more by MaryAnn

based on a true story | by maryann johanson

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Amazon author
tumblr
Pinterest
RSS

because the military-industrial-entertainment complex Fox Mulder warned us about is real

Remember those two big skyscrapers that used to be in lower Manhattan? Remember how they fell to the ground? Never happened. It was all CGI:

Malaysia’s former premier Mahathir Mohamad said on Wednesday there was “strong evidence” the US faked the September 11 terror attacks as an excuse to go to war against Muslims.

“There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,’ Mahathir told the Conference for the Support of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), as quoted by local media.

But you know what? Avatar ain’t nuthin’ and the 9/11 fakers are pikers. The U.S. has been faking stuff for decades. Like the moon landings. Yup. Stanley Kubrick directed it all from a studio. “Hermetic scholar” Jay Weidner reveals all here: the how and — more importantly — the why. Why the U.S. government needed to fake the images the public saw (because we actually used secret Nazi flying saucer technology to get to the moon, not stupid old rockets, which would never work anyway, duh) and why Kubrick agreed to do it (so he could have an unlimited budget for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and so he could make any movie he wanted, without restriction, for the rest of his life — kinda like how the roughnecks in Armageddon didn’t want to pay taxes ever again).

Please note the really brilliant new twist in Jay Weidner’s theory. He explains that astronauts really did land on the moon, just not the way we saw it on TV: it’s just that the stuff we saw on TV that was faked. It’s a theory that’s almost impossible to falsify. Anyway, we know Kubrick stuff is all true because he totally left clues for us in The Shining. And also because Eyes Wide Shut was released theatrically 30 years to the day after the (supposed) launch of the first Apollo mission.

So there.

These have been your WTF Thoughts for the Day.

(Thanks to reader SM for the 9/11 link.)


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 104
posted in:
easter eggs
  • Keith

    Damn! I want what he’s smoking. Must be some good sheet!

  • Bluejay

    Is Rachel Masters really Jay Weidner?

    Do the Mythbusters have to do a 9/11 special now?

  • http://hoopla.nu Stuart

    Interesting. Though everyone knows that Avatar doesn’t actually feature any special effects. The British discovered Pandora sometime during the 1890s, using trans-stratosphere steam-propelled dirigible ‘sky ducks’.

    That’s a FACT.

  • Paul

    Wow, that deconstruction of The Shining was amazing. If only the writer had decided to use Freudian methods to look strickly at Kubrick’s inner personality with the same eye for detail, (s)he’d be a Ph’d in English by now (or film studies, I suppose).

  • CB

    Uh, the money link at the top is busted. It has a <br> in it.

    But anyway, HOLY FREAKING CHEWBACCA that guy is a giant ball of crazy.

    I have to admit, I do appreciate his balls-to-the-wall antisemitism. At least, it’s refreshing in a way.

    A lot of anti-Semites are also Holocaust deniers, because obviously attempted genocide is the kind of thing that garners a lot of sympathy and they don’t want the Jews to get any sympathy. It requires a level of stupid above and beyond antisemitism in the first place, but anything for the cause, right?

    This guy — he doesn’t deny the Holocaust. He flat out states it and many other massacres happened, but is just disappointed that the Jews were able to bounce back. He’s like “You know the big problem with the Nazis is that they just couldn’t finish the job!”

    Wow.

    But you know, the problem with crazy people like this is that they fail to follow through on the logic of even their own crazy delusions.

    To whit: Isn’t it obvious that if America could use CGI to fake the 9/11 attacks, that Israel itself is nothing more than a CGI illusion? Anyone have the former Prime Minister’s email address, so I can tell him this and blow his freaking mind?!

    In comparison, the “Shining proves Moon Landing is fake” person is just your average ho-hum nutcase. They have the same power as Louis Farrakhan to find ways in which random numbers and images somehow relate to the point they’re trying to make. In other words, the natural (and overzealous) human ability for pattern matching. Yes, the Washington Monument’s height was chosen specifically to imply European hegemony, and yes, Stanley Kubrik painted a wall in a hotel to look “suspiciously like” rockets so Jack could throw a ball at it, as if to say “Bad apollo missions! Bad!”

    *yawn*

    Mahathir Mohamad has raised the bar of crazy, and Jay Weidner simply doesn’t measure up.

  • CB

    Oh yeah, and man talk about sloppy. They say the room number 237 is a reference to the average earth-moon distance, but the distance is actually 238,857 mi (so, 238 or 239 depending on how you’re rounding to “room number), and the surface-to-surface distance is less than 236,000, so…

    That’s what I call a Farrakhan Fail!

  • MaryAnn

    Uh, the money link at the top is busted. It has a
    in it.

    Fixed.

    Mahathir Mohamad has raised the bar of crazy, and Jay Weidner simply doesn’t measure up.

    Oh, I completely disagree. Anyone can say, “Hey, didja know that the outcome of the Super Bowl is predetermined by the Illuminati?” and leave it at that. But it takes a special kind of crazy to obsessively explain all the “evidence” that “proves” your contention with the level of detail that Weidner engages in. I give Weidner the win.

  • CB

    Hmm, you raise a good point. Maybe I discount the obsessiveness and attention to minute detail because it’s an attribute of so many geeks, even the sane ones (not that I’d know what they’re like)? I like Mahathir’s form of crazy simply for the audacity.

  • Brian

    @Bluejay: Beat me to it!

    Countdown to batsh*t Nibiru reference in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

  • Der Bruno Stroszek

    You know, I did wonder why the World Trade Center towers exploded in a giant swirl of fluorescent green and purple after being hit by a sort of alien pterodactyl thing. Now I know! Thanks, crazy man who was once in charge of an actual country!

  • jbella

    Sorry to any of you flickfilosopher followers, but I just have to put a little perspective on this situation:
    Stanley Kubrick = World famous director; was actually involved in and a part of the film industry; knew people, been places, and seen things you can’t even imagine. Yet, according to MaryAnn, he wasted money and time on all those movies for shits and giggles, nothing deeper going on whatsoever…
    (not to say that I agree with a nut like Weidner, btw)

    MaryAnn Johanson = Critic with a web site. Need I say more?

    Which one is more worthy of respect, instead of being frivolously cast aside and insulted? If you say the latter, you’re even more clueless than she is.

    A true WTF moment;)

  • Victor Plenty

    jbella = Fails reading comprehension forever.

  • jbella

    Um, no. Aside from this post, if you read her other hyperlinked reviews on Stanley Kubrick, it’s as if she sees him as some doddering old man who just makes silly movies for the hell of it. It’s one thing to misunderstand the complexity of his works, and quite another to sarcastically tarnish them, and his memory, b/c you simply don’t get it. I’m just questioning whether it’s smart to publically critique something you’ve misunderstood…Sure, don’t like his movies, but if she had read the books those above mentioned movies were based on (such as Traumnovelle,)or at least done some research, I think her opinion of his works would be more informed, if anything. That’s all I’m saying…but then again, creating web sites full of mere opinions is the thing to do these days.

  • jbella

    Wow, and to say that movies, books, and TV are inconsequential is, well, uninformed. Entertainment is more than people make it out to be, even in the etymology of the word:

    Entertain = To enter, To occupy the space of
    ment = Mental, the mind…your brain

    Be careful of what you put in there, and never say that such means of entertainment are trivial…unless she was being sarcastic…which I actually hope so.

  • Bluejay

    Three points, jbella.

    1. Yes, MaryAnn was being ironic in her use of “inconsequential” in her personal description, as well as in the tone of this post. Learn to recognize irony.

    2. The etymology of “entertainment,” or “to entertain,” is not what you say it is. It means “to hold the attention of, or amuse,” deriving from an earlier meaning of “to keep up or maintain”; its roots are in the Middle English entertinen (“to maintain”), deriving from the Old French entretenir and ultimately from the Latin tenere (“to hold”). Learn to do research.

    And lastly,

    3. MaryAnn is entitled to her opinions about Stanley Kubrick or any other filmmaker, just as you are entitled to yours. Learn tolerance.

  • Victor Plenty

    Jbella, you have yet to show any evidence that you are able to comprehend the vast differences between MaryAnn Johanson’s opinions about Kubrick’s work, and Jay Weidner’s opinions about Kubrick’s work.

    Combined with the other major flaws in your arguments already identified by Bluejay, you’ve had multiple serious failures of reading comprehension.

    Better luck next time.

  • jbella

    Bird, “ment” comes from the latin word “mens” which means mind. My sources go beyond a google search. Take your own advice, and learn intelligence while you’re at it.

    Vic, have u read her review of Eyes…? Do that, and then maybe what I said will make sense to you. You both need to think for yourselves and look at things from an objective standpoint…and stop bowing at your shrine of flick filosopher.

    “why Kubrick agreed to do it (so he could have an unlimited budget for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and so he could make any movie he wanted, without restriction, for the rest of his life”

    Irony or not, that’s a slap in the face…sorry but it is…it is. yeh, it is. okay? okay.

  • Bluejay

    Bird, “ment” comes from the latin word “mens” which means mind. My sources go beyond a google search. Take your own advice, and learn intelligence while you’re at it.

    Oh, silly jbella. “-ment” as used in “entertainment” is merely a suffix. It transforms a verb into a noun that expresses the means or result of the verb’s action. My sources are the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, and years of excellent English classes. Learn grammar, and piss off.

  • jbella

    …how about working on my MFA in Creative Writing and currently have two BA’s in Philosophy and English, with Piano Pedagogy minor. So…my sources go beyond a google search, as well as mere dictionaries (thank you for adding the last one). Now to piss off…or piss you off;) lol, this is fun.

  • Bluejay

    …how about working on my MFA in Creative Writing and currently have two BA’s in Philosophy and English

    My, how the standards of higher education have fallen.

  • jbella

    What an original response! You are soooo creative my little bluebird *pat on the head*

  • Bluejay

    And that’s the best response a graduate student in Creative Writing can come up with? Heh. I WIN.

    But seriously: I assume your sarcasm means you’ve heard people say that to you before. Maybe you should start listening to them.

    I sincerely hope your language and critical thinking skills improve by the time you get your degree. Best of luck.

    Snark away, but I’m outta here.

  • jbella

    Yeh, fly away little bluejay:) lol you won? okay, whatever makes you feel special…you got a gold star for the day.

  • Victor Plenty

    It’s certainly a great mystery how anyone could possibly imagine feeling anything less than the utmost respect — nay, reverence! — for the august body of Stanley Kubrick’s work, if it has served as the inspiration for a person of such refined erudition and unfailing good manners as jbella.

  • jbella

    lol Your grandiloquence is amusing, and has only revealed hours spent on the thesaurus seeking artsy fartsy words…no whit and/or wile to be seen, sorry. Quoting Incognito, “I’m never offended by flatulence, I just move away from it’s smell.” And away I move. (how’s that for manners…)

  • Nathan

    entertain – verb
    entertainment – noun

    That’s all that’s going on there.

    “Entertain” is related to retain and maintain, and “-ment” is just the means by which you do it. It has nothing to do with entering the mind.

    Though you can entertain something in your mind, I suppose.

  • Paul

    Well, if mere entertainment is so harmless, why does anyone care that women and minorities are underrepresented and don’t get as many interesting roles because most of the writers and directors and money men are white guys? Why do we have a ratings system?

    If the media doesn’t change minds, why do politicians and companies shelve out all that money for advertising? Who would give a beef about Fox News?

    If entertainment is unimportant, why are we hanging out on a film critic’s website?

    And if my post has any typos, I beg forgiveness in advance so the grammar-nazis won’t come for me in the night.

  • jbella

    Yes “ment” modifies the verb, but “ment” also has a meaning passed down from century to century through different languages, thus convoluted in it’s etymology.

    Paul, you rock.

  • Nathan

    Well, the suffix -ment comes from -mentum which denotes the act of or result of something.

    “ment” when it refers to the mind seems to be the root, as in “de-ment-ed.”

    The mentum suffix seems to have been shortened as it passed into English, and the actual use of a word like ‘entertainment’ isn’t referring to the mind and no one ever used it in such a way. ‘Entertainment’ started off as a means to retain service or occupy guests.

  • Bluejay

    Well, if mere entertainment is so harmless

    Paul, no one on this thread is arguing that entertainment is harmless. The issue at hand is not recognizing that when MaryAnn calls movies, TV, books, and the meaning of life “inconsequences” in her bio, she’s being ironic.

    And I don’t make a point of pouncing on people for honest grammatical mistakes. But when someone makes claims about grammar or etymology, I’m gonna want to see if the claim holds water.

    In this case Nathan’s right. The suffix “-ment,” and the root “ment” derived from the Latin for “mind,” are two entirely different creatures. “Entertainment,” “alignment,” “postponement,” “readjustment,” “payment,” “accompaniment,” “pavement” and other such words have nothing to do with the Latin “mind” at all. On the other hand, “dementia” and “mental” obviously do.

    If I’m shown a reliable source that says otherwise, I’ll gladly concede.

  • jbella

    This is hilarious…What are you, Bluejay, spokesperson for MaryAnn? But as someone with an overweening ego as she seems to have, I’m guess you are in fact her. I’m beginning to believe she is pathetic enough to create alter-egos for her own site. Could be wrong, but that’s the feeling I get.

    As far as the whole “ment” thing, your argument is so silly and limited in it’s perspective that I am done.

    But, I’ll leave you with this:

    -ment is a suffix that forming nouns, initially from Fr. and represents L. -mentum, which was added to verb stems sometimes to represent the result or product of the action. Used with English verb stems from 16c. (e.g. merriment, also illustrating the act of turning -y to -i- before this suffix).
    (That is to say it’s usage was more often used as a verb modifier AS it reached the English language, which does not suggest loss of original meaning…duh. SO the older the word, the closer you get to it’s original INTENT, and then as it’s passed down, becomes convoluted…but people who are in the know of archaic languages see words in a different light than the average joe)

    mental: adjective – Latin mentum = chin; or Latin mens = mind.
    (just to add another point, Phonetically speaking “s,” “t,” “n,” “c,” “d,” and “z” are similar phonemes (visemes), “s” and “t” showing the smallest differential.

    Put the pieces together on your own, and use your mens.

  • LaSargenta

    Guys, I don’t have any definitive source to send you all to; however, about this etymology issue, I think there were multiple roots.

    First off, mentum (chin, as jbella said) is a 2nd declension neuter noun, as — in no particular order, merely as I remember them from high school and my first bout at uni, and this is not a complete list — are: temperamentum, rudimentum, libamentum, ligamentum, excrementum, and lomentum.

    Dementia is indeed from mens/mentis. But, mens mentis was part of that funky feminine subgroup of the 3rd declension. And dementia/dementiae is feminine 1st declension — which is almost all feminine except for agricola and one other word that escapes me.

    Most of the time, but certainly not always, it seemed that if a latin word was the root of more latin words, the gender frequently stayed the same. (This helped me remember things for quizes.)

    Considering the variety in meanings of all those neuter nouns that already existed in latin before french came to be, nor english, I suspect that the suffix making an action into a noun (and -ment is a lot like -ion in that way) is from something other than mens.

    Truth in advertising: I am not a latin scholar. I learned it to read it to study other things, not to study latin.

    Now, can this thread get back on topic?

  • Bluejay

    This is hilarious…What are you, Bluejay, spokesperson for MaryAnn? But as someone with an overweening ego as she seems to have, I’m guess you are in fact her. I’m beginning to believe she is pathetic enough to create alter-egos for her own site. Could be wrong, but that’s the feeling I get.

    LOL! Baseless ad hominem attacks. Why am I not surprised? And, not that it matters to this discussion, but I’m not MaryAnn; obviously you don’t frequent this website enough to realize that. I just call bullshit as I see it.

    -ment is a suffix that forming nouns, initially from Fr. and represents L. -mentum, which was added to verb stems sometimes to represent the result or product of the action. Used with English verb stems from 16c. (e.g. merriment, also illustrating the act of turning -y to -i- before this suffix).

    Yep. So far that’s what I’ve been saying. Funny that you throw in the y-to-i thing, hoping that it’s relevant. You’re just throwing the kitchen sink at me, hoping something sticks.

    (That is to say it’s usage was more often used as a verb modifier AS it reached the English language, which does not suggest loss of original meaning…duh. SO the older the word, the closer you get to it’s original INTENT, and then as it’s passed down, becomes convoluted…but people who are in the know of archaic languages see words in a different light than the average joe)

    As far as “-ment” goes, this is pure speculation on your part. Of course word meanings get convoluted through the ages, but you’ve provided no evidence nor authoritative sources to show that the suffix “-ment” in fact derives from mens.

    mental: adjective – Latin mentum = chin; or Latin mens = mind.

    Uh huh. Nice work, pulling that out of Arnold’s Glossary of Anatomy.

    Yes, “mentum” is the Latin medical term for the human chin, and has the adjective “mental.” Except that this “mentum” is related to the Indo-European root that also gives us the word “mouth,” not the Latin root that denotes “mind.” There is, so far, no evidence that “mental” from mentum (chin) and “mental” from mens/mentis (mind) are etymologically related. It’s a case of linguistic convergent evolution.

    Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the suffix “-ment.” Or with your original and easily-debunked explanation of the etymology of “entertainment” as “entering the mind.”

    (just to add another point, Phonetically speaking “s,” “t,” “n,” “c,” “d,” and “z” are similar phonemes (visemes), “s” and “t” showing the smallest differential.

    More kitchen sink. Fail, fail, fail.

    For you, jbella, speech is a second language.

  • Bluejay

    Now, can this thread get back on topic?

    Sorry, LaSargenta, for getting carried away. Yes, I think I’m done.

  • Victor Plenty

    Bluejay, no apologies are needed from you. Your fact-rich responses to jbella’s fail-filled bullshit trolling attempts have been six kinds of awesomesauce.

  • jbella

    While being way to occupied with mundane details, you’re failing to see the bigger picture. “Entertainment” is perceived by the mind…not the chin, not your big toe, but the mind. “To hold the mind” is fair. Remove your head from your ass, and then take a step back.

  • Victor Plenty

    Jbella, there is no “bigger picture” in anything you have said here. No matter how elegant the sculpture you think you have crafted, you started with material pulled out of your anus. That’s why nobody is eager to take a bite.

    For someone who claimed to be leaving multiple times in just this one conversation, you’re a persistent little troll.

    How can we miss you, if you won’t go away?

  • JoshB

    This thread is quality entertainment.

    Now dissect the etymology of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Go jbella, go!

  • Nathan

    Just experienced a little synchronicity while reading a biography of John Donne, wherein he is quoted: “must I be fain to say, that the Clergy of this City hath the poorest intertainment of an City that can come into comparison with it?”

    He’s talking about clergy not being paid enough and not anything to do with their minds.

    Some things about etymology are intuitive and some aren’t.

  • jbella

    Maryann, you are SO pathetic. Learn to accept arguments against you, and then think about making improvements based on them. That’s how we learn and grow as people, and as far as I can tell, you are going the other way. You still haven’t proven anything I’ve said wrong, and resort to the most sad display of desperation I’ve ever witnessed.

  • jbella

    And to you others who can’t think independantly, please entertain that idea.

  • Bluejay

    While being way to occupied with mundane details, you’re failing to see the bigger picture. “Entertainment” is perceived by the mind…not the chin, not your big toe, but the mind. “To hold the mind” is fair. Remove your head from your ass, and then take a step back.

    You can speculate all you want. You can make creative interpretations all you want. I won’t stop you. I might even think you’re clever.

    But you claim to know etymology, and etymology is history. It’s the reasoned conclusions of professional linguists about the origin and historical development of words, based on verifiable linguistic trails–evidence, in short. So you can have all sorts of notions and cultural observations about “entertainment,” but when you claim to know its origin and history, you’d better be sure about your facts. That’s critical thinking, and it’ll stand you in good stead as a writer.

    If you’d bothered to consult a “mere” dictionary–which is compiled by people with more linguistic expertise than you or I–before hemorrhaging all over this thread, you might have been spared being exposed as the pretentious troll you are.

  • MaryAnn

    Wow, and to say that movies, books, and TV are inconsequential is, well, uninformed. Entertainment is more than people make it out to be, even in the etymology of the word:

    Hilarious, especially considering that the mostly unspoken — but sometimes spoken — thesis of my criticism is that “it’s not just a movie.”

    Still, as Freud himself noted, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

    Also: While it’s important to keep an open mind, it’s equally important not to keep it so open that your brains fall out.

  • Nathan

    jbella, I will not enter that idea’s tain. I just can’t get my ment around it.

  • JoshB

    Maryann, you are SO pathetic. Learn to accept arguments against you, and then think about making improvements based on them…You still haven’t proven anything I’ve said wrong, and resort to the most sad display of desperation I’ve ever witnessed.

    Wah? At the time you posted MaryAnn hadn’t replied to you at all. Are you claiming that ignoring you is a sad display of desperation?

  • Orangutan

    No, Josh. She thinks that MaryAnn is posting under other names. Bluejay’s, specifically, I think. Which is kind of equally sad and desperate. “Someone doesn’t agree with me therefore that person must be an alter-ego of the person I am disagreeing with initially!!”

  • JoshB

    Yeah, I saw where she (are you a she jbella?) said that, but I thought she was just being trollish and didn’t really believe it.

    Is this gonna be another tim1974 where you can’t be certain whether they’re being sincere or not?