New Pearl Harbor director turns to exposing the Apollo Moon hoax


moon-walk_1439642c

Donate to Massimo Mazzucco’s American Moon.

January 30, 2016

By Craig McKee

I really want to see this film. But first it has to get made.

Investigative journalist Massimo Mazzucco, producer/director of the five-hour 9/11 documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, is now applying his considerable talents to another of the great deceptions of our time. In a new film called American Moon he will examine all the evidence that the Apollo missions were frauds.

“If you realize what it means, that they were able to pull this hoax on the whole world in the 1960s, then you understand many more things they could be capable of, including 9/11,” Mazzucco said in an interview from his home in Italy.

“The Moon hoax is so much larger than anything that has ever been perpetrated. By proving that one, I think you establish a very good starting point for those who need to open their eyes a little bit to see what’s going on.”

Mazzucco is currently raising the funds to complete the project, although he has already been working on it for more than a year. He hopes to release the film sometime in 2016. He is using the gofundme fundraising page to raise money to cover the film’s $75,000 budget, although he says he can go forward as long as he raises at least $30,000 to cover basic expenses. You can contribute to the film and watch Mazzucco’s introduction to the project here.American Moon

American Moon will examine several different types of evidence, particularly the photographic record. This is important to Mazzucco who was a professional photographer for more than 20 years. He has concluded from the research he has already done that all the photography and television images we saw, allegedly from the Moon, were not created there.

“The images are not from the Moon – none of them. Not from Apollo 11 to 17.”

He adds: “I’m not saying we never went to the Moon period, because there are many possibilities, but my theory is that the Apollo missions as such, what we were sold as trips to the Moon, were not.”

Mazzucco purchased from NASA all the television footage that was allegedly shot on the Moon (he estimates between 20 and 30 hours) and has gone through it all very carefully. He says the thing that was most clear to him is that the alleged lunar photography was all faked.

“When you analyze all those endless hours you see so many things that are wrong. My problem is that it’s easy for me as a professional, as a photographer, to see where the problems are. The problem is how to make it convincing for those who are not, the general public.”

The filmmaker says he has already started to interview some of the photographers he has worked with in the past about their assessment of the images.

“Basically, when they saw the pictures they were laughing,” he says. “For a professional photographer, you look at those pictures and you start laughing. It’s a joke. So I’d like to make that statement as clear as possible.”

One thing that 9/11 truthers and those who research false flag operations of all kinds are very hesitant to do is to question the Apollo Moon missions. So it will also be interesting to see how members of the Truth Movement react to Mazzucco taking on this subject. While there are a fair number of truthers who don’t believe we went to the Moon, many are afraid that admitting this will hurt their credibility.

Mazzucco says he has wanted to make a film about the Moon hoax for about 10 years, but it always seemed that something else was more urgent. He says he finally concluded that if he was ever going to do it, now is the time, particularly with the 50th anniversary of the first launch coming up in 2019.

One of the most striking things about the Apollo 11 mission was the demeanor of the three astronauts after they returned to Earth. At the post-mission press conference Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins looked positively depressed, not what you’d expect to see from three men who achieved such a monumental feat.

“These guys are honest guys,” Mazzucco says. “These guys got themselves into something that was much bigger than them. They realized far too late that you could not pull out and you just had to play the game.”

One of the greatest oddities of the supposed Moon missions is that no one has attempted to “return” there in the intervening 43 years. A hint might be contained in a recent NASA video about the Orion mission to take astronauts to Mars. In the video Orion: Trial by Fire, NASA engineer Kelly Smith, who works on navigation and guidance on the Orion project, makes this astonishing statement:

“As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Van Allen belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as Orion cuts through the waves of radiation. Censors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these problems before we send people through this region of space.”

As Dave McGowan pointed out in his series “Wagging the Moondoggie,” it seems that the 1960s technology that got the Apollo astronauts through this region of “dangerous radiation” almost 50 years ago without any shielding at all cannot be duplicated now.

Mazzucco asks: “If it’s true it was harmless in 1969, which we pretend to accept, why now is NASA worried and has to make special studies before they send people through it?”

The approach he uses is different from what you’ll see from many other documentarians who have explored deceptions and conspiracies. He doesn’t just present a case based on an examination of the evidence, he also examines the arguments put forward by the so-called “debunkers” in response. Then he answers the debunkers. He says his philosophy is that he only uses an argument when he has a conclusive counter argument to what the debunkers have said. This technique was used very effectively in New Pearl Harbor.

