And as far as Kubrick's style...

You wrote that the writer of the essay seemed to display a pretty good grasp of his style (granted, I've paraphrased what you said, here) and you pointed out specifically what he had to say about the projection-work on "2001".

First, that technique has been used by legions of filmmakers and was not at all a relevant characteristic of Kubrick's filmmaking style. Various techniques of using projection aren't usually indicative of a filmmaker's visual aesthetic ever, really. They can be. Basically, anything CAN be. It depends on the filmmaker. But it's not the first thing that pops in my mind when I think of Kubrick's style.

It was a technique that he used.

Not that he didn't use it well.

But what I mean when I reference his "style" is: the visual and aesthetic way in which he used his camera (along with his actors, lighting, special effects, ect. but specifically his camera) to tell his story, consistently, film after film.

Most great filmmakers have very distinct styles. Not that you have to have a distinct style to be a great filmmaker. Sidney Lumet comes to mind.

But there are filmmakers- Ozu, Altman, Scorsese, Kurosawa, Bresson, the Coens, Gilliam, even Woody Allen, among many others who, after randomly clicking onto a channel playing any of their films, after 5 minutes (maybe less) you will be able to tell what you're watching is one of THEIR films.

The way Altman's camera slowly zooms across frames crowded with many characters overlapping each other's dialogue. The way Ozu's camera almost NEVER moves and is hardly ever higher than 3 feet off the ground while the actors speak their dialogue directly into it. Scorsese's dynamic camera movements and kinetic editing (with the help of Thelma Schoonmaker, of course).

AND YES, Kubrick's unmistakable style. MANY tracking shots, left-to-right, right-to-left. LOTS of wide-angle lenses. LOTS of zooming in and out. I could go on, but those are the fundamentals. I'd have to get into specific scenes and shots and...it's late and I'm tired.

But this visual style combined with his innate misanthropy and cynicism (expressed through the scripts for his films which he often wrote or co-wrote and his method of working with actors) resulted in Kubrick having one of the most instantly-recognizable visual and aesthetic styles of any filmmaker in history, in my opinion.

And there isn't a shred of it anywhere in a single frame of the moon-footage.

When would he have even had time to do phony-moon-landing footage for NASA? How could he have done that and pre-production/production on "2001" simultaneously?

Not to mention "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and then "Barry Lyndon" (1974) (unless we're to believe he shot ALL the moon footage in the late 60's)..... (?)

Again, a film director's style is the same thing as his fingerprints. And Kubrick's fingerprints are no where near the moon-footage.

I am genuinely intrigued, though, if anyone can give a plausible, reasonable explanation- how he could've done pre-production/production on "2001" AND the "moon-footage" at the same time. THAT concept fascinates me. Prove it.