack’s returned to the hotel either because what if Grady's lying? After all he is supposed to be an evil ghost of a nut who murdered his entire family. What if he’s flat out lying? Think about this, in the film Jack’s caretaker of The Overlook in name only. He has not “always been the caretaker” because never lifts a finger inside the hotel except to type nonsense or to kill other cast members. Reincarnated or not, he’s not a caretaker at all! Grady is lying to Jack, “....I should know, sir. I've always been here.” If he’s ‘always been’ there, where is Grady’s face in the final photo? He’s lying!

But that picture of Jack at the July 4th, 1921 party; it just can’t be explained away. On the surface it seems obvious that he’s been inside the hotel before; it’s so clear; Jack in the 1989’s must have been reincarnated as we see him attending a party in 1921. But when you look at the picture closely every single thing about it is a paradox. The image of Jack standing there is akin to a religious icon. Everyone has an unshakable belief in what they’re seeing and this shows the enormous power that can be infused into one enigmatic image. It has a weird glow around it. You may have already guessed; if it were in color the glow would be reddish. There’s a strange faith people have in it. That it’s telling us something truly important about “The Shining” and because of this it's a truly unquestioned image. It says “Overlook Hotel” so that has to be correct. How could anyone not see or believe this? The picture is a lie though, and the audience must be aware of the visual inconsistencies contained there before coming to any firm conclusion about it. These inconsistencies can’t be explained away or ignored, and I believe when I show them to you they, along with where Stanley Kubrick got the idea for the photo, will prove without a doubt that the picture depicts something else and even though you have a certain perception after viewing "The Shining", Jack Torrance hasn’t been reincarnated. The inconsistencies are all one big ball of wax. You can’t just look at one or two of these anomalies and think you’ve got it all figured out. They have to be addressed as a whole because Stanley Kubrick included all of them in this one photo.



What self-contradictions has Stanley Kubrick placed in the July 4th photo (click on each link for an in-depth discussion)?


Click on each link for an in-depth discussion.

First off the definition of reincarnation is precise; the rebirth of a soul in a [new] body. It’s Jack’s face we see and by the very definition he cannot have been reincarnated because he still looks the same.

It says July 4th but we’re not looking at a summer party. Stanley Kubrick has airbrushed in another obvious clue that it's a New Year's Eve party.

Jack Torrance is not the caretaker in the picture he’s someone special, he’s the manager.

Delbert Grady, Lloyd and the others are top “ghosts” inside the hotel and must be in that final photo – yet they aren’t there.

It’s not The Overlook; look at the palm tree dead center. The picture hasn’t been taken in any room of the hotel. It's such a brilliant but simple deception. Just look at it. What’s written on it is obviously a lie. Jack is not in The Overlook in that picture, no matter what it says. If it is The Overlook go to the end of the blog and prove your point. Link a screenshot from the movie to indicate where this room is located.

Jack Torrance doesn’t belong in that picture.

Stanley Kubrick precisely dates the party in the 1921 photo and the party that Jack imagines seeing in the Gold Room by what we’re hearing. Listen to the song playing in the background soundtrack. It’s from 1932, not 1921. Stanley Kubrick is telling us again that something is not right about the photo.

Jack and Charles Grady were obviously both alive at the same time in 1970. You can’t be the reincarnation of someone who is alive at the same time you are.

Where are all the other caretakers?

It’s not a Ball or a Ballroom.

Stanley Kubrick has Jack singing a special song from the year 1921 just before he dies.

The final picture is not there on the wall at any other time in the movie. It appears only after Jack’s death (and I’ll discuss this again later in this section).

The entire photo is a fake and was specifically produced this way. We know this from Stanley Kubrick’s interview with Michel Ciment. Jack Nicholson's face was airbrushed onto someone else’s body. To quote Danny's imaginary friend Tony again, “it's like pictures in a book “, "it isn't real".

The July 4th photo is (supposed to be) exactly the same as the famous photo of Lee Harvey Oswald with his face purportedly airbrushed in by the CIA. When someone's face is airbrushed onto another’s body there’s only one way to describe the photo; it's been faked. Ton’s of analisis was made on this photo through the years but the one thing no conspiricy nut will ever bring up is; who took the photo and why not ask that person if it’s real or not? Oswald’s photo is not a fake because it was his wife Marina who took it. This is known for sure and conspirisy nuts can whine all they want about it. It’s exactly the same with Kubrickian nuts that whine incesently about the July 4th photo. But it doesn’t change a thing because Stanley Kubrick explained exactly how he created it; and it is a fake. It’s a face airbrushed onto another’s body.




In the photo, it’s not Jack, it’s not July, it’s not a caretaker, the music we hear is not from 1921, it’s not The Overlook, it’s not a Ball, not a ballroom, it’s not the state of Oregon, and it’s not on the wall during the movie. To add even more to all this, an astute anonymous poster alerted me to the most important clue about the picture. Something they thought was going on in that final photo. It seems for some strange reason that Stanley Kubrick may have posed Jack Torrance in the final picture as;

..................................Baphomet

……………………………..……What’s this all about?




Where did Stanley Kubrick get the idea for the July 4th photo?

Before attempting to further unravel the puzzle of “The Shining” you need to look at where the idea for the black and white photo he inserted at the end of this brilliant film came from? When I first started this blog I never dreamt anyone would ever know what that final photo actually means. It's too cryptic and paradoxical and most explanations are simply un-provable speculation or hackneyed nonsense. If you stop and think about what I just showed you about the picture really makes no sense at all except for the fact that in a horror movie about the supernatural, anything can really make sense. For me that's not enough. The only explanation that will work has to either be contained in the dialogue of the movie, the visuals from the movie, or the source novel itself; everything else is un-provable nonsense - no matter how intelligent it may sound. Stanley Kubrick was a brilliant filmmaker and I just knew that there would be a link somewhere in this saga pointing me to its meaning. Knowing where he got the idea for a cryptic black and white photo would make explaining it so much easier. This can’t be debated and surprisingly it turns out that the place where Stanley Kubrick got the idea for this particular black and white photo is right where you would expect to find it, hidden in plain sight, in Stephen King’s novel.

For nearly 30 years that photo has been on The Overlook’s wall and Stephen King never breathed a word about it even though he must know exactly what that final picture of Jack represents because the idea came directly from his novel. The only important (black and white) photo in Stephen King’s “Shining” is the linchpin in understanding Stanley Kubrick’s ending. It’s the only clue to the final picture you can find in the novel and it’s mentioned on page 191 (Chapter 33). It tells us exactly what that enigmatic July 4th photo depicts. Here’s the important excerpt from Stephen King’s novel that led me to the explanation the July 4th picture; “In that instant, kneeling there, everything came clear to him… In those few seconds [Jack] understood everything. There was a certain black-and-white picture he remembered seeing as a child, in catechism class… a jumble of whites and blacks… Then one of the children in the third row had gasped, "It's Jesus!" …. "I see Him! I see Him!" … Everyone had seen the face of Jesus in the jumble of blacks and whites except Jacky… when everyone else had tumbled their way up from the church basement and out onto the street he had lingered behind… He hated it… It was a big fake… [But] as he turned to go he had seen the face of Jesus from the corner of his eye… He turned back, his heart in his throat. Everything had suddenly clicked into place and he had stared at the picture with fearful wonder, unable to believe he had missed it… Looking at Jack Torrance. What had only been a meaningless sprawl had suddenly been transformed into a stark black-and-white etching of the face of Christ Our Lord. Fearful wonder became terror. He had cussed in front of a picture of Jesus. He would be damned. He would be in hell with the sinners. The face of Christ had been in the picture all along. All along.”

There’s only one important photo in Stephen King’s novel and it’s black and white. Stanley Kubrick chose a black and white photo for his final enigma and there should be no confusion about what inspired him to create it. We’re looking at an exact, purposeful mirror image of the paragraph I quoted from the novel. The enigmatic black and white picture we all see at the end of “The Shining” is the mirror opposite of the image of Jesus that only Jack sees in the novel, and this sentence is what Stanley Kubrick used as the blueprint for his black-and-white mystery, “It was a big fake”. In the novel Jack believes the black-and-white picture is "a big fake" but it isn't. In the movie Stanley Kubrick shows us a black-and-white photo that everyone accepts as real without any question, not one iota of skepticism. But the photo at the end of Stanley Kubrick’s "Shining" actually is "a big fake". It’s fake! Jack Nicholson’s face was airbrushed in on someone else’s body. No one ever stops and thinks that this photo and what’s printed underneath are all a lie. It’s was meant to deceive yet we all just blindly accept that it's the truth and that it proves Jack Torrance has been in The Overlook before. And you know you’re right because you've seen the picture of him from 1921 saying "Overlook Hotel". The only question that anyone ever seems to ask is ‘what does it mean’, never ‘is what it depicts actually real’?

Everything in this black-and-white photo is a lie. Jack Torrance was never in The Overlook Hotel in 1921. “[It’s all] a big fake”.



When does Stanley Kubrick’s devil possess Jack?

“God, I'd give anything for a drink. My God dam soul.” Stanley Kubrick puts it all in that one line. You can feel sympathy for Jack's character or not but he took a major wrong turn in life. An evil turn, “if I may be so bold”. I mentioned before Stanley Kubrick’s obvious manipulation of time codes in the movie and this proves it. If you look closely at the time code, the shot where we hear Jack gulp down his first drink is exactly 66 minutes and 6 seconds into the movie. Revelation 13:18; “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” What a creepy touch Stanley Kubrick added.

It’s undeniable, the time code is exact to the second from when the story starts after the :11-second Warner Brothers logo is finished. If you don’t believe me “go check it out” for yourself. This special number didn’t just pop up by chance. “The Shining” even contains 666 individual shots (click here). Stanley Kubrick is luring us into a false assumption that Jack’s character is obviously evil in a Biblical sense and the way he’s posed in the final photo proves it. But he doesn’t have Jack posed as Baphomet like the poster thought. Stanley Kubrick grew up in the last century and has Jack Torrance posed as something he’d seen before. Something spooky that represents to most of us, pure evil.


.....In the July 4th photo Jack Torrance is posed as the devil.

Not so fast though! Don’t jump to the conclusion that Jack is supposed to be the devil. There’s something else that’s a huge part of the enigma of this final photo that I discuss a little later; Stanley Kubrick absolutely does not believe in the existence of the devil.



Was I wrong? Do you still believe that Jack doesn't posses the ability to “Shine”? Lucifer means “the shining one”. In one picture from the novel we have the image of the most influential human in history (the ultimate good hidden only from Jack) now becoming in another picture from the movie, the ultimate evil (hidden from everyone). What a perfect mirror image he created. It’s the devil! Jack goes mad and becomes possessed by pure evil when Lloyd gives him that drink; in the final photo he represents the devil! The Manager or Master of Ceremonies in hell. He’s even dressed for the part in the same tux as Lloyd the bartender. Jack being evil in the movie is the mirror opposite of the novel where it’s The Overlook that’s the evil possessing him. If you go back to the paragraph from the novel about Stephen King’s black and white picture you can see just how brilliantly Stanley Kubrick used the source novel. Everything now “suddenly clicks into place.” We’ve “stared at that picture” in wonder for years; “unable to believe we had missed it”. The most enigmatic image in the history of moviemaking and its explanation has been right under our noses all along. Visually he created a true mirror image of the important black and white photo from the novel. A reflection viewed in Stanley Kubrick’s special mirror. “[ Jack ] would be damned. He would be in hell with the sinners.” And this is exactly what Stanley Kubrick has done here. The face of evil has been in the picture “All along.” And it will be there on that wall, “for ever, and ever, and ever.” Stanley Kubrick’s fake black and white photo inspired directly from the real black and white photo in Stephen King's novel.



What’s unusual about the final words Jack utters in, Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining”?

But there’s something else! Stanley Kubrick adds one more brilliant little touch at the end of “The Shining” that must be mentioned. You hear it every time you view the film but I bet you’ve never ‘really’ heard it. The final words spoken in the film; something borrowed from “The Exorcist” and we never would have known about it if a poster hadn’t mentioned this to me. Lightningscream suggested that I, “should watch the film in reverse. Kinda’ like reverse speech.” But even though some believe there are many hidden messages in rock & roll songs, could a message be hidden in a film the same way? I knew that there’s one obvious part of the film’s audio where Stanley Kubrick could have hidden something. People have come up with all sorts of explanations and translations of what Jack is saying at the end of the film. Some think he’s calling to the dead spirits in the Indian burial ground, or the “ghosts” in The Overlook, or a dead Saint, or maybe even the souls of the Donner Party. But after Jack sells his soul and takes Lloyd’s drink he’s been possessed by the purest of evil. Now it’s the big time. The Overlook was the place where all this happened and the scrapbook was the fuel for Jack’s insanity. But you have to listen closely to the 2 last words that Stanley Kubrick has Jack utter to truly understand the depth of what’s happened to him, and where he knows he’s going to be residing, “for ever, and ever, and ever”. It all sounds like gibberish unless you reverse the audio. Then it becomes frightening clear that Stanley Kubrick has hidden 2 of the most incredibly chilling words I’ve ever heard in a film. Hearing them has totally changed the end of the film for me. The anguish and despair cuts right through and the more you listen to it the more disturbing it becomes (click here). Help Me! The final pathetic words spoken by Jack Torrance in “The Shining”, and Stanley Kubrick has him speak them in reverse. Heeelllppp Meeeee. A perfect chilling end to his film’s dialogue. Two words (like the word “Redrum”) brilliantly hidden and like his entire film, only understandable when reversed.





What is truth and what are lies in “The Shining”?

“Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table.” - W. H. Auden



Stanley Kubrick is pointing us to a unique characteristic we all have; the ability of the human race to attach blind faith to an image that may or may not be real. And in this case it isn’t. What he's pointing out about us has tremendous implications in our faith, or lack of it. Think about it. Grady’s famous line is a lie, “You are the caretaker. You have always been the caretaker” If you believe he’s not residing in Jack’s imagination you’ll need to explain which of the visions Dick Hallorann talks about that they all see throughout the film, “isn’t real” and just how you know this for sure. Grady, Lloyd and the woman are all a product of Jack's imagination combined with his cabin fever. When we think Jack’s speaking to a “ghost”, he’s actually looking directly at his own reflection in a mirror while we eavesdrop in on each of his visions. A mirror is right in front of Jack’s face each time. Look closely at Jack Nicholson’s eyes in the bathroom scene with Grady. He’s not looking at Grady. He’s looking past Grady at his own reflection as they speak. Stanley Kubrick couldn’t make this any plainer, Jack is talking to himself each time he looks at himself in a mirror. The Overlook’s spirits don’t exist and aren’t speaking to Jack through Grady. Everything is happening inside his mind. The hotel is not causing any of this as it isn’t haunted or possessed at all.

So much is going on below the surface of “The Shining” that it was almost impossible for me to know exactly where to start or in what order I should present it all in. But there’s something here that I must discuss. Something that reaches into the very core of our human nature. It’s amazing how in “The Shining” Stanley Kubrick is so easily able to manipulate the audience into believing that lies are the truth and that the truth is a lie. In the end this may be what the movie and final picture are actually about because, as in life, we have to distinguish between truth and fiction all the time. There's also a continuous conflict in each soul between the "benevolent" and the "malignant". He’s questioning our core belief system (our faith) by showing us how easily we can all be fooled.

He may be mocking or belief system. Actually I’m being a little too nice. Stanley Kubrick may have been a deceptive person at heart because of the way he brutally toyed with the audience. I don’t think he ever thought anyone would make sense out of all this. We can never know for sure? But have you ever stopped and thought about your own beliefs? Why you have faith in what you believe in, or your lack of it? Especially when it comes to the supernatural or even the true existence of God. Stanley Kubrick is doing this for us in “The Shining”. What I’m going to show you now has flown right over the heads of just about every viewer and it’s quite incredible when you think about it. We all left the theater with unique ideas about this film but as you viewed “The Shining” did you stop and think about what Delbert Grady’s character was actually saying? I alluded to this before; was he telling the truth? Of course, he must be telling the truth; everyone knows that Jack’s been in The Overlook before because Delbert Grady says so. No one ever questions his truthfulness because a master has manipulated us in a brilliant way. Grady had some problems with his family in the past but he “corrected” them. He also tries to convince Jack to kill his family. But if you put all these shortcomings aside he has ‘stellar credibility’. Grady is an honest God fearing “ghost” and inside The Overlook, he’s the top “ghost”. But it never dawns on the audience that something is tremendously wrong here. Dick Hallorann’s character is a true hero; he never lies or deceives anyone in the film yet what he says in the dialogue is not believed (click here). Stanley Kubrick not only explains the “Shine” but most of the other secrets about the mysteries of his masterpiece through the mouth of Dick Hallorann, but viewers only believe some of what he says. Some writers will even try to un-explain what his character says in sentences like these. “It isn’t real” indicating that visions like Grady aren't real or “there are other folks” indicating that others (like Jack) have the same ability to "Shine" and don't know it. Or when he says, “Ullman phoned me last night, and I'm supposed to go up there and find out if they have to be replaced.” Indicating that something else, other than Danny calling for help (which he never does at all in the film) is what lured Dick Hallorann back to The Overlook. If you don’t like what Dick Hallorann says in the dialogue and it goes against what you believe you're seeing in this film you’ll be tempted to just ignore what Stanley Kubrick has him say. Grady (A.K.A Jack Torrance) on the other hand has no credibility at all and is believed by everyone, wholeheartedly. How thoroughly easy it is to deceive human beings and in his film Stanley Kubrick plays this card for all it’s worth. It's quite embarrassing.

It can’t be denied; we’re all lead to believe the opposite of what the truth is in this movie. Delbert Grady lies about everything and Dick Hallorann never lies to anyone – it’s so obvious. For some it may take a while but when you finally realize this it’s gonna’ change everything about how you perceive “The Shining”, for good. Stanley Kubrick only gives us certain bits of information to work with. Dick Hallorann says that Ullman phoned him ordering him back to the hotel, and unless someone can find another explanation in the dialogue or prove that it’s a lie, it’s the only explanation there is. And it changes everything about the film.





In the dialogue exactly how does Grady lie to Jack?

If you haven’t read it yet this is what Danny realizes in Stephen King’s novel on page 293 (Chapter 55), “The house always lies”. Stanley Kubrick reverses this sentence and makes it an important reality. In his "Shining" it's now Jack, not The Overlook that always lies. Look closely at the conversation he has with Delbert Grady in the film and remember that Jack is talking to his imaginary friend (his version of Danny's friend Tony - himself) as he talks into the mirrors, not a real “ghost” haunting The Overlook;


Jack: What do they call you around here, Jeevesy?
Grady: Grady, sir. Delbert Grady…. That's right, sir.
Jack: Delbert Grady?
It’s in the name. At first this seems to be just one more enigmatic thing. Another perplexing mystery that Stanley Kubrick placed in “The Shining” that has no real answer. But Grady doesn’t tell Jack his real name. What he says is a lie. We know from Mr. Ullman that his real name is Charles Grady, not Delbert Grady. Most never realize this; what he says is a lie.

Jack: Ah, Mr. Grady... haven't I seen you somewhere before?
Grady: Why no, sir. I don't believe so.
This is another lie. Jack tells us later in this scene that he's seen Grady’s picture in the scrapbook we see opened on his desk. Grady would have known about the scrapbook as it's inside the hotel and holds the pictures of The Overlook’s more infamous guests who aren’t “all the best people”. The ones whose pictures aren’t hanging on the main walls. What he says is a lie because he would have known exactly where Jack had seen his picture (in the novel it’s actually Grady’s scrapbook and he specifically left it there for Jack to find).

Jack: Eh... Mr. Grady... weren't you once the caretaker here?
Grady: Why no, sir. I don't believe so.
Another lie as Grady was the caretaker of The Overlook in 1970.

Jack: You’re a married man, are you, Mr. Grady?
Grady: Yes, sir. I have a wife and ah two daughters, sir.
Jack: And, ah... where are they now?
Grady: Oh, they're somewhere around. I'm not quite sure at the moment, sir.
Another lie as he actually hacked them to death and is not telling this to Jack.

Jack: Mr. Grady, you were the caretaker here. I recognize you. I saw your picture in the newspapers. You ah... chopped your wife and daughters up into little bits, and ah... and you blew your brains out.
Grady: That's strange, sir. I don't have any recollection of that at all.
Another lie as Mr. Ullman tells us that all this happened at The Overlook in 1970. We also now know from the dialogue that the "ghost" Jack is imagining himself talking to looks exactly the same as Charles Grady who was the caretaker in 1970.

Jack: Mr. Grady, you were the caretaker here.
Grady: I'm sorry to differ with you, sir, but you are the caretaker. You have always been the caretaker, I should know, sir. I've always been here.
Another lie because he was the caretaker in 1970. Again if Delbert Grady had, “always been” in The Overlook his face would be in the final photo at the July 4th 1921 ball along with Jack at the end of the movie. And like Jack he would look exactly the same. They were both “caretakers” at the hotel and there have been many others that didn’t try to kill their families. Jack never “corrected” his family but Grady did. Grady would be there with Jack because he’s the number one "ghost" and succeeded at correcting his family. Something that Jack was a failure at. Grady must be in the July 4th photo or what he says is a lie.

Grady: Did you know, Mr. Torrance, that your son... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation? Did you know that?
Another lie as it’s Jack with his ability to “Shine” who .... is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation. Jack alerts Dick Hallorann that something is wrong at The Overlook. If you find this hard to believe remember that Dick Hallorann knows something is wrong only when he visions Jack walking into room 237, then kissing the woman. He is totally unaware when Danny is strangled and almost killed, which happened several scenes earlier. It's quite obvious that Danny never telepathically calls Dick Hallorann when he's attacked or at any other time. This is extremely important; follow the time line of the movie that I explained in an earlier section. Before Jack meets the old woman in room 237 he’s “Shining” that image into Dick Hallorann’s head, not Danny's. As I showed before, Danny and Dick are both seeing entirely different visions of the inside of room 237 and if you can find anywhere in the film that Danny ever asks for help from anyone. Post it at the end of this blog.

Grady: Your son has a very great talent. I don't think you are aware how great it is, but he is attempting to use that very talent against your will.
This is an obvious lie as Danny never does anything except ride around The Overlook, play with his toys, and watch cartoons until the end when he escapes from his crazy ax wielding father. Watch the movie again if you don’t believe it. Stanley Kubrick plainly hides this in the film. Danny doesn’t even use his ability to “Shine” to get away in the end, he uses his wits. Stanley Kubrick conceals this extremely well but think about it, we hardly ever see him use his special ability in the movie as Danny is still to young to know exactly how it works. Here it’s Jack that, “has a very great talent” and he’s loosing his mind.

And don’t forget the first important thing that Grady says to Jack:
Grady: That doesn't matter, sir. You're the important one.
Obviously this is only true inside Jack’s sick mind as he’s actually a total failure in life and quite unimportant.

What an amazing example of manipulation we’ve been subjected to here with obvious parallels in human society. Because of the way Stanley Kubrick presented the characters the natural instinct after viewing “The Shining” is to believe all the things that the putative “ghost” Delbert Grady says and to ignore what the totally truthful Dick Hallorann says. It’s unbelievable when you stop and think about it. It’s a study in mass manipulation on the highest level and has everything to do with the final photo in the movie, which, as I’ve show, is also not what it appears to be. Ask yourself this important question again. Why do you believe what you believe? Do you still believe that Jack Torrance was at a party in The Overlook in 1921?



Does the final July 4th photo indicate that Jack was reincarnated?

Unfortunately Stanley Kubrick will be no help whatsoever in trying to understand what’s going on in the end of “The Shining”. This is why we’re here poking, prying - endlessly trying to understand this film. Look carefully at what he said about the final scene in his interview with Michel Ciment. He could have told Michel exactly what the July 4th ballroom picture means, but instead he cleverly says this; “The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack”. What an interesting choice of words he uses as the definition of ‘suggests’ is to cause one to think that something exists. The implication (and deception) here is obvious. He wants Michel Ciment, as well as the rest of us, to “think that something exists” or else he simply wouldn’t have used that word. He wants us to believe Jack’s been in the hotel before – but he hasn’t. Stanley Kubrick is a master of the English language and it’s obvious that what happens to Jack doesn’t even remotely fit the definition of the word reincarnation, the rebirth of a soul in a new body, as Jack’s face has remained the same. Everyone who views this movie is positive they have some unique insight into the puzzling question of what happened to Jack. It’s because the power of this one image, and what it implies, is unbelievable. But look closely again at Jack in the final picture. Remember what I showed you before; it’s undeniably a total paradox. The Overlook's caretaker worked in the winter. July 4th is in the summer and Jack wouldn’t have been there. He isn’t the caretaker in that picture either he’s someone special, The Manager. It isn’t even July 4th, as the only identifiable object Stanley Kubrick airbrushed in with Jack Nicholson’s face when he created the photo would obviously make it a New Year’s Eve party. The song playing in the background didn’t exist in 1921. The photo is definitely not The Overlook and the image of Jack is a fake – a face airbrushed onto someone else’s body. It's obvious that everything here is the reverse of what it appears.



As I brought up earlier; what happened to all the other caretakers that had to have worked in between and before Jack and Grady? “You have always been the caretaker.” Why didn’t they try and kill their families and are they “reincarnated” also? And if this picture actually was The Overlook why would Jack Torrance be invited to that party? He’s an utter failure, as he didn’t succeed in doing his duty to “correct” his family. This can’t be left out; where’s Delbert Grady? If he’s a real “ghost” and not a figment of Jack’s imagination he must be in that picture also. “I should know I have always been here”.

Nothing really fits here. Stanley Kubrick created the ultimate enigma in that photo and if we didn’t look at Stephen Kink’s novel questions about it could never have a correct answer. The photo is truly "a big fake"; the mirror image of the black-and-white photo from Stephen King's novel. It’s meant to mislead and sear a powerful image (that Jack Torrance has been in the Overlook in a previous life) forever into our minds.





The amazingly unshakable power contained in one single image. Isn’t it just as powerful in a movie, if used in the right way?

































How did Stanley Kubrick weave dialectic theory into “The Shining”?

The answer to these two questions, whether The Overlook is haunted and is Grady a real “ghost” or a hallucination in the mind of a man suffering from “cabin fever”, are really linked to the final July 4th photo. Stanley Kubrick hides the answers in the dualism of truth and lies from his characters own words. Just who is lying and who is not? Is what you are hearing true or false? If someone tells you something you have a choice as to whether you believe it or not. But your choice doesn’t change what that person is telling you. It’s either true or false. You simply don’t know for sure. There's no theory in what I'm saying. The main premise of my blog is that Stanley Kubrick explains exactly what’s going on in this movie using the dialogue he wrote. It’s like Dennis Hopper’s dialectics discussion from Apocalypse Now. We have here either truth or lies - no maybes, no supposes, no in betweens. He's played with Dialectics by creating a script where only two characters tell us all of the supernatural aspects of the story: Delbert Grady and Dick Hallorann. The audience can try to decide if what these characters say is true or false but the reality is that there is no in between. It’s dialectics; an existence of opposing forces; one always lies and the other never does. The explanation of the movie is hidden in the dialogue of these two characters where everything Dick Hallorann says is true and everything Grady says is a lie, and when you understand what's been done here the movie is much easier to understand. If you don't agree with me you'll need to clarify in your own mind what criteria you're going to use in pinpointing what's true and what's a lie. Is some of what they say true, one quarter, three quarters, every other statement? Or just what seems right to you? Do you believe only what supports your opinion or agenda of what's actually happening in this movie. You have to have some sort of criteria that makes sense. You need to remember this is a movie, it isn’t real life. Dick Hallorann may lie all the time when he’s off screen but there is nowhere in the film where he lies or deceives anyone. He's the same as Olivia de Havilland's character Melanie Wilkes in "Gone With The Wind". The purest soul in movies. Someone that doesn't exist in real life. But in film we meet people like this all the time.

In this film Stanley Kubrick has either used his ability as a director to deceive, or to show us how easy it is to deceive. You decide which is right as it’s not what he left out of his film, but what he kept in that’s important.



Who “Shines” in the final scene from “The Shining” after all the characters have gone?

The perplexing final July 4th photo is only half of what’s going on in the end of “The Shining”. Any serious discussion of this film must address the other visual anomalies in the last scene and can’t be considered complete without doing so. Looking at the photo alone is not enough and I’ll start with what’s obvious. Throughout the movie whenever someone “Shines” something moves, changes color or disappears whether inside or outside of The Overlook. Just about all of the props in the last shot except the ceiling and floor have changed, and this adds another dimension to what’s going on here because the question now has to be; Who “Shined” this time? The cast members have all gone, and you must seriously ask yourself; just who’s seeing this final vision of the movie with the song "Midnight, The Stars and You" playing in their ears? We've never see the July 4th picture before this final scene because throughout the film Stanley Kubrick has other photos in it’s place on that wall. But we have heard the music playing at the end of the film before. But how can that be the photo says, 1921 yet the song is from, 1932? We hear the same final song because the final photo is exactly the same as Jack’s vision of Grady and the party, it’s all in the mind. There never was a party in the Gold room except in Jack's imagination. The same way there never was a July 4 party except in our imagination’s. Neither one, as with all the other visions in the film, are real.

Inexplicably the chairs and furniture in the Overlook are not covered throughout the film but in the final scene they are covered. A reversal of what we saw in the novel where the chairs and furniture were covered when the Torrance’s were in The Overlook and uncovered when they weren’t. The Gold Room sign doesn’t change with the same 2 artist’s pictures on it (indicating to me that we’re still in the present time frame – the next day and not in the past). But throughout the film it continuously reverses position across the floor, from left to right and back again each time we see that spot (another deliberate continuity error pointing to the reversals Stanley Kubrick made from the source novel that occur continuously throughout the movie).



The 2 mirrors on the sides of the 21 pictures are gone, replaced by Indian artwork, and the red couch, another place to sit, has now disappeared.




Lastly, don't forget what I just mentioned; the most important deliberate alteration in the whole movie (maybe of any movie in history). The 21 pictures on the wall; the most perplexing continuity error of all time. They’re entirely different from the pictures that are hanging in this spot each of the several other times we see it throughout the movie. And that most puzzling image of all time dead center, “Overlook Hotel July 4th Ball 1921”, just wasn’t there before this last shot of the movie. No one ever notices this when viewing the film. How could all the pictures be different? Did Stanley Kubrick simply forget to hang up the July 4th photo earlier in the movie? Either this is an obvious continuity error or it’s an important part of the movie. There’s a reason for this and it isn’t hanging with any of the other photos inside The Overlook either. The word Shine in the title tells us what paranormal phenomenon occurs in this film.




Anyone who still doesn’t realize that all the major cast members in this movie have a very special ability may be hopelessly thick. Not only do they see visions (past, present and future) and speak together telepathically, they can change the colors of possessions and surroundings, and move objects without touching them. This is what the movie is about. Not only do most of the props in the final scene move on their own, but it’s also obvious someone used this special ability and “Shined” that picture onto the wall right at the end of the movie. But everyone in the story with the “Shine” is either dead or has left the building, and Dick Hallorann told us in the dialogue that The Overlook can’t “Shine”. Who did it this time?

There’s a classic episode of “The Twilight Zone” from 1961 that reminds me of all this, and I bet that Stephen King (and Stanley Kubrick) had seen it as it was one of the best and most well known episodes. In “It's a Good Life”, Billy Mumy plays a child who has a special power that will look familiar if you ever get to watch it. He’s totally evil and is able to transform people he doesn’t like into inanimate objects at will. "Shining" is the only paranormal phenomenon that Stanley Kubrick’s movie is about. It's the power that enables them to see visions. It's the power that moved the Calumet cans behind Dick and Jack's head's in the storeroom. It’s the power that unlocks the storeroom door, and it's the power that transformed the 21 pictures on the wall in the final shot. That’s why that photo just appears out of thin air at the end of the film. It’s the “Shine”, and someone other than the characters from the film is also present in that final scene. Someone else possesses the ability to “Shine”, to supernaturally move things on the screen.

Stanley Kubrick added yet another brilliant twist to this movie (maybe the greatest hidden twist in movie history). In the end as the camera zooms in on that center picture we, the audience, are the only ones there in The Overlook’s lobby. And each one of us as we sit in our chairs watching becomes an integral part of this film. This should come as no surprise because Stephen King got the idea for the title "The Shining" from a line in John Lennon's "Instant Karma", "We all shine on". And our vision is exactly the same as all the rest in the film, “It isn’t real”. Jack was never in The Overlook in 1921 but we, never realizing that it’s us doing it, “Shine” his image to the spot on the wall where thanks to Stanley Kubrick’s suggestions we've been led to believe he was, and belongs; back into the Overlook’s past. And we grant Jack his wish, “I wish we could stay here for ever, and ever, and ever.” In this final vision his only existence is on that wall. Nothing more, nothing less. We've “Shined” him into that picture on the wall. Now he’s where he belongs, in the Overlook frozen a second time for the rest of time, “for ever and ever and ever”. Jack's not in the dusty old scrapbook like Grady, he's on the wall - dead center with “all the best people”. Throughout this entire movie we’ve been guided by the art of Stanley Kubrick’s simple suggestions and are unshakenly positive in our belief that the photo tells us that Jack Torrance was there in a past life. Possibly as the reincarnation of Grady The Overlook’s caretaker who murdered his wife and kids and put both barrels “of his shotgun in his mouth”. But again we’re seeing a reflection, the exact opposite, of what we thought was real. Just like the 2 reflections seen backwards in Wendy’s mirror, "Redrum" and Stovington. Jack was never in The Overlook during a previous life in 1921 because the picture is a fake. But he is now, “for ever and ever and ever”; and you are the one who did it. It’s a vision of Jack’s future. Stanley Kubrick got the idea for the black and white picture from Stephen King but you, with your special ability given by the movie’s brilliant director, are the one who put him there on that wall.





How does the July 4th photo represent past, present, and future all at the same time?

Look again at how thoroughly Stanley Kubrick is showing us a mirror image of what happens in Stephen King’s story. In the novel The Overlook is destroyed, Jack burns to death, and no one remains there. In the movie The Overlook is not destroyed, Jack freezes to death, and remains hanging on the wall forever. In the novel The Overlook always lies and now in Stanley Kubrick’s story, Jack always lies. The inversions are obvious. But old perceptions die-hard and a knee-jerk explanation is that all I just mentioned is nonsense, and the final picture simply has mistakes in it. But there are to many and they’re so obvious. Stanley Kubrick doesn’t make “mistakes” like this without a reason, and anyone who thinks he does should be prepared to prove how they know this for a fact. Anyone who erroneously tries to explain why this photo (the most enigmatic prop in movie history) isn’t there for 99% of the film, to then miraculously appear out of nowhere, as a movie mistake or common continuity error is insulting Mr. Kubrick’s intelligence, and just doesn’t get this film. He placed it there and we can all see it. In the film’s reality there must be a valid and plausible explanation of why it only appears after Jack’s death? Stanley Kubrick didn't go through the trouble of finding an authentic picture from 1921, as stated in his interview with Michel Ciment, and then simply forget to hang it up till the end of the movie. That’s nonsense! Items change color, move around, disappear and reappear throughout the film from the very start and this is more of the same. “The Shining” was released looking exactly the way he wanted it to and we're seeing a brilliant deception. We’re actually seeing people attending a party back in the precise year 1921 but we don’t know what it actually depicts. At first glance the picture looks like the past but do you know for certain whether it’s past, present, or future? Think about how the July 4th picture was produced for a moment because Stanley Kubrick created an image that actually represents all three, the past, the present, and the future all at the same time. Even though it’s an authentic picture from the past taken in 1921, as stated in the interview with Michel Ciment, if you want to be precise you can’t say the picture is actually from 1921 because Jack’s airbrushed face is obviously from the present in the late 70’s when the movie was produced. This fact has to be included in any explanation and no one can say Jack is younger in the photo because his hairline remains the same. The spot where the photo ends up on the wall is the future though. That evil, iconic image of Jack as the devil will remain on that wall as long as movies are seen by the human race. “If I may be so bold, sir” no one will ever take it down. Never to be removed from its special place in The Overlook for the rest of time till the end of time. Jack’s photo from the present, superimposed onto an authentic photo from the past that will remain in that particular spot on The Overlook’s wall forever. Past, present, and future; all represented in this one single iconic image created by Stanley Kubrick. As I mentioned before Jack Torrance finally got his fondest desire, “I wish we could stay here for ever, and ever, and ever.” But he, unlike Grady, didn’t succeed in getting his family to stay with him in the hotel. It appears that his character's been “Shined” into his own private unseeing, unthinking, unfeeling, inanimate hell. Forever, and ever, and ever. A photo on a wall; an inanimate object like the people in the Twilight Zone episode I spoke of earlier.





Who are the people in the July 4th photo with Jack?

In the novel Jack strives to be the manager and doesn’t make it. In the movie he strives to be Grady, his idol, whose photo he sees in the scrapbook on his desk. He doesn’t achieved that goal in the way he would have wished either. But interestingly Stanley Kubrick does have Jack end up like Grady, in a photo, and he looks exactly like he’s the manager. But who are the other people in final July 4th photo? What could they represent? It could be a get together of all the previous “Shiners” who visited The Overlook in the past as the hotel may be a place that attracts this sort? This can't be right because we’ve seen the ballroom in the film. It isn’t The Overlook that we’re looking at in the photo and “Grady isn’t there. The picture might actually depict a different type of end; maybe Jack has somehow conned his way into being The Manager or the Master of Ceremonies in some other hotel in another dimension. A place where Jack is rewarded for effort alone, and unlike during the movie, he’s now someone special? I doubt it because a failure is a failure - anywhere. The people with him could very well be former guests who, like Jack, have passed through The Overlook and taken a similar wrong turn. After all Stanley Kubrick has Jack posed in the picture as the devil! But again the picture is not inside The Overlook, that’s not where they’re gathered. There’s a good reason why Stanley Kubrick has it end up on The Overlook’s wall, and it will be there forever, but they are definitely enjoying that get together someplace other than our favorite “haunted hotel”. Could Jack along with the others have been absorbed into the hotel? This never happens though; the movie Overlook is just an inanimate place where Stanley Kubrick's story takes place and nothing more. Could they all be in hell as Jack is obviously posed as the devil in the photo? Not so fast. Stephen King told us that Stanley Kubrick doesn’t believe in hell. Jack being posed as the devil is just a mirror reversal of the photo in Stephen King’s novel. You have to remember according to the expert Dick Hallorann, the visions aren’t real and the photo is the final vision. On first viewing “The Shining” seems to end with an enigma that clarifies absolutely nothing. Everything about it is a paradox, if it is a vision, according to the expert Dick Hallorann, “it isn’t real”.

You could go on and on, “forever, and ever, and ever” and not get it right because any explanation as to who the people in the July 4th, 1921 picture are is pure speculation. All I've just mentioned are guesses, and unless there's something pertaining to the picture that can be found in Stephen King's source novel all we can do is speculate. Many comment on the things from the novel that were left out of the movie. The two complaints that stand out most are the moving hedges, and the back-story of Jack's past alcoholism and abuse. The hedges were reversed from the front of The Overlook to the back and don't move for a reason, and Stanley Kubrick only mentions what’s absolutely necessary about Jack's alcoholism and the fact that he thinks of himself as a writer (we don’t even know in the film if he’s ever written a thing). But one of the most enigmatic sections from the novel seems to have been left out and no one ever mentions, or misses it at all. The wasps were a huge part of the novel. They seemed to embody the invisible spirits that haunted Stephen King’s Overlook. I could’t imagine Stanley Kubrick leaving them out, just like the Hedge Animals I’ll talk about in the next section. But I looked high and low and couldn't find a single wasp flying around this movie. Nothing remotely alludes to them; not even a lowly fly accidentally landing on someone's nose. Then it came to me. The people in the photo do represent something from Stephen King’s story. They’re the wasps from the novel. He didn't leave them out. If you look at the picture closely every single one of the people at the party are W.A.S.P.’s, and this explanation, as dull and lackluster as it may seem, is the only one that can claim Stephen King's novel as a direct source. W.A.S.P.’s.

You don’t think I’m right, do you? Maybe we need to look at what the boss said about the people in the photo; “... they were in a photograph taken in 1921... I originally planned to use extras, but it proved impossible to make them look as good as the people in the photograph... I think the result looked perfect. Every face around Jack is [an archetype] of the period.” Do you really believe this statement, “it proved impossible to make them look as good as the people in the photograph”? (1976 Oscar, Best Costume Design - Barry Lyndon) But an archetype? This is what stood out for me. What an interesting word he chose to describe the people in the photo. Again the secret ends up being in the words he chooses. I thought I knew what archetype meant but to my good fortune I looked it up in the dictionary anyway. An archetype is “an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all.” But there’s something else that’s more important; in psychology, an archetype is “a model of a person, personality, or behavior.” Psychoanalysis “in Jungian psychology - a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious.” In the photo these people are the mold that Jack springs from. They all have devils in them, exactly like Jack. The devils that cause us to kill. They’re exactly the same as nature’s lowly carbon copy of each other; the wasp, from Stephen King’s novel. Stanley Kubrick’s archetype of every other W.A.S.P. They’re all have the devil in them, Jack’s minions!

I mentioned earlier that there’s never a moan or a ghostly whine, and we never hear a clock tick; The Overlook never makes so much as a single sound, no laughter, no crying either, and very little physical contact. There are also no distinct shadows cast by any of the characters inside of the hotel. This may make you think about something Stanley Kubrick probably read in preparing for this masterpiece, Jung's writings on "The Shadow". “Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.”



What is the July 4th photo ultimately about?

Do you remember how I showed that Stanley Kubrick edited “The Shining” so the film would be symmetrical? Word search this line - ( Where is the obvious symmetry that Stanley Kubrick created with “The Shining’s” time codes? ). What he shows to us in the first frame of the film has something to do with the last frame. “The Shining” begins with a mirror and ends with a mirror. The first thing we see as movie starts is a mirrored reflection in the beautiful blue water of a lake. It’s not obvious but the last thing he’s shown us is another reflection - at the end of the film with Jack posed as the devil we may be seeing the reflection of another mirror. The evil that causes us to hurt our fellow man is actually inside all of us. The way Jack is posed in the photo is a reflection of you! Stanley Kubrick is saying that not only Jack but all of us have devils in us. Remember Stanley Kubrick said, “Every face around Jack is an archetype ... “ a carbon copy.



What is the essential piece of the puzzle that that Stanley Kubrick took out of his film?

All I’ve just discussed explains where Stanley Kubrick got the idea for the July 4th photo and who put it there on the wall, but it doesn’t explain the enigma that shrouds the end of this movie. I spoke about this in an earlier section; Stanley Kubrick did something to "The Shining" that I don't think has ever been done to any other movie in history. He took this line from Stephen King and made sure he really created, “a mystery no living hand will ever solve.” If a jigsaw puzzle has a missing piece it can't ever truly be complete. Stanley Kubrick created a visual jigsaw puzzle and in the end of “The Shining” one of the pieces is missing, and he made sure that the missing piece would never be found. The first viewers of "The Shining" saw a different movie than everyone else and there are no special DVD box sets that include this lost scene. The version of the movie that we see today is not the same movie that was shown to audiences at the initial premiere (and for several days after). Shortly after its premiere Stanley Kubrick decided to excise the mysterious hospital scene from the end of his movie, and to destroy it. And, in theory, future audiences would never know anything about it – yea sure!

Normally all editing is finished before the release of a movie. I don't believe there's ever been a film that was released then pulled back several days later then re-releasing in a different form for future audiences to see having a pivotal scene explaining the ending cut out of it. As interesting as this might be to movie buffs we wouldn’t be discussing it at all except for one little thing that Stanley Kubrick “forgot” to do. It appears that in his haste one of the most meticulous and precise directors in movie history simply forgot to change the credits and take out the names of the actors from the scene he deleted. Few would ever know anything about this scene had it not been for the credits. Stanley Kubrick is a world-renowned perfectionist and you'll have to forgive me for not taking everything in this saga at face value, but I don't believe this scenario for a second. He’s deceptive and playing a game. The credits were left in specifically for us to notice. He wanted us to see the 21 double letters in the names and wonder about what happened in a missing scene with a nurse and a policeman in it. What's so interesting about this is that Stanley Kubrick knew that the only way anyone would ever be able to find out what was actually contained in that scene would be to ask someone who saw the original feature before it was deleted. The problem is that no two people that have seen it describe it in exactly the same way. We only have a rough idea of what's in the scene. Several say that Mr. Ullman tells Wendy that what she saw were hallucinations and that he gives Jack's yellow ball back to Danny. The one that Jack used to lure the boy to room 237. Some descriptions imply that the police never found Jack’s body. Who knows! Stanley Kubrick made sure that one huge part of this puzzle is missing and can never be retrieved, as it seems that he destroyed this piece of film. So we now see Jack frozen solid with the film cutting to the July 4th picture, but the original audiences saw more and the puzzle of what truly happened to Jack’s character in the end of Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” can never be known for sure. Being directed by what Stephen King wrote; Stanley Kubrick created a mystery that truly has no solution (page 224, chapter 40 “In The Basement”), “Destroy the secrets, burn the clues, it's a mystery no living hand will ever solve.” (page 31, chapter 5 “Phone booth”) It “would always be a mystery to them, and perhaps that was as it should be.” Stanley Kubrick got the idea from the novel, and that’s exactly what he did especially “burn the clues” as that is believed by some to be the fate of the deleted scene.





The perplexing July 4th picture is the final vision in a movie that’s full of visions. It’s by someone who has the exact same ability to “Shine”, see visions and move things supernaturally as The Overlook’s previous guests, the Torrance’s and Dick Hallorann, who we know in the end are all either dead or, like Elvis, have "left the building”. The hotel is now empty except for us, the audience. Just think of how brilliantly this was put across in Stanley Kubrick’s script by Dick Hallorann, the only expert on “Shining” we know of; if you believe him he did say, “But there are other folks, though mostly they don't know it, or don't believe it”. That may be you he's talking about, think about it; you are the "other folks" that "don't know it, or don't believe it". I can imagine the look on your face. You don’t believe it. Do you? What an unreal twist and Stanley Kubrick puts the clue right in the script – if you believe it? The power held by this one image and the unbelief at realizing that it’s not what it seems. Stanley Kubrick created a well-crafted lie in that image of Jack at the party. I can see the amazement that’s going through your mind right now and, “Remember what Mr. Hallorann said. It's just like pictures in a book... It isn't real.” It turns out that Stanley Kubrick has taken Stephen King’s story about a little boy who possesses the ability to “Shine” and in the end reverses who has that ability by giving it to everyone in the audience as well (and don’t forget you also have a Doppelgänger, it’s not on the screen, it’s sitting in the chair right next to you). Now, as I mentioned before, in this last perplexing shot as John Lennon sang in the song, "Instant Karma", that inspired the title of Stephen King’s novel.... “We all ‘Shine’ on”!




............................. Music


What’s Interesting About Danny’s Toys In “The Shining”?



Where are the Hedge Animals in the movie?

Let’s not forget about the Hedge Animals from the novel that everyone who’s read it comments on. They weren’t left out of the movie; they were (like so many other things in Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining”) just cleverly disbursed. Click here if you would like to see where they are in the movie.



What is my favorite section from the novel that Stanley Kubrick left out of the film?

Everyone that reads the novel has something that they wish Stanley Kubrick hadn’t left out of the movie. For me it’s this bit about the old wives tale.



Why did Stanley Kubrick put a Gollywog in “The Shining”?

Stanley Kubrick doesn't let a scene pass without visually challenging the audience to figure out what he's up to. One of Danny’s toys has another meaning. Click here to see something else you might've missed that's also hidden in "The Shining".





............................. Music


The End.

..."It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine." - REM



Where did Stanley Kubrick get the idea to create “The Shining” the way he did?

At this point you may be wondering how, or even if, all I've discussed in this article fits together? On the surface it does seem rather odd that Stanley Kubrick would choose all of these disparate odds and ends to hide in a movie. Like the obvious numbers, Doppelgängers, purposeful continuity errors, and the reversals he made to the source novel only to finish it off by placing the most enigmatic shot in the history of moviemaking at the very end of his brilliant work of art - just to perplex and confound us. But when you look at each individually, it's obvious that these ideas were taken directly from Stephen King's novel and the other materials he says he read in preparation for the movie. What a brilliant idea. Stanley Kubrick uses bits and pieces from a source novel that he utterly turns inside out in order to manipulate what the audience is thinking. What do you think he was speaking about when he said this in his interview about the film, “… to temporarily mislead the audience”?



1) The idea for all the reversals along with his use of mirrors came from the word "Redrum" itself. A word that only makes sense when viewed in the reflection of a mirror ( a reflection of a reflection in the novel). And Stanley Kubrick has truly created a work of art that only makes sense when viewed in his special mirror.

2) Doppelgängers are mentioned in the novel also and as I showed before Stanley Kubrick found an ingenious way to secretly include each character's special friend without anyone noticing. "It was almost as though the Jack she had lived with for six years had never come back last night — as if he had been replaced by some unearthly Doppelgänger …” page 37 (Chapter 6). He also peppers the movie from beginning to end with mirrors and obviously posed doubles, that are also mentioned in the novel, “He watched his double nod slowly,” and “Yes, that's where it was, whatever it was. In there. In the bathroom. His double walked forward, as if to escape the glass.” page 149 (Chapter 25).

3) In the novel lies are mentioned in an important statement by Danny when he discovers that, "the house always lies" and Stanley Kubrick created a script where one main character ‘always lies’ and and another ‘always tells the truth’ as an integral part of the plot.

4) Paranormal movements are a big part of the novel and Stanley Kubrick simply figured out how to visually place them throughout his movie in a way that would point anyone who looks closely right to what he was doing. He took this line, “But now things had been misplaced. Things were missing. Worse still, things had been added…” (page 133, chapter 2) and came up with a unique and ingenious way of hiding this in his film by using what appear to be common continuity errors to mask what he was doing. Remember Stephen King tells us, "It only happens when you're not looking.” (chapter 34 page197). He points you right to this by inverting what The Overlook animates in the novel. Those three important items (the elevators, the Hedge Maze, and the fire hose) remain totally motionless throughout his film and just about everything else moves around between shots without being touched.

5) The important black and white July 4th photo is a mirror image of the important black and white photo mentioned in the novel.

6) Hidden Indians are mentioned in the novel, “Can you see the Indians in this picture?” and Stanley Kubrick kept them in our sight throughout the entire film by showing artwork in The Overlook and the Indian on the Calumet cans behind Jack and Dick Hallorann’s heads in the storeroom.

7) The scrapbook is a huge part of the novel as Danny knows “that some books should not be opened” (Chapter 17, page 97). Stanley Kubrick just visually downplayed its significance so no one would realize that it’s the most important prop in his film. In his Overlook it's where all the “ghosts” reside and it’s open on Jack's desk throughout most of the movie. It’s truly a book that, “should not be opened”.

8) And there’s the deleted hospital scene that was the one part of Stanley Kubrick’s jigsaw puzzle that he destroyed when asked to by Stephen King, “Destroy the secrets, burn the clues, it's a mystery no living hand will ever solve.”



It's amazing how Stanley Kubrick took seemingly insignificant words and sentences from Stephen King's novel and then made them noticeably integral parts of his movie. But even though many numbers are mentioned in the novel there’s no firm evidence in it of the set of numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice. At this point they appear to be either his creation alone or he got the idea somewhere else. To me the many numbers Stephen King uses in the novel don't seem to mean a thing. While many think they’ve figured out certain aspects of “The Shining” no one has ever successfully addressed the exact meaning of all the numerical clues he’s pointed us to. Some think that ignoring them or simply denying their existence will make them disappear. But they’re still there, glaring and perplexing; they just will not go away. They’re so obvious and now (I did warn you in the beginning not to read this) you’ll notice them, and wonder about them every time you watch “The Shining”. Even if you don’t believe now, let it rattle around a bit. At some point in the future you’ll come back to this blog and realized that Stanley Kubrick pointed us to them on purpose and for a reason. In the beginning of this project I thought the time code manipulation might be an homage to some of Stanley Kubrick’s favorite horror movies, and point to scenes in them (Rosemary’s Baby; 00:42 is when the rape scene starts, 1:21 she first realizes it’s alive, 2:12 is just seconds after she first sees her son. The Exorcist; 00:42 is the spot when Regan walks into the party, 1:24 is when Damien first meets Regan, 2:12 is the very end of the movie). Although I don’t know of any, maybe some other director did this before. Noticeable numbers might be something he’s put into all his movies (“2001” includes 2 of them in the title, and we first see the monolith at 00:12 minutes into the film. Later the newscast on BBC 12 talks about the Discovery 1. Some of his films have the number 114 popping up).

Stanley Kubrick might have gotten the idea from Stephen King’s novel but this is hard to prove. Multiples of 5 were used extensively (such as Room 217 adding up to 10) and he may have got the idea for precisely timing out the movie from Stephen King as I understand in the original hardcover version Danny enters room 217 precisely on page 217. What a nice touch. In the paperback version that I quote from in this blog it’s Dick Hallorann who recounts the first time he entered Room 217 on page 217 (Chapter 38). The yellow cover of Stanley Kubrick’s copy of the novel may have inspired his special use of intense color in the movie as well. Maybe Stanley Kubrick has taken this line from the novel and, as I quoted before from Stephen King, made sure that in that set of numbers he created, “a mystery no living hand will ever solve.”



I couldn’t help but look into books from The Bible, chess moves, special mathematical relationships such as 42 is 2 times 21 or 24 is 2 x 12 …, even sequences that might have special meaning to him (a secret Kubrick code). Or it may be that Stanley Kubrick’s given us the latitude and longitude of buried treasure. But all this was wrong. You’ll see that he had an altogether different reason for placing those numbers under our noses. He’s leading us to something outside of the movie. I realized early on that Stanley Kubrick is pointing us to another date, other than the meaningless one we see on the screen at the end of the film. One that contains these special numbers. But is there any other date known to man that could have as much mystery surrounding it as “The Shining” itself?



What is the Indian connection in “The Shining”?

As I mentioned before in the movie we’re told by Mr. Ullman that The Overlook Hotel "is supposed to be located on an Indian burial ground" and Stephen King pointed us toward Indians in the novel (Page 133 - Chapter 21 and Page 196 - Chapter 34) when he wrote, “Can you see the Indians in this picture?” But in the novel Indians are hardly mentioned, and the Indian burial ground quote was added into the movie’s script; it’s not found in the novel. Yet Stanley Kubrick takes Stephen King’s line, “Can you see the Indians in this picture?” and brings it to new heights as he keeps Indians continuously in our site in the film. He even has Wendy refer to the “Keep America Beautiful” Public Service Announcements of the 1970’s (where Iron Eyes Cody sheds a tear over pollution) as she says; “The loser has to keep America clean!” But even though something pointing to Indian culture (the art work in The Overlook) is in almost every shot of this movie. In another obvious double occurrence an actual American Indian is only seen twice on the moving Calumet (a North American Indian peace pipe) cans behind Jack and Dick Hallorann in the storeroom.


All this combined with the date of July 4 at the end of the movie has spawned the “Holocaust of The American Indian” theory found on the Internet. I’ve always had a very tough time buying into this theory as I feel there's nothing hidden under the movie's surface that corroborates it. Like the reference to Iron Eyes Cody I mentioned earlier. It’s a sly joke on Stanley Kubrick’s part because he knows that Cody wasn’t even a real Indian. It’s like he’s whispering in our ears again “what you're looking at is not what it seems to be” as he shoves a cigar store Indian right in front of us. He’s, “a big fake” exactly like the final black-and-white July 4 photo. Cody’s portrayals were so convincing that everyone assumed he was an actual American Indian (I always did). Stanley Kubrick being a Hollywood insider knew the actual truth though. He’s not an American Indian he’s actually Espera DeCorti born in Louisiana to immigrants from Italy. In fact most of the Indians referred to in “The Shining” are fakes. Iron Eyes Cody is not real, the Calumet Indian isn’t real, there were no attacks in the early 19 hundreds, the Indian woman to the left behind Danny after the ball rolls to him is a painting. That leaves the rugs and artwork; do you think they’re they real? It’s still obvious that for some reason we’re being lead by Stanley Kubrick directly to something pertaining to Indians. It can’t be missed. But what seems so obvious on the surface, American Indians, is not what this is all about.



What is the hidden date in the July 4 photo in the end of “The Shining”?

Some people remember hearing about this date, Christmas Eve 2011. It’s a date lost in antiquity now but in the 70’s I learned this was the date the Mayan Indian’s predicted as the end of the world. Even though the meaning, and actual date now seem to be modified – 12/21/2012 Mayan Calendar. For much of the last century 12/24/2011 was the accepted date. I have no proof that Stanley Kubrick knew of this date but I never forgot it when I first heard about it. What I found particularly interesting was that it occurs on Christmas Eve. Christmas Eve on a day when an ancient Indian culture thousands of years ago predicted a great event. Maybe someone else very special will be born the day after that particular Christmas Eve? Or maybe time will just end. When I took “Overlook Hotel July 4th Ball 1921”, remembering how Stanley Kubrick had us notice these numbers so many times in the movie and how important mirror images were, I couldn’t believe what I came up with;


To get the month I took the mirror image of 21, the number of pictures on the wall in the last shots (or as an astute commenter noticed; the 12 crosses in the repeating patterns on the wood underneath the photos). (Another poster noticed the 2 candles above the photos; 2 candles leaving only 1 shadow).


To get the day I added up the numbers contained in the date, 7/4/1921.


To get the year I counted the 20 people shown in the second to last close-up picture of the movie.


... and I added that to the number 11 on Danny’s Apollo sweater (or 2, 1’s (twins) from the last two digits of the year 1921).


The ancient date of the Mayan Apocalypse, 12/24/2011 (which also adds up to 13) is hidden in the final shot of “The Shining”. His fictitious date 7/4/1921 is the spot where many classic movies would haveThe End printed across the screen, and the numbers Stanley Kubrick wants us to notice throughout the movie are part of a puzzle leading us to the real date that’s an ancient prediction of “The End” of everything, The Mayan Apocalypse. The clues in the film fit like a glove. July 4th ball 1921 is a meaningless date and nothing significant happened on it. The July 4th photo is a lie that everyone wholeheartedly believes, and it only has significance in this movie if you add up the numbers and characters contained in it. It’s also interesting that the year Stanley Kubrick chose, 1921 and 2011 are matching calendar years.

Is it just a strange coincidence that in “The Shining” we’re given many obvious references to special numbers, pointed to Indian culture in almost every shot, and given a meaningless date to ponder at the very end of the story? The special numbers just happen to be included in a known date that just happens to be an Indian prediction of the end of everything we know. It’s unbelievable how he sets us up for this as all the numbers in the date, and the fact that what’s hidden is also a date, have been right in front of us for almost 30 years. As I noted before the twin number 11 is the linchpin for understanding what the other numbers mean and is openly hinted at once in the movie on Danny’s Apollo (11) sweater that he's wearing when attacked. I originally noted its significance by observing Stanley Kubrick’s time codes of the four mirror shots that have the number 11 embedded in them. I had a feeling about this when I started this blog. The main clues leading to the explanation of the numbers in Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” are imbedded in the mirrors. He edited the movie so the time codes in minutes of all 4 unique mirror shots are :11, :11+:24, :11+:42, and 1:10+:11. Just like “Redrum”, the final photo must be seen in the reflection of his special mirror to be understood. This didn't happened by chance, the movie was purposely edited so it would come out this way. There is no other explanation. The number 11 consists of twin one’s, a double, a Doppelgänger. They weren’t important in Stephen King's novel but twins are posed as an obvious visual clue throughout the movie as each main character has a Doppelgänger; an invisible twin, like Tony.

Twin actresses portray girls who, we are told early on, are supposed to be different ages (8 and 10). “Come play with us, Danny.”


There are Twin Boilers.


There are twin sides in Jack’s vision of the hedge maze.


And of course the twin elevators.


And don't forget room 237's twin double doors (most of the other rooms have single doors).




You’ve probably already made up your mind about how wrong I am about the Mayan Indian date being the secret that the last picture holds; right? I can imagine the expression on your face, after all the Mayan's are never mentioned in the movie at all so how could this be correct? But almost everything about this film is an enigma. Do you really expect Stanley Kubrick to come right out and explain all this? It never bothered me but that was my problem with many readers; even though I know I’m right I had no way to prove it. Then April 2008 rolls around and I see something pop up on my TIVO unit. It was an episode of NOVA called “Cracking the Maya Code” and I couldn’t wait to check it out because I just knew I would find something pertaining to what I’d written to add to this blog. About one quarter of the way into the show they talk about the Mayan alphabet, Mayan Hieroglyphs and Mayan numbers and I knew after looking at them that this was it. Finding anything pertaining to a Mayan word, their alphabet or numbers in the movie would help prove a link to the date in the picture at the end. Stanley Kubrick would not be able to resist sprinkling a few well hidden numbers or letters or something else about the Mayans in his movie. All the clues are there if you look closely enough. By now I know “The Shining” like the back of my hand and I was sure that I’d never seen any Mayan symbols in the film. But I did know the one shot where Stanley Kubrick could have hidden the characters so they wouldn’t be easily detected is. After all very little of what I’ve shown in this blog is overtly obvious to casual observation. The shot I’m talking about is Jack’s twin vision of the hedge maze that I just showed you. It’s visually quite busy and if someone were trying to hide something, lots could be there hidden in plain site without being noticed.



I looked at it for about ten seconds and my jaw dropped as I found exactly what I wasn’t looking for. The Mayan Indians never being mentioned by name in this movie doesn’t mean anything because, like everything else I've shown you, they’re iconology has also been cleverly hidden. They were the Indians that Stanley Kubrick has been pointing us to all the time though. Just like the Hedge Animals, fire hose and possessed elevators from the novel that mysteriously don't budge an inch in the movie; he didn’t leave them out. Just look at how subtly and brilliantly he did this. For almost 30 years viewers have looked at this image and not seen what’s hidden there. And Stanley Kubrick did get the idea of hiding Indians in the movie directly from Stephen King's novel.



...............“Can you see the Indians in this picture?”
.......…………….............They are there!



Stephen King asked this seemingly insignificant question in his novel (Page 133 - Chapter 21), but there are no hidden Indians in it to find. Stanley Kubrick reverses the sentence and inserts hidden Indians throughout his film. He makes you “strain and squint” than in the movie, “you could see some of them”. “But you could never see all of them, and that was what made you uneasy. Because it was the ones you couldn't see that would sneak up behind you, a tomahawk in one hand and a scalping knife in the other ... (page 133, Chapter 21)”





Now, “Can you see the Indians in this picture?” There’s a perfect depiction of an ancient Mayan pyramid (top, sides and stairs) hidden in Jack’s daydream of the hedge maze and it’s proof positive that I’m correct about the Mayan date 12/24/2011. The only thing skeptics can say is, "it's not there". But we all see it. Nothing else in the ancient world looks like this. The top, sides, stairway. It’s all there. It’s an unmistakable iconic image and I made no error in getting the month, the mirror image of the 21 pictures in the last shot. He put them there on the wall to count. I made no error in adding up 7/4/1921 to get the day. He gave that to us to add up. I made no error in counting the 20 people in the second to last close-up picture of the movie. He cropped it that way for a reason. I made no error in seeing the number 11 on Danny’s Apollo sweater. He put it there for a reason. And I made no error in seeing the Mayan pyramid because it’s unmistakable image was hidden for a reason. The many American Indian references throughout the movie are way to obvious and for me they don't hold any mystery at all. The real mystery here is the date July 4, 1921 in the last shot of the movie. The inclusion of what’s hidden here; a depiction of an ancient Mayan pyramid in Jack’s daydream of the hedge maze (in conjunction with the mysterious numbers he has us notice throughout the movie) has no other explanation. It has something to do with Mayan Indians and not American Indians as is the popular belief held by some. There's no way that skeptics can make those pyramids disappear (they’re even twins - one on the top and one on the bottom). No other image in the ancient world looks like a Mayan pyramid and there is no other date in the ancient world like the Mayan Apocalypse. In fact if you had some important reason and we’re looking for a number to hide somewhere in your film, there’s no better one than this one 12/24/2011.


If this still isn't enough maybe seeing the numbers of the date 12/24/2011 Stanley Kubrick hid in the picture will help. They’re all there and quite obvious if you know where to look. The even numbers are horizontal across the middle area and the odd number is vertical.

12 is represented by the three unmistakable 4’s formed by the center shadows (3x4=12).


24 is represented by the two 6’s on the left and right added to the three 4’s (6+6+4+4+4=24). The number 6 on the right side is an inverted mirror image.


The number 20 in the year is represented by adding the four obvious 5’s on the left and right of the two 6’s near the center of the image (4x5=20). Now the numbers on the left side are the inverted mirror image.



11 is the only odd number in the date. Placing the obvious hidden Roman Numerals (X and I) in the picture together represents the number 11 and completes the year. (Some believe in the X in this picture they’re seeing a skull and crossbones but I find nothing else in the film relating to either poison or Pirates to corroborate this. But in the novel on (page 23, Chapter 4) we do have this vision that Danny sees; “A green witch light glowed into being on the front of the building, flickered, and became a giant, grinning skull over two crossed bones: "Poison," Tony said from the floating darkness. "Poison.")


We‘re actually looking at a beautiful and interesting example of a specific optical illusion. Mirrors are so important in “The Shining” and this image is a nearly perfect depiction of 2 different mirror images at once, a left-right and top to bottom inversion. A double mirror image. It’s not obvious because of the clever shadows he had added to it. The reason I say, ‘nearly perfect depiction of 2 different mirror images’ is because you have to look at it very closely. There are variations he added across the center strip that destroy the continuity of the mirror image.


12/24/2011, it’s unbelievable how he was able to hide the Mayan date and pyramid in plain sight for years. All in this one image.




The end of this blog is littered with comments on how wrong I am about the numbers. Just like what I'm going to show you next. There’s so much hidden and so much to see in this film that it boggles the mind. Take a look at how Stanley Kubrick hid the Mayan date in Jack’s novel. I love it; it’s in his clever dispersal of the typing mistakes. Something occurs only 3 times on the first page.

Stanley Kubrick points us to doubles again. Even though many mistakes are shown, there are only 3 sets of double letters that are mistakes (l, m, and a) on the first page of Jack’s novel and there are none on subsequent pages.

l - The first capital letter that’s a mistake is the twelfth number in the alphabet.
ll - 12 and 12 equals twenty four.


He also adds three l’s next to each other indicating 12 and 24.


mm - The roman numeral for 2 thousand.


aa - The first letter of the alphabet standing next to itself is 11.


k - Also, the first missing letter on the page is the 11th letter of the alphabet.


This is all so obvious. All the numbers are there - 12/24/2011.





Artwork and possible logograms pointing to Mayan culture can also be seen here on the office wall at the beginning of the movie. This is not one of the "Navajo or Apache motifs" mentioned by Mr. Ullman during the tour of the hotel.


And there’s also the red "Golden Rey" (the Spanish word used for the Mayan Indian's kings as in the ruins of El Rey) box I noted before, pointing to the Mayan’s.


Stanley Kubrick adds interesting images all over this film. There’s a poster that looks like the Ouroboros above and behind the twin’s heads in Danny’s vision of them in the game room.

The Mayan’s believed that 12/24/2011 would be the end of a cycle in their calendar. A destruction of everything followed by a rebirth. Much like the Mayan Ouroboros of Kukulkan or the Seven-segmented Aztec Ouroboros. All depicting the constant renewal of their calendar and possibly time itself.



Why has the date of the Mayan apocalypse changed through the years?

I haven’t been able to find the exact reason why the Mayan date has changed through the years from 12/24/2011 to what it is today, 12/21/2012. The closest explanation I could find is that it’s not an actual date but a period of time between two dates. If this is so he may be pointing us the Mayan Indians in the music we hear right from the beginning of the movie. The mysterious date used to be a prediction of the end of the world but now many believe the year 2013 is the beginning of a new age in the Mayan calendar, “The dawning of the Age of Aquarius”. A rebirth. Stanley Kubrick had the movie start after the :11 second Warner Brother's logo ends and if you listen very closely to the music we hear the song begins with a 20 note sequence followed by a 13 note sequence played twice. The theme song is a loose adaptation of this, “Symphonie Fantastique- 5th Movement” by Berlioz, and starts at 3:20 into this video clip (click here). It's numbers and doubling right from the start with an :11-second intro followed by notes that add up to 20-13, all doubled by being played twice. The number 20 is special because Mayan’s use a base 20, not a base 10 mathematical system as we do. Even what’s written in the last picture may be pointing us to the Mayan calendar , a calendar that's based on 13 months. I always thought it was odd that Stanley Kubrick didn’t put the word “The” in front of “Overlook Hotel” in the final picture. If you add the characters in “Overlook Hotel”, “ July 4th Ball”, and the numbers that makeup the year 1921; you get 13-11-13.



What year does Stanley Kubrick’s “Shining” take place?

As I mentioned before Stanley Kubrick spoke about the final photo in the interview with Michel Ciment where he says, “it's actually a photograph taken in 1921 which we found in a picture library". It’s very interesting that he used an authentic photo from the year 1921. That's exactly what you would expect a perfectionist to do, but did you ever wonder how he came up with the year on the date? 1921 might not be meaningless as it pops up in several other spots in the film. The Going-to-the-Sun Road (also closed in the winter), in Montana's Glacier National Park, seen in the opening credits of “The Shining” had its construction started in 1921, and there’s also the song that Jack’s singing at the very end of the film. "California, Here I Come" was written for the 1921 Broadway musical Bombo, starring Al Jolson. There’s also the scene from the 1921 Swedish silent film "The Phantom Carriage" I spoke of earlier that has a similar door axing scene. If you think about it Stanley Kubrick made it impossible to tell exactly when his “Shining