“After the experience with 9/11 the main thing that I’ve learned is that you don’t just expose what you think is false. You have to take into consideration also what the answer from the debunkers is or could be on that particular accusation you are making. And if you can also close the door to their answer, that’s when you have a winning point.”

The Italian filmmaker’s documentaries are about helping us to recognize deceptions so that we can reduce the chance being deceived in the future.

“All my films have a common thread, which is the great lies of history,” he says. “So the more lies you can see and the bigger the lies were, the more I would hope that people become more skeptical before the swallow another one. That is the ultimate purpose of all these films that I’m making, so that in the future people are less gullible.”

The filmmaker has made a number of documentary films that address huge lies, although he is probably best known for New Pearl Harbor. His other films include The New American Century, Cancer – The Forbidden Cures, The True History of Marijuana, The Second Dallas – Who Killed RFK?, and UFOs and the Military Elite.

Mazzucco will highlight a number of other areas of Apollo evidence in his latest film that will show how the story is false. One of those is the clear evidence that cables were used to suspend the astronauts and even to lift them to their feet.

“You cannot prove they used cables but there were situations in which you could not get up or move in a way you do unless you were aided by cables. So you can actually prove they are there even though you cannot see them.”

One subject often raised concerns whether the lighting could really have come from the Sun and whether shadows contradicted the claim that the images were created on the Moon. Mazzucco makes an important point concerning this when he says that sometimes shadows can appear to converge, particularly when the light source is coming from behind the camera. This convergence is due to the effect of perspective. But, he adds, there are a number of shadows that appear to be going in multiple directions that cannot be the result of perspective.

A key clue that the lighting was artificial is revealed when there appear to be “hotspots” or areas where the surface is more brightly illuminated than others close by. This, he says, indicates a light source that is quite close – not the Sun.

“When you use an artificial light, no matter how powerful, there will be a place in the image where the light drops. And you cannot use multiple sources without creating multiple shadows, and therefore you give it away.”

He’ll also address the hot and cold temperature extremes on the Moon, which he says would have made it impossible for the Hasselblad camera to function – among many other things.

One of the most dramatic pieces of evidence ever discovered that the Apollo missions were faked is the footage obtained by researcher Bart Sibrel from NASA. Sibrel says he was sent some film that was not intended to be seen by the public. This shows Apollo 11 supposedly halfway to the Moon, about 130,000 miles from Earth. We see the Earth appearing to be a long way away and we overhear Armstrong saying that the camera is filling up the only window facing the Earth. But then lights go on in the capsule and we see that the camera was on the other side of the craft and that the window now appears to be filled with light, possibly reflecting from the Earth with the spacecraft in low Earth orbit. It also appears that some kind of transparency has been clipped to the window.

This is seen at the 32-minute mark of Bart Sibrel’s film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and at the 13-minute mark of the documentary What Happened on the Moon.

If New Pearl Harbor is any indication of the kind of professional and exhaustive analysis that Mazzucco will bring to the subject of the Apollo missions, then American Moon will be an important film to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140 comments

  1. Oh, puhleeze!
    The Moon “hoax” is itself a hoax. Just because some anti-establishment scribbler has a theory and a lot of assumptions doesn’t mean he’s credible. The idea that there is a connection between the moon mission and 911 is typical of the dangerous, overwrought stupidity that gives intelligent dissent a bad name.

    Please show a little discrimination in choosing what to believe.

    1. Saw a great documentary about one of the original engine designers who was involved in the many tests they did on earth with full scale models of the lunar landing vehicle. Attempt after attempt to land the thing failed, bouncing and falling over, legs breaking etc. Not once were they able to get the vehicle to land.

      And on the strength of their total failure rate, they launched a multi billion dollar mission with real astronauts inside and successfully landed the vehicle on the first try.
      Yea right.

      To quote your words: ‘Please show a little discrimination in choosing what to believe.’

      Yes, you should.

      1. I’m not sure of the speed, but they were supposed to be in orbit, so that would be pretty fast. We are led to believe this lunar lander came in flying horizontally down and was able to come to a stop using retro rockets and stabiliser side rockets. Funny thing, Neil Armstrong attempted to fly a prototype and had to bail out using a seat ejection system and parachute to stay alive. The lander was way to unstable and that was before it was loaded up with a moon rover attached to one side and all the equipment to sustain 2 astronauts for a few days .. and then there is the fuel required to lift off from the moon. All that weight wrapped up in a tiny Lunar Lander … yeah right …so unstable that Neil Armstrong never wanted to fly in it again.
        Now he never got it right on Earth, so why would we believe he got it right on the moon, when his rocket throttle would have SIX TIMES the effect on the moon, accepting the fact that gravity is ONE SIXTH that or Earth ….

        1. It’s misleading to call what Neil Armstrong flew a prototype. It was a totally different design, as it had to fly in Earth gravity. Think of it as a flying simulator, rigged up so it “handled” like the Lunar Lander was thought to have “handled” in Moon gravity. I use the term because test pilots refer to how flight vehicles “handle” by describing the handling qualities. Alternative, the term “flying qualities” sometimes is used in place of handling qualities.

      2. Robert White said:

        “Saw a great documentary about one of the original engine designers who was involved in the many tests they did on earth with full scale models of the lunar landing vehicle”

        What was the name of that “great documentary”, Robert?…..do you have a link to “it”?

        Thank you!

        “Attempt after attempt to land the thing failed, bouncing and falling over, legs breaking etc. NOT ONCE WERE THEY ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO LAND…..

        And on the strength of their TOTAL FAILURE RATE, they launched a multi billion dollar mission with real astronauts inside and successfully landed the vehicle on the first try.
        Yea right”

        “Yeah right” is right, Robert…..I’m calling BS on your “great documentary”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle

        “The final LLRV flight at FRC took place on November 30, 1966. In December 1966 vehicle #1 was shipped to Houston, followed by #2 in January 1967. During the preceding two years, a total of 198 flights of LLRV#1 and six flights of LLRV#2 were flown without a serious accident”

        “On May 6, 1968 Armstrong was forced to use LLRV #1’s ejection seat from about 200 feet (60 m) altitude after a control problem, and had about four seconds on his full parachute before landing on the ground unhurt. The accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle’s attitude control thrusters had run out, and that high winds were a major factor”

        “The LM was too unstable to have landed on the Moon” can be scratched off the list of reasons why the Moon landing was a Hoax.

        1. When the issue is the integrity and candor of NASA, which most of us believe has sold the world the biggest “whopper” of them all, to depend upon their records about any significant aspect of the moon landing project displays the same level of intelligence as consulting THE WARREN REPORT on the identity of the assassin(s) of JFK. It is what we would expect from a sock puppet.

            1. Sock Puppet, if we had been serious about going to the moon, because it is such a difficult and challenging task, we would have had to approach it in stages, beginning with unmanned moon probes, then trips with primates, working up to the big event of attempting to send men to the moon. None of that happened. It looks like our first real success was in 23 June 2009.

              Here is an historical record (which looks to be largely accurate) of one failure after another:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_probes Why given this history of failures would anyone be keen on defending the proposition that we have really landed men on the moon? And, yes, I am very skeptical of claims that originate from NASA about our space program.

      3. Greg Felton is no doubt one of those persons who holds the ‘moon landings’ close to his heart, and before researching the voluminous evidence proving them to be fake, has argued their veracity for some time.

        Too proud to admit having being deceived, he continues against all odds to voice his erroneous views – although as evidenced from his comment, they belie his ignorance and/or naivety on the subject.

      4. Agree 100%. The people who believe the “moon landings” were real are delusional, naive and cannot accept their gobernment lied to them. TOTAL FRAUD.

    2. You cannot accept the truth-that you were lied to-because it HURTS TOO BAD……. Ryan Kelly exposed this indirectly.

  2. I am eager to see the film and from my own research I have to say quite a number of things do not add up for me with the photo’s and video supposedly taken on the moon. I do photography and video production and so I notice many things in the photos and videos that Mazzucco obviously does too.

    To Greg Felton,

    Your arrogant comment assumes two things

    1. That we are all stupid and gullible.
    2. You are smarter than anyone who disagrees with you.

    I would surmise that both assumptions are wrong. Make an argument and we will see how well it stands up otherwise spare us the empty bluster.

  3. “American Moon” should shed a great deal of light on one of the greatest hoaxes of history. For those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, consider AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), which also addresses the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, the first death of Saddam Hussein, the second death of Osama bin Laden, and the Holocaust. Nothing is as we have been told. Check out moonrockbooks.com, where the more intellectually curious can also consider NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) and, most recently, AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). Our government has been playing us for saps.

  4. All i KNOW is : 911 was and IS, an on-going operational inside job.
    A vast and sophisticated black demolition.
    By that fact alone, the question whether ‘Apollo could have been another’, becomes moot.
    This is the consciousness shift understanding ‘911inside job’ brings with it . recognition, without the shadow of doubt, that we HAVE BEEN DECEIVED at these monumental levels.
    And that this is a practice . A practical reality.
    JFK, MLK, Tonkin, Robert Kennedy, Oklahoma city, the attempt on Reagan, 911, and a LONG list of GLADIO type false flags recently lived through, are all SCAD/deepstate deceptions. So, the possibility of Apollo being another, is real.

  5. This is very good news. I’ve been following this topic since Bill Kaysing’s “We Never Went To The Moon” back in 1976. It would be a terrific thing if the transparent fraud of 9-11 leads us back to an exposure of what Kaysing called “America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle!”

  6. I don’t remember which Neo-con was responsible for the remark that we “don’t describe reality, we create reality”… think it was rabid-dog Cheney, but it may have been one of the few recognizably truthful things he ever said. The fact is: This is the nightmare world that our government has pitched us into in the 21st century. We better begin to wake up from it soon.

    Given all we know about the other hoaxes perpetrated upon us, (and the list is endless so I’ll name just as few): all the false flag events beginning with 9/11 with the latest, I believe in San Bernardino (including Paris, London, etc) and other lies, including the ones that said Bashar al Assad was dispensing chemical weapons against his people, Putin was behind the MH17 airline crash… Given all these certainties, there’s no reason at all to question the high likelihood that the Apollo moon program was but another fictive event. (The more they get by with, the more they attempt), SO:

    Wake up, folks! Your leaders are Satanists: Lying is second (first?) nature to them. Every effort under the sun is being made now to control us. Their favorite tricks are events that induce fear, the greater, the more widespread, the better. They (the CIA and friends) practiced a lot in Europe under Operation Gladio after WWII.

    The scariest comment made here is the first one suggesting that it’s still possible for people in this country, despite massive evidence to the contrary, to live in a cocoon of complete denial. We need not only be very very wary of anything any government agency or official says, but we also need to be very concerned about people who are convinced that they are the only ones who know what’s going on — especially when it is clear they haven’t a clue.

    Sorry, Mr. Felton, but I suggest you spend some time informing yourself. D. Estulin has written a very interesting book on Tavistock which will tell you about the reasoning behind efforts made to mold and control us, who is behind it, what their intentions are — and will give you some idea of what our world will be like if, Heaven Help Us! they manage to succeed.

  7. Massimo Mazzucco is a very smart man in addition to having expertise that pertains to some of the conspiracy claims in question. I will eagerly await the release of this film. I like his method of presenting only the tightest arguments in which he can counter the debunkers’ arguments; this is indeed what made NPH so strong.

    For me, the circumstantial evidence is almost more compelling than the physical, namely, the astronauts’ demeanor in the press conference after arriving back to earth, the fact that our program was so far behind the Russians, the understandably strong motive to win the cold war, the fact that we haven’t been back, the Van Allen belts…

    He’s definitely got me curious as to what the “new” footage and evidence will be.

    I’m guessing you and Mazzucco both will catch some flak for going here, Craig.

    1. Undoubtedly. But the truth is the truth, wherever one finds it. Before I began writing this blog, I assumed the Moon missions had taken place just as we were told, despite some of the anomalies I’d heard about. But once I looked into it more deeply I simply could not conclude anything other than this was a huge deception. I agree with you, Adam, about how compelling the circumstantial evidence can be. For me, the huge giveaway is simply that they have never gone back. If they had really sent men to the Moon six times from 1969 to 1972 then they would still be going there. It’s obvious.

      1. Yes. I am now almost certain that this was a hoax.

        Since you seem to have explored almost every topic, I was hoping that you could provide me with some credible info or just your general opinion on this “chemtrail” phenomena.

        Youtube is always suggesting that I watch these “chemtrails” videos. Is this another elaborate PSYOP like the “Flat Earth”, 9/11 misdirection, reptilian shit, ect..??

        Hopefully you can point me in the right direction!

        1. Travis, with regard to Chemtrails the only direction you need is “up” . Look to the skies. I don’t know what or why they are spraying for sure.
          There are so many theories, some outlandish,
          all I know is that it is happening and it’s probably not good.

          1. Yes. I see them. But I see clouds too.

            Clouds prove that seeded water vapor/ice can be persistent and visible for hours.

            I wish I had an airplane so I could “tail” a jet and analyze the exhaust/spray.

            I was just hoping that someone here had reliable information on the phenomenon.

            1. Hi Travis. If you don’t mind my asking, what do you mean by “I see clouds too” in the context of your comment?

              There have been countless successful samplings of the sprayed material. Here is one that compares different samples from Texas and Venice, Italy and reveals quite a lot about their chemical breakdown and physical properties while doing so.

              http://www.rense.com/general79/chemm.htm

              I have one simple, general question about chemtrails.

              Who has the power, the authority, the means, the motive, and the ability to prevent its exposure to the public at a global scale to carry out such a massive operation?

              (by the way, even as I say it myself, it sounds simply ridiculous to even suggest that this is a secret operation… because it is worldwide, it is huge, and anyone who lifts their head up from their smartphones for a few minutes can see it… Yet, it is still almost impossible to convince people of its existence… While in some cases entire towns are declared as smoking free zones, while entire economies are shot down because of environmental reasons, while most people are using expensive organic cleaning products worried that they might harm nature, we have megatons of crap being sprayed daily into the air we breath, onto the food we eat… And we can’t even seem to be able to ask what it is, who owns the planes, who produces the material, and what the f it’s purpose is… I wonder what the polar bears are thinking about all this)


              1. Thanks for the information.

                I mentioned clouds because of the plausibility of some purported chemtrails being simply water. Though there seems to be quite a bit of spraying going on by military aircraft, one has to consider the composition of trails made by passenger jets as well. Are all persistent contrails real chemtrails?

                The entire morgellons/chemtrail link is quite frightening. Anyone who has thoroughly read about water fluoridation shouldn’t be too surprised by this. This would seem like the logical progression in the chemical population control timeline:

                fluoridation>>vaccination>>chemtrails?

                After I become aware of the PSYOP (flat earch, 9/11 holograms, ect.), I have been questioning some of the things that I know. Chemtrails are on my “investigate further” list.

  8. Karl Rove@nonamesrs
    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Me too. I just assumed, just as we were told.
    911 changed all that. Strange thing is, it no longer offends me to think apollo was fake. Once upon a time, i’d have invested in the ‘first post’ defence mechanism huff n’puff.
    But no longer. That’s the shift.
    The genie is out of the bottle.

    1. Thanks! Karl Rove — Dick Cheney’s twin… Will this production be another mind-blower? Doubtful since more and more people seem to be awakening to the fact that much of what the MSM in this country tells us is nonsense–and more and more people have stopped listening. Hurrah.

      I became curious about the possible Apollo moon deception several years ago (after I finally awakened to what 9/11 was all about — it took me awhile). At that time I read through the evidence produced by M. Mazzucco and was impressed by the force and plausibility of his argument. But, like someone else here mentioned, it was the behaviors of the astronauts, particularly Neil Armstrong’s, that increased my doubts. Armstrong spoke at an event in the 1990s when Clinton was President, spoke about truth, and when it might be heard; he was subdued (which seemed to be the state he resided in until his death five or seven years ago.) Was he threatened? From what we know about the shadow government that would be not unlikely. I’ll see if I can find the link to the 1990s event.

    2. Here’s the link to Armstrong’s speech:

      What I remembered was his statement to and/or about “those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers…” The speech is cryptic with little in detail or actual remembrance of the event itself… It’s mind-boggling to consider what a person like Armstrong would have had to live through if he was, in fact, forced to live the government’s enforced deception about the moon landing. And very sad.

      The only explanation I can come up with for all of those other astronauts and families who were attending the event is the government’s “need to know” policy.

      So many unanswered questions… like Edgar Mitchell–what about Mitchell who seems to have been deeply changed by his experiences in space?

      I welcome Mazzucco’s production as one more endeavor that will help to “remove truth’s protective layers…” and hopefully bring to the information-bereft citizens of the United States a better grasp on what is being done to us.

      1. Anyone else seen this? There are images, too: http://www.philosophers-stone.co.uk/?p=10123 I am particularly intrigued by the reference to NASA having admitted that Kubrick faked it in 2014.

        Heirs of Stanley Kubrick To Sell Hundreds of Stage Accessories USED In 1969 MOON LANDING Film!

        Los Angeles, California | The heirs of famous American film director, screenwriter and producer, Stanley Kubrick, are auctioning a large quantity of stage accessories used in his movies, including more than 700 items from the moon landing film he directed for NASA in 1969.

        A total of 13,254 items from various Stanley Kubrick movies, including The Shining,Clockwork Orange and Dr Strangelove, are to be sold at Sotheby’s Auction House, on April 2.

        The auctioned items are part of a collection of more than 45,000 stage props and costumes that the artist had amassed over his career, and that were stored in his Hertfordshire manor at his death in 1999.

        apollokubrick

        The space suit worn by Neil Armstrong during his moon walk is already drawing attention from buyers around the world and is expected to fetch more than $100 millions during Saturday’s auction.

        The artifacts that are attracting the most attention are clearly the accessories from the 1969 moon landing film, including the suit that Neil Armstrong was wearing in the historic footage that made him famous as “the first man on the moon”.

        Andrea Fiuczynski, Sotheby’s Executive Vice President and chairman of the West Coast, predicted that the auction will attract thousands of buyers from all over the world

        “Many unique and famous historical items are on sale, and we expect them to reach very high prices,”Ms Fiuczynski told reporters.“These include Appolo 11′s Lunar Module, the Eagle, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s space suits, and the famous American flag that they erected on the moon. These are all unique pieces of human heritage, so they can interest people from all over the world.”

        In July 1969, over 53 million American households tuned in to watch this mission on TV, and over 530 million viewers worldwide watched the moon landing, believing they were actually watching some footage that had been filmed in outer space.

        The event was contrived to fulfil former president John F Kennedy’s prophecy of reaching the Moon and winning the space race against the Russians.

        Only a few people at NASA, at Warner Bros studios and in the American government knew at the time, that the footage had actually been produced in a movie studio by filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick.

        moonlanding2

        Images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during the shooting of the film were only rendered public in 2014, when NASA discretely recognized the fraud. The agency explained that the original footage filmed by the Appollo crew had been damaged by radiations and that Mr Kubrick had simply “recreated the damaged footage’” in his studio.

        NASA and the American government had obtained Kubrick’s collaboration and silence by threatening to arrest his brother, Raul Kubrick, who was then the head of the American Communist Party.

        The director and producer of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,accepted to fake the moon landings in return for an unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

        He never revealed his collaboration in the moon landing film, which was only made public by NASA in 2014.

        Via worldnewsdailyreport

        1. Mr, Fetzer, this is two days late for an April Fools joke. You wouldn’t pull a prank on us that late, would you?
          Then again, when worldnewsdailyreport ran this on March 30th, they were two days too early😉

          I clicked on your link:
          http://www.philosophers-stone.co.uk/?p=10123
          This has only a trunkated text, and at the end a link “[more…]”, which links to
          http://topinfopost.com/2016/04/02/heirs-of-stanley-kubrick-to-sell-hundreds-of-stage-accessories-used-in-1969-moon-landing-film
          Open this! Scroll to the bottom! Watch the tags: “Related Items:Hoax / Bin, moon”.
          Interesting, huh? You posted something that your own source tags as a hoax!

          Of course you could have gone to Sotheby’s website and searched for an auction including moon artefacts and Kubrick set items – or do a simple google:
          https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=kubrick+moon+site:sothebys.com
          See? There is no such auction, no such news!

          Of course you could also have contacted Andrea Fiuczynski, Sotheby’s Executive Vice President and chairman of the West Coast – she’s a real person, and her contact info is freely available:
          http://www.sothebys.com/en/inside/locations-worldwide/los-angeles/overview.html
          Andrea Fiuczynski
          +1 310 786 1863
          Andrea.Fiuczynski@sothebys.com

          Needless to say, I am not going to embarrass myself making that call, but surely you, the great investigator, will not hesitate to pick up the phone first thing in the morning tomorrow and report back to us what you learned🙂

      2. Yes, Edgar Mitchell was also the reason that I held off on believing it was a hoax. I tend towards hoax now, though, and somewhat assume that Mitchell was orbiting in space and that that might be the origin of his (I assume) real mystical experience.

  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ4krCJBfEQ A preview of Mazzucco’s film.

    I tend to believe we went to the moon. Having read and reread Wagging the Moondoggie I know the circumstantial evidence that we did not go is compelling but for it to have been a hoax is harder to believe. For example I just watched a full video version of the news conference with Aldridge, Armstrong and Collins, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI Though they seem taciturn they did give some detailed answers to a variety of questions. Hear how specifically one of them describes the depth of the moon dust as they walked about. In the preview above Mazzucco chooses only the news conference section where they hem and haw a bit over whether they could see stars. They admit they couldn’t. Using my high school Spanish I heard where the Italian narration asks why they seem so nervous answering this. Who knows? Maybe they felt a little ashamed overlooking something they should have seen. But there was other stuff to see on the moon, no? And it may have been on Hybridrogue’s blog where I read how one can’t see stars from the bleachers at a brightly lit up night game either. I had never noticed this and I have been to many night games but it is true. You can’t.

    And yes, tying the moon hoax with 9/11 truth does “hurt our credibility.”

    1. Jimbo- Non-events like the Apollo missions are, in large part, meant to test the Western-cultured populace’s threshold for its reliance on authority; how easily will the populace cede personal authority to people who have only their own interests in mind.

      Rather than stop to read Kelly Smith’s quote (if you did read it) and realize that such a simple declaration of the difficulties of manned space travel explodes the tale of the Apollo missions you, instead, leap to the defense of media that intentionally lies to you nearly every second of every day. It is remarkable how people are willing to publicly exhibit cognitive dissonance without an eye blink.

      Your attempt to discredit a clip from a documentary film not yet completed is reminiscent of when I opened the Washington Post one morning to find a front page review of the movie, “JFK”… a movie review written before the script had even been finalized.

      The only thing that “hurts our credibility” is our perceived need to hold onto our perceived belief thresholds; those triggers we use to keep ourselves feeling “safe.” As a result we fail to: 1) consciously honor the fact that we possess these triggers; 2) cannot comprehend that the triggers can be eliminated from our thoughts and perceptions; 3) never think to realize that the world becomes a safer place for each of us, and therefore, us collectively, the more we shed triggers from our being, and; 4) fail to understand that these belief threshold triggers are constantly being used as weapons against us.

    2. @Jimbo:

      I have lost a lot of patience with this notion of us “losing credibility” because we believe something that another 9/11 truther does not believe. Mazzucco only made a comparison between the Moon and 9/11 to point out how both were massive deceptions pulled off with the complicity of governments and media. The truth is the truth, regardless of whether one person or another freaks out about two things being “linked” or not. We have to stop playing the game that the powers that be want us to play, the game that says we should be terrified to say what we believe because the New York Times might burst in at any moment to make us look silly.

      As for the press conference, yes there are moments when they look less uncomfortable but their behavior is not normal. As for the stars, what’s interesting is the Michael Collins, who was orbiting the Moon and not on the surface, says he doesn’t recall seeing stars. As I recall, the transcript of the press conference attributed that remark to Aldrin. A curious error given that Collins should have been able to see stars. You mention Aldrin talking about how much his feet sank into the lunar surface: sometimes half an inch and sometimes three or four inches? I would assume that this type of detail would be prepared ahead of time for them. given that they would be asked a host of questions about their experience.

      There are great forces working against us, trying to keep us from seeing what they are really doing. And we need to apply the same standards to anything we question or investigate. It’s about evidence, not belief.

      1. Craig, You are so right! We are not supposed to conclude that no plane hit the Pentagon! We are not supposed to conclude that no real planes hit the Twin Towers! We are not supposed to concluded that it was done using mini or micro nukes! And that’s just in relation to 9/11! There is an insidious inside-movement to cramp the search for truth by placing politics ahead of science.

        We have encountered it time and time again. It’s a form of “political correctness” intruding upon the search for truth. A perfect example is the Holocaust, where the story we have been told cannot withstand critical scrutiny. See, for example, “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-holocaust-narrative-politics-trumps.html

        If we are not for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we are compromised and unworthy of support. We have to dig and dig and dig to expose what actually did or did not happen across the full range of “official accounts”, including JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston and more. We only lose our credibility when we compromises on truth. That should be our lesson!

        1. Jim Fetzer said:

          “We are not supposed to conclude that no real planes hit the Twin Towers! We are not supposed to concluded that it was done using mini or micro nukes!…..If we are not for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we are compromised and unworthy of support”

          Well, I guess that leaves Craig McKee out…..he must be “compromised and unworthy of support” since he apparently doesn’t believe “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about the “no-planes” and “mini nukes”…..as a matter of fact, Richard Gage is also “unworthy of support”.

          Hey, wait a minute!…..something just dawned on me…..I just realized that Jim Fetzer is one of the only people in the truth movement who is “uncompromised” and “worthy of support”.

          1. You have earned your name. There are legitimate differences among some member of the 9/11 Truth movement, but citing Richard Gage is not going to strengthen your case. He and A&E911 have been touting nanothermite as the foundation for understanding what happened to the Twin Towers, when it is an incendiary that lacks the rapid gas-expansion properties of explosives.

            You cannot know much about the 9/11 community to make a remark like this, which reeks of ignorance. I believe in open debate. Gage and A&E911 do not. They even censor their own volunteer workers and do not allow discussion of any alternative theory than nanothermite, even thought T. Mark Hightower and I have blown that theory out of the water at least three times!

            The irony of the nanothermite theory is that is was inspired by a few dust samples gathered from an apartment in New York. But Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and others systematically ignore the far more extensive and compelling evidence that emerges from the USGS dust sample studies, which discovered the presence of various elements that would only result from a nuclear event.

            You misunderstood my point, which was in opposition to censorship. I have published many articles about the alternative theories of how it was done, including the DEW theory that Judy Wood advocates (even while insisting that she does not have “a theory”). But neither Judy nor A&E911 is willing to talk about who was responsible and why, only how they think it was done.

            Craig and I share the stance that only by open and vigorous debate about alternative theories is the truth likely to emerge–whether about how the Twin Towers were destroyed or how the so-called “crash sites” were faked. I have done a lot of collaborative research on all these matters, including “The Real Deal Ep #100” and “The Real Deal Ep #103”, which are available on-line.

            There are many (like you) who seem to think there are no objective standards to evaluate the available evidence about how it was done. That, however, is wrong. They are known as “logic”, a subject I taught for 35 years. But those who want to suppress what we have discovered about who and why as well as how tend to employ the same kind of tactics you are deploying here.

            1. I didn’t misunderstand your point at all.

              And I’m not “citing Richard Gage”, nor am I “deploying tactics”

              I’m “citing” Jim Fetzer.

              You’re changing the subject.

              Let’s try it again, Dr. Fetzer…..this time I’ll hold your hand and walk you through it:

              Jim Fetzer said:

              “We are not supposed to conclude that no real planes hit the Twin Towers!”

              So, does that mean that people who promote the theory that real planes hit the Towers are “compromised and unworthy of support” since they obviously “are not for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?

              “We are not supposed to concluded that it was done using mini or micro nukes!”

              So, does that mean that people who promote the theory that “mini nukes” is disinformation to make the 911 Truth movement look wacky are “compromised and unworthy of support” since they obviously “are not for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?

              …..or was your comment just extraneous chatter, and you really didn’t mean it?

              1. You have self-identified by naming yourself so accurately. According to A&E911, we aren’t even supposed to think that no plane hit the Pentagon! Have you been living in a cave or under a rock? I am shocked that you come on here with so much pretension and criticize an obvious point about censorship in the 9/11 community, a sure sign that you know nothing about it at all.

            2. To clarify my stance: While I don’t believe legitimate research should be suppressed or discussion of different theories censored (unless it’s off topic on a blog post), I also don’t think we should allow ourselves to be divided over the question of what type of explosive material was used to bring down the towers. The fact that we can prove they were blown up and that the official story is false is enough for us to introduce the subject to those outside the movement.

              I think we should focus on showing how the official story can’t be true, and this can be done with the twin towers, Building 7, the Pentagon, and Shanksville and many more areas.

              Having said all that, this post is about the Moon, so let’s leave the towers for another thread.

      2. Maybe we truthers have or lack some gene that makes us a little more open minded. 9/11 skeptics think we’re nuts. And maybe we are. I adore the New Pearl Harbor film. I have a copy in my computer favorites which I still watch from time to time, but only one section at a time now instead of the full five hours as I watched in one sitting at my first outing. But to be honest, except for a few new revelations, NPH contains little that is new to me having watched YouTube clips from early on, the same clips which Mazzucco edited into his movie. And I know no one to whom I’ve recommended NPH to have changed their mind. Do you?

        But the moon hoax? Has their side got wind of Mazzucco’s plan to make a new movie? I don’t know what is in the ether but the pro moon side has just recently been offering new and clearer photos from the missions, 1000s of them. NPR just had a story about how one man found and preserved one box of Apollo video tapes which, when missing, McGowan used as evidence of no moon mission. And just yesterday I saw the Chinese released new high-def photos from their rover mission. The first thing I noticed was a pitch black sky and no stars. And in the Mazzucco preview did you see how none of the astronauts swore on a bible for that obnoxious man? Is Mazzucco using him as a standard for for a righteous truther who will do anything to get the truth? Would any of you even give that asshole the time of day let alone swear on his stupid bible? He deserved that punch. Geez, how embarrassing for us if that guy makes it to the final cut. Was there no lower level Apollo technician who would swear there was no mission?

        Yes, the never having returned, the 21st, maybe 22nd century equipment that magically appeared in the 1960s and the more recent quotes about the impenetrable Van Allen belt are certainly compelling but with all of their evidence for having gone, sorry to be such a downer but let them have their stupid fake moon mission.

        If, however, Mazzucco made a Sandy Hook or Boston movie, well then you can count me as a
        supporter.

        1. Jimbo, I think this is one of those cases where those who have done little or no research tend to doubt those who reject the “official account”, basically because of their ignorance. You appear to be an example–not in relation to 9/11, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, but in relation to the moon landing. Yet we have a mountain of proof that we did not land men on the moon. Consider

          * we did not have the propulsion power necessary to escape Earth’s gravitational field

          * we did not have the computing power to calