The Kubrickon

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:59 pm

tapitsbo » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:41 pm wrote:Guruilla, is something of what you're making the case for here the idea that Kubrick's cinematic altar-building is a device for inducing dissociative equivocation, for exiling inductees into a labyrinth like the one in the Shining? Sort of how the symbolic regalia of something like Freemasonry might be operating more often than not?

I think so, but your language as ever is difficult to parse. Not however merely to imprison them but to get them to work as eternal caretakers, while bringing the real "key" ~ their inner child, the pristine psyche ~ in to power the machine and animate the ghosts that will haunt it to life.

Overlook = Internet.

tapitsbo » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:41 pm wrote:And that the "obsessives" trying to get a nugget of revelation from Kubrick's cosmos wrongly interpret him as a sort of whistleblower where the reigning mysteries are concerned? But are inevitably misled since, you claim, his purpose from the outset is to muddle, instead?

Not to muddle but to fascinate and inspire to worship, like every good Guardian-Satan-Demiurge-SuperEgo....
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:21 pm

I guess the mystification leads to a bit of muddling... who would you personally consider to be an artist who dispels these techno-gnostic self-transforming machive elves (handmaidens to the bootstraps of a psychopathic AI)? :clown
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:49 pm

You want a counterpoint to Kubrick? Wouldn't that just end up being an expression of taste?

I might tentatively suggest the David Lynch of Eraserhead or Blue Velvet, about which Pauline Kael said something like 'there seems to be very little distance between the audience and the filmmaker's subconscious.' Maybe this is why SK claimed Eraserhead was his favorite movie ~ it being the most unlike his own work and the furthest from his own abilities? (& of course Lynch loves Kubrick.) Someone at FB just compared my podcasting style to "Kubrick's cold camera"! Maybe this is why I don't like Kubrick?? :starz: I was definitely obsessed with Blue Velvet; but I didn't analyze it for meanings (until I wrote about it).

Who would you suggest?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:12 pm

If Kubrick invites supplication to Saturn at a distance, maybe Lynch nudges his viewers to invoke that power within themselves and taste their id made flesh?

If it's true that Kubrick was coupled to a social engineering program, it wouldn't just seem like a matter of taste, to me
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:22 pm

It is if the entirety of popular culture is coupled to a social engineering program. Taste & degree.

From the True Detective "exegesis":

Works of art aren’t meant for mass consumption—at least they aren’t meant for mass understanding. What’s required is participation and complicity: a willingness to revisit and reawaken our own deeply buried pain and loss, to relive it through the work, and so enliven not just the work but ourselves. That process hurts. A TV show that has the cojones to go there, not only isn’t it likely to get rewarded for it, it shouldn’t be rewarded for it. Art ain’t a social service, and it’s not (really) entertainment either. It’s a dark kind of science; the Greeks even had laws to regulate it.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:13 pm

guruilla » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:57 pm wrote:Can you explain what this discovery confirmed for you, besides that there is a mathematical order to the Universe? (1)

Also, can you say more about why you think this is especially so around Kubrick's films, I mean, why you believe that, if you do (what evidence), and why you think it might be true (what reason)? (2)


(1) All by itself, that discovery didn't confirm anything for me, per se, but was simply one more discovery (out of hundreds made by me personally) that further suggests there is a reality to shawnfella's baseline contention—that there is a certain harmonic or "repeated expression of a series of numbers that floats through certain realities" & that it is somehow intimately connected to the life & work of Stanley Kubrick—beyond an overactive imagination/pareidolia.

(2) The primary evidence is in the films, so I'm afraid to properly answer that question for yourself, you're going to have to do the reading. That section there mostly deals with The Killing & 153. I know it's long, & I know how averse you are to minute analysis of Kubrick (& this is the minutest analysis of all), but set aside a half-an-hour or so & just start reading, if you want get an idea. Just keep in mind that this is really a logical extension of your own analysis (at least I think it is), that Kubrick was making sophisticated film-like machines that primarily work with a hidden subliminal architecture: shawnfella is just explicating that architecture.

