Discussion in 'Celebrity News' started by Triumph, Aug 18, 2010.
It surely didn't contribute to his well-being.
Maybe it could have been a contributing factor as The Daily Beast sources list her involvement with Scientology beginning in 1995. The interviews with her family members raise more questions regarding a timeline of her involvement. It is frightening to think that since Vivian Kubrick is a part of the Kubrick Estate, a piece of it will by owned by the church one day unless she defects.
Is this possible? I didn't think Vivian Kubrick really lived in Allen, Texas. WTF?
Vivian Kubrick Surfaces in the Oddest Possible Way: At an Alex Jones Rally
By Tony Ortega, The Underground Bunker
Vivian Kubrick, reclusive daughter of film great Stanley, turns up at anti-government Alex Jones rally
By Tony Ortega, The Raw Story
WTF? She is living in Dallas? Is she still a Scientologist? And what is she protesting? I read that she contributed to the presidential campaign of Ron Paul.
Crank magnetism. Swallow Scientology then you turn in to a JFK conspiracy theory nutter, then moar.
lol magic bullet fag
Crank magnetism is not really a bullet. More like, when you can't filter bad information your head fills with more bad info. And birds of a feather. And strength in numbers when the mean scientist people keep saying your dumb.
Wait, I just realized that you weren't saying crank magnetism was a magic bullet. You're talking about the JFK bullet.
Did you know there are some good books that debunk those theories quite well?
Brian Dunning recently published a podcast reviewing the JFK assassination. You might find it interesting. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4389
The only interesting thing about it is that you (and many of his audience) can't see through it. He uses the terms "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" so many times that it's amusing when he complains about "conspiracy theorists" using terms like "official story" and "the government's version of events". Pot, kettle, heya! Also, he mentions how many pages the Warren commission report and Bugliosi's book have, as though their length somehow makes them impressive, while dismissing the "conspiracy theorists" who -- in his own words -- cast doubt over nearly all the contents of the WCR. He doesn't mention how many pages investigators and other "conspiracy theorists" have cranked out in doing so. I won't speculate why.
One aspect of government cover-ups which I find truly interesting is this:
In any case of a government/insider wrongdoing followed by a cover-up, it is logical to expect that those who did the wrong, along with their friends/allies, will, post facto (and even perhaps pre facto, if they are really on top of the game), engage in water-muddying. It is illogical to expect them to just wait to be caught. Their water-muddying can take many forms. One fairly intuitive one is to pretend to be a "conspiracy theorist" on the trail of the conspirators, garner attention as such, and then bring disrepute to "your side" by word or deed. Then, your real allies can use you to discredit "your side" by association. In fact, this tactic was described in the infamous "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", IIRC, which dates back over a century (regardless of authorship). It works, because most people don't take the time to sniff out such trickery, so the few who do can be neatly labeled as "conspiracy theorists" or some other dismissive term.
Mr. Dunning is either blissfully unaware of this, or is working this exact strategy in that podcast. When he says that the "standard model" of the assassination (Oswald in the depository with the rifle) is supported by "all the available evidence" I can only laugh.
He also makes a point of mentioning how many alternative theories Bugliosi discredits in his book. Well, that's nice, but... there is only one actual history; all other theories are wrong. So, discrediting many of those wrong ones is not, in itself, proof of anything. Logically, we already know that, if there are X alternative theories, at least X-1 of them are wrong and, thus, at risk of being discredited. It is perhaps noteworthy that there have been that many alternative theories advanced, but neither their number or their existence have any significance IMO. Whether put forward by false opposition or by misguided accusers, they are only a distraction.
The principle to keep in mind is this: an argument has not been defeated until it has been refuted in its strongest form. It may be worthwhile (for multiple reasons) to shoot down your opposition's poor theories and expose their inept or misguided voices, but don't expect that to persuade your intelligent opponents that they are wrong. Acting like you think it should is a good way to accomplish exactly the opposite. Tilters at straw men are unpersuasive; if persistent, they become suspect. Guilt by association tactics suck, too.
Mr. Dunning does not strike me as unintelligent; he is certainly articulate. However, it's difficult to take him at face value here (and that's putting it charitably). Perhaps he just hasn't sincerely looked at the other side. He doesn't address any specific evidence in this podcast, just generalities, and he gets those somewhat wrong, as I've just partially explained.
I'll add this, as I've just read all of the comments following the podcast:
Many of his commenters are more credible than he is. Some of their comments make sense pertaining to specific aspects of the assassination and associated theories, and are worthy of consideration. Mr. Dunning, though, actually made this statement in the comments:
"As I've said, I remain unaware of any conspiracy theory that has ever been proven true. I wish I had some, as it's a popular episode request.
Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
November 20, 2013 10:56am"
Notably, some later commenters called him on this odd statement. (Others tried to defend it, so it was a mixed bag.)
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion; the podcast itself wasn't very good, but the comments section proved more worthwhile.
Oswald shot a cop who tried to stop him as he was walking away from the book depository. Seems suspicious --the kind of thing a person who'd just committed a serious crime might do.
Just a bit of useless conjecture: even assuming that Oswald pulled the trigger doesn't negate the possibility of a larger conspiracy. I'm not particularly well versed in the JFK stuff, but it seems unlikely that the two would somehow be mutually exclusive.
I'd recommend Don Delillo's "Libra". It's so compelling and well-written you almost believe it's actually how the JFK assassination plot went down even though it is a novel and the author himself doesn't think it's true.
It's a good demonstration of the principle that the theory with the greatest explanatory power is not necessarily the correct one.
This reminds me of the 9/11 plot: "Hey guys, let's get a couple dozen Arabs to an hero for us by hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Then we also put explosives in the buildings which we detonate at exactly the same moment. Because the hijacking, death, and building devastation from the planes alone will be meh." Seems an unlikely discussion.
Same with the JFK story. Let's say you're some Mafia friendly CIA agent or whatever who doesn't like Kennedy. You hear about this commie ex-Marine sharpshooter, Oswald. Oswald was apparently not easy to like. He comforted himself with the notion the Russians would be his friends, but they didn't bond with him like he was hoping. Same with the Russian wife who is leaving him. Then Kennedy plans a trip involving a drive by Oswald's workplace. So Oswald decides to take his guns to work, maybe do something significant if he gets a clear shot. If he gets lucky, the Russians will celebrate his name forever. This idea gives him a boner.
If I were the anti-Kennedy plotter in that scenario, I'd stay clear of Oswald and simply wait to see what happens next. Why risk incriminating myself when the nutter might get lucky all on his own?
Vivian Kubrick posts remarkable photos from the sets of her father’s movies
By Tony Ortega, The Underground Bunker
What’s going on with Vivian Kubrick?
In November, we reported that she’d showed up at an Alex Jones rally in Dallas and appeared to be a big fan of the conspiracy-obsessed radio host. Why was that surprising? It was if you knew the backstory: Vivian is the daughter of Stanley Kubrick, and the great filmmaker appeared to be grooming Vivian to follow in his footsteps before his death in 1999: At only 17, Vivian made a documentary, Making ‘The Shining’, then seven years later composed the score for her father’s 1987 film, Full Metal Jacket. Then, sometime around 1995 we believe, Vivian became involved in Scientology. A few years later, Kubrick began shooting his final film, Eyes Wide Shut.
“Stanley asked Vivian to compose the score, but at the last moment she said she wouldn’t,” Kubrick’s widow Christiane told the Guardian in 2009. “They had a huge fight. He was very unhappy. He wrote her a 40-page letter trying to win her back. He begged her endlessly to come home from California. I’m glad he didn’t live to see what happened.”
Vivian had disconnected from her family in the Scientology way. Kubrick died in March 1999, a few months before Eyes Wide Shut opened that summer.
In 2010, the Daily Beast’s Nicole LaPorte talked to Katharina Kubrick, Christiane’s oldest daughter and Vivian’s half-sister, who said that Vivian was still not talking to the family. All they knew was that Vivian had showed up at her father’s 1999 funeral with a Scientology handler.
“When his funeral was held in England, Katharina says that Vivian showed up with a Scientology member…The person sat on a bed, saying nothing, while Vivian complained of back pain that she said had been caused 10,000 years ago,” LaPorte wrote.
Ten years later, in 2009, Vivian didn’t come to England for the funeral of her sister, Anya, whom she had been extremely close with growing up.
“She has completely changed as a person. And it’s just very sad. We’re not allowed to contact her…Something happened to her. She has been changed forever,” Katharina told LaPorte.
When our story came out in November, it was the first time that Vivian had surfaced in more than a decade. We heard from a family friend that Katharina and her mother, Christiane, were stunned to see Vivian on the video, talking politics with Jones, who gushed about Vivian’s father, apparently clueless about the family history.
A few weeks before that Dallas event, Vivian had started a Twitter account. We’ve been following it since then. And we weren’t the only ones who noticed that beginning on Sunday, she’s been posting some remarkable photographs from her childhood and from her father’s sets. Let’s look at a few of them, each with the captions that Vivian put on them.
We’re big in France, apparently
By Tony Ortega
Some time back, we helped out a reporter who was asking really interesting questions about Vivian Kubrick after seeing our coverage of the famous director’s daughter here at the Underground Bunker.
And here’s the result — a spread from the most recent edition of the French version of Vanity Fair.
Here is a working link:
Who knows what lurked in the heart of stressed 70 year oldsters not sleeping properly. The Shadow knows nothing.
Looks like she has moved again to Scientology Mecca
1217 sunset drive
clearwater florida 33755
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!