As far as historical/contextual evidence or reasoning that Kubrick actually did pay this close attention to things like frame-counts, well, it doesn't seem so hard to believe given the length of time it took him to shoot & edit each film, but this testimony from one of the editors on The Shining is extremely revealing:



There's also this brief quote from the John Baxter biography, p. 324: "It was dubbed in eleven days, with sound and editing crews working round the clock. Right to the end, Kubrick made changes, deleting as little as one or two frames. For each change, however, a new black and white print had to be struck, and the music relaid." What possible difference could one or two frames (1/24th of a second) make to someone who wasn't paying extremely precise attention to frame-counts/timings? It could only make a difference on a subliminal level, which is where Kubrick was primarily working.

I also think this little bit from Kubrick's step-brother Jan Harlan is interesting, given the constant association between Kubrick & Saturn, Lord of Time:



Since I already consider an implicate order to existence as a given, I am unsure what's to be gained by mapping that order, save for amusement or confirmation (neither of which I need to go looking for since it constantly comes looking for me). I don't mean to focus on my own skepticism but it's only fair to express how I feel about these pursuits (not that you don't already know). To clarify, do you consider the correspondences or "syncs" you found as evidence that Kubrick faked the Moon landing, or only evidence of this mysterious nonhuman element of control? If the former, how exactly is it evidence; if the latter, then what's the next step?


Don't worry, I appreciate your skepticism. What is there to be gained by mapping a space, other than to orient yourself & understand the territory around you, the (in this case, temporal) context in which you reside? The existence of the city in which you live is also a given, but if you don't have a map then how are you to learn how to move around in it efficiently?

Whether he really did it or not, I consider the idea of Kubrick faking the Moon landing to be a simplistic reduction of a more profound esoteric truth: namely, that the entirety of what we know as our History has been 'faked,' or a set-up, or staged, arranged specifically with the same exactitude as a Kubrick film, & that the 12 Kubrick films, when taken as one whole piece, are a cabalistic rendering of that History & an exposition of that larger truth.

Well there's a world of meaning in that one word "just." I didn't say it was just pareidola, any more than I ever said that Strieber's abduction experiences were "just" dissociative phantasy. It's about an intersection between the two.


Fair enough, & I'd agree!

One last point: if consciousness is infinite and eternal, then isn't even the mathematical perfection of the Universe, or the "underlying architecture to History itself," kind of an arbitrary interpretation system, meaningful only because it works, like language? Maths may be a higher language than ordinary language but it's still arbitrary when every number becomes zero within the context of infinity.


Perhaps, but this to me is where the 'mystic' mindset leads: precisely nowhere (now here). It just seems a way of evading the reality we've been given & the methods we've been given to parsing that reality.

Lastly, did you understand how a combination of human pareidola, the underlying architecture of existence, and intricately designed machine-movies that generate obsession in a certain subset of viewers could be a way to seed AI?


I get that & I think you're very close to nailing it directly on the head. I guess the question is what is meant by seeding AI, exactly? Because I sort of think machine-intelligence/AI is a red herring, or perhaps another metaphor concealing a different truth. It could be that the objective of this 'seeding' process is actually to plant a decoding system or deciphering mechanism into human consciousness so that we collectively (one-by-one) begin to be able to see the ways in which we have been & are being manipulated in this zoo-like construct called History: waking up humanity to the existence of the Archons (or whatever metaphor you want to use), just in time. That would be an optimistic way of looking at it. History is a nightmare from which I'm trying to wake, says Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses. Daedalus being, of course, the Architect of the Labyrinth. My Mom was saying wake up, wake up, Danny, wake up.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:36 pm

guruilla » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:08 pm wrote:PS: Any thoughts on the OY-ewtree thread at Kubrickon forum?


I've been enjoying it... a lot of powerful correspondences. I can't say I fully understand what he's driving at ("human-yew relations?"), but I think it's definitely (IMO) not something to be dismissed as mere pattern-recognition. Again, it's a complex interplay between subject & object, where both are inseparable & yet forever separate, & the truth lies somewhere in between.

I do find it ironic that the only active thread over there anymore is pretty much straight synchromysticism!
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:04 pm

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:The primary evidence is in the films, so I'm afraid to properly answer that question for yourself, you're going to have to do the reading. That section there mostly deals with The Killing & 153.

I will give it a look after I get done here. However compelling the discoveries made, however, wouldn’t you need a “control”, analyzing a non-Kubrick movie to see if you could find a similar set of correspondences? (Back to Neil Diamond again.)

Agent Orange Cooper wrote: Just keep in mind that this is really a logical extension of your own analysis (at least I think it is), that Kubrick was making sophisticated film-like machines that primarily work with a hidden subliminal architecture: shawnfella is just explicating that architecture.

OK, but where I and shawnfella differ, so far at least, is that I don’t think there is any inherent value or meaning in the data being explicated except as proof that Kubrick put it there, which seems almost impossible to prove. This is deliciously maddening for me, because either way, shawnfella is proving my own hypothesis, not so much by finding the data but simply by looking for it and continuing to look. My resistance to reading the material (besides time constraints) is that I don’t want to enter into that audience-cult-space and know I will feel impatient as soon as I do. Yet you are right that I’m sort of professionally obliged to. I wouldn’t say it is “a logical extension” of my own “analysis,” however, since my approach is not to look deeper into the movies but to look away from the movies, at those studying them and, to some extent, at Kubrick himself and the larger social trends which he was part of and had a hand in shaping. I consider the movies as artifacts to be more or less the equivalent of the magician’s buxom assistant and fancy top hat, i.e., for misdirection of our attention in order to capture it. On the other hand, if the movies didn’t exist, there’d be no exploration, so I guess I am screwed by my own tool.

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:What is there to be gained by mapping a space, other than to orient yourself & understand the territory around you, the (in this case, temporal) context in which you reside? The existence of the city in which you live is also a given, but if you don't have a map then how are you to learn how to move around in it efficiently?

Is consciousness/the implicate order equivalent to a city though? It’s a pretty straightforward process, when arriving in a new town, to use a map to get from the train station to the hotel. Can you describe an example of how this mapping process has helped you get from A to B within the realm which you say you are mapping?

It could be a case of superimposing one reality onto another that doesn’t necessarily fit, such as when people use the term “mental illness,” which presupposes that the mind is the same sort of system as the body. This can even force the reality to conform to that super-imposition, so we may never realize what we have done. Mazes within mazes.

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:Whether he really did it or not, I consider the idea of Kubrick faking the Moon landing to be a simplistic reduction of a more profound esoteric truth: namely, that the entirety of what we know as our History has been 'faked,' or a set-up, or staged, arranged specifically with the same exactitude as a Kubrick film, & that the 12 Kubrick films, when taken as one whole piece, are a cabalistic rendering of that History & an exposition of that larger truth.

There are two different ideas here which seem to bleed into each other. One is the historical fact of social and cultural engineering, the other is the metaphysical/mystical idea of the “occult” manipulation of perception. It’s apparent these ideas overlap, in that occult systems of belief are at least propagated, if not actually practiced (but probably both), by known social and cultural engineers. (What is advertising and propaganda besides manipulation of perception?) But still, there’s a leap in what you say, because if “the entirety of what we know as History” has been faked, does that include your last trip to the bathroom? And if we are going to conflate these two ideas (the parapolitical with the mystical), then what’s the difference between Miles Mathis’ crazy speculative conspiracy theories, and a well-researched and sober analysis, or even between truth and disinfo?

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:Perhaps, but this to me is where the 'mystic' mindset leads: precisely nowhere (now here). It just seems a way of evading the reality we've been given & the methods we've been given to parsing that reality.

Funny, because I would consider your approach to be more mystical than mine.

Mystical. adj. Of or relating to religious mysteries or occult rites and practices.

Unless you mean it in this sense: adj. Inspiring a sense of mystery and wonder.

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:I guess the question is what is meant by seeding AI, exactly? Because I sort of think machine-intelligence/AI is a red herring, or perhaps another metaphor concealing a different truth.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:I do find it ironic that the only active thread over there anymore is pretty much straight synchromysticism!

It is ironic, but only partially so. The thread is by someone who expresses disdain for synchromysticism and dislike for Kubrick movies; so his exegesis seems at least partially satirical.

Wittingly or not, I think Page White is showing how “he who seeks finds” and what he finds is the confirmation of the bias which he brings to the quest; but/and, this is essential to the individuatory journey, as Blake said, "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans.” On the other hand, the next part of that was: “I will not reason and compare: my business is to create."

So methinks the poet doth self-contradict, as systems seem to depend on reasoning and comparison to be created.

The problem with creating systems is that they then become ideologies, almost as fast as blood turns red when it hits oxygen. Whether it's a Kubrick Cult or Ewe-philia.

Agent Orange Cooper wrote:As someone who has long fantasized about writing a novel about all of this weirdness myself, it's inspiring, & I'm excited by the prospect of reading the rest.

If you (or anyone else) want to be a test-reader, PM or email me as I am about to send out a first draft of it to various folk, in return for feedback.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:36 pm

AOC's last post was his 37th; my last was the 37th reply at this thread.

2 x 37.

:angelwings:
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:19 pm

StanleyK.jpg

To answer these questions.
No
No
Maybe
(Highly doubt he was aware of that or any of the following sums in red)
Maybe
Missed it no: intended it to signify something, maybe.
No (the name game was likely intentional)

This may be a decent example of the thesis I described above, in other words, of unfinished architecture which requires the pareidolic mind of the obsessive viewer to complete it.

& reading even part of this essay has confirmed my own experience of this phenomena, that is, I found myself painfully aware that someone must have spent hours upon hours of time re-watching Kubrick's movie frame by frame, taking notes, making sums, drawing charts, not to mention all of the lines of speculation that proved fruitless and had to be thrown out, in a word, massive amounts of psychic energy and/or sublimated libido being channeled into a pursuit that will be meaningful only to a tiny handful of similarly preoccupied seekers of the arcane. So yes, that reality is more astonishing and disturbing to me than the possibility that Kubrick himself spent similar hours, weeks, and years encoding his movies with minute forms of esoteric data that would take decades for anyone to discover.

Not that the two ideas can be separated. Mimesis is worth considering in this. & mirror neurons and brain states. Kubrick obsessed over tiny details of his movies and thereby embedded them with all sorts of strangely ordered data (the second movie hidden behind the first, this one embryonic, sort of a halfling), and so his movies transmit that same brain state to (some) viewers and lure them into dedicating their lives to aping, and serving, their Master, to bring the Great Work to fruition in their own souls and minds.

I find it appalling but perhaps that is only because I identify with the mad quest for meaning of the Kubraphile. They seem to be demonstrating not just how the Archons build their conceptual prisons for consciousness, but how the quest to "map" the architecture of the gaol, as if to eventually escape from it, is what keeps them locked inside it, all the while adding mansion upon mansion to the structure.

Until one day they "realize" they have always been the caretakers. :cyclops:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:46 am

An unpleasant addition to this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add it:

Could there be things in common between the architecture you guys are getting at in Kubrick, and the media forced upon MK-ULTRA survivors according to their accounts of their abuse (such as the stories scattered throughout this forum?)

No doubt, if these conjectured correlations exist, they co-exist with a gulf between the two sets of media, Kubrick on the one hand, and on the other: the reported programming materials. A gulf of genre, scope, ability, artistic approach, purpose, etc.

But the vibe I'm getting here is that there's something there.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:36 am

tapitsbo » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:46 am wrote:An unpleasant addition to this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add it:

Could there be things in common between the architecture you guys are getting at in Kubrick, and the media forced upon MK-ULTRA survivors according to their accounts of their abuse (such as the stories scattered throughout this forum?)

No doubt, if these conjectured correlations exist, they co-exist with a gulf between the two sets of media, Kubrick on the one hand, and on the other: the reported programming materials. A gulf of genre, scope, ability, artistic approach, purpose, etc.

But the vibe I'm getting here is that there's something there.


This is an interesting avenue of thought.

In an MKULTRA survivor interview on the CKLN Mind Control radio series, she talked about how they used film footage specially shot for the purpose in order to implant false memories to cover the real ones. If I remember rightly, they weren’t implanted as conscious memories but under the surface, like a layer over the suppressed memories of actual events. Then if the survivor ever got too close to uncovering those memories, this phony movie-set would pop up instead.

Using movies as a way to program people, as featured in Clockwork Orange: if this was something MKULTRA was working on, say in the 1950s, maybe Kubrick was included in some way? Or maybe he attracted the attention of those doing the research?

What if the reason Kubrick took so long on later movies was that he was literally shooting more than just one movie, and the countless takes were being used for experimentation on subjects, to research how angles, lighting, facial expressions, dialogue, etc., worked for programming purposes?

A Clockwork Orange was not only about changing behavior through imagery, it was effective at doing it, at least if the alleged copycat crimes in the UK were truly spontaneous. If the film was an intentional test of the behavior-mod technology (as applied to mass audiences rather than single subjects), and if it worked, maybe this is why Kubrick asked that the film be withdrawn from the UK (where he was living)? It makes a certain amount of sense, especially considering the genesis of Orange:

According to A Clockwork Orange author, Anthony Burgess, the Nadsat language which he invented for his novella “was meant to turn A Clockwork Orange into a brainwashing primer. You should read the book and at the end you should find yourself in possession of a minimal Russian vocabulary—without effort, with surprise.” (http://www.anthonyburgess.org/about-ant ... ork-orange) The ultra-violence of Kubrick’s film version was blamed by the media for inciting a string of copycat crimes: a woman was raped by assailants performing “Singing in the Rain,” gangs of thugs in England dressed up as droogs, a sixteen-year-old obsessed with the film beat a sixty-year-old tramp to death. Most strikingly of all, Arthur Bremmer, the attempted assassin of George Wallace, wrote in his diary on May 1st, 1972: “saw Clockwork Orange, & thought about getting Wallace all through the picture—fantasing [sic] myself as the Alek [sic] on the screen come to real life. . .” May 14th he shot Wallace, paralyzing him for life.
(Kubrickon 1)


And from Prisoner of Infinity part two:
According to Roger Lewis’s biography, Anthony Burgess, Burgess “had been a low-grade collector of intelligence data (or ground observer) in the Far East” for the British government and, on return to England, he found himself embroiled in a world of spy scandals (including the other famous Burgess, Guy) and double agents. Lewis’ source (a British secret service man) informs him that Burgess “was not wholly responsible for A Clockwork Orange [and that] it was a work of collaboration with the British secret services.” According to the same source, Burgess’ collaborator on the book was former CIA officer and languages expert, Howard Roman.

The idea was that he’d lift the corner of the carpet and put into his novel classified material about the (then) new-fangled conditioning experiments and aversion therapies being devised to reform criminals—experiments which had wider implications for the concept of social engineering. [The book is about] the mind-control experimentation conducted by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the Allen Memorial Institute in Montreal, between 1957 and 1963, and the Remote Neural Monitoring facility that operated out of Fort George Meade. The CIA were funding controversial research programs into electronic brain stimulation. They induced exhaustion and nightmares in patients; they put hoods or cones over people’s heads to broadcast voices directly into their brains; they irradiated the auditory cortex or inner ear. When patients had their own speech played back to them, incessantly, they went insane. There was a misuse of civilians in these covert operations, and intelligence on these devices remains classified.

(Roger Lewis, Anthony Burgess, Faber & Faber, 2002, p. 283-5.)
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:34 pm

The best way I can describe my reaction to your response to the bit on The Killing is by quoting you yourself, from the gender thread: in reading your response I "feel like I have been wasting my breath, that I have been stonewalled by ideology and reduced to a set of meaningless beliefs. Dehumanized. Perhaps it's an immature (overly emotional) response, but there it is, take it or leave it."

It's interesting to me though that the only real reaction you had to it is sadness for the author's squandered libido. Your opinion seems to be unshakeable: we've been duped into seeing stuff that isn't there in bad films made by overrated filmmakers, & that disturbs you. That's fine. It seems that, at least when it comes to Kubrick, we're interested in very different conversations. I see the stuff that Kubrick put there quite deliberately and wonder what it means, why he went to such extraordinary effort to put it there. You seem to tacitly agree that he may have put it there on purpose, but believe it to be meaningless—Kubrick's devious (but brilliant) gambit for immortality—& don't want to waste your psychic energy on it. Also fine, but is there really that much of a difference between spending energy on Kubrick & spending energy (writing a book) on Kubraphilia? Like you said, mazes within mazes. We can head in the direction of the center (mapping the territory as we go), or we can find a nice dark corner, cover up with a blanket & pretend we're somewhere else. Still in the Maze. That's only my perception of it, though.

Being that this happens to be the thread's 42nd reply, & we're beginning to go in circles (as one inevitably does in a maze), it may be an appropriate moment for me to bow out for the time being. Too much of my libido has been squandered here already! The floor is yours.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:41 pm

I would say that's an overly emotional reaction, yeah.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:33 pm

In the interests of research, if there are any third-party observers who want to contribute & say what they think just happened, I'd appreciate the input.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to High Weirdness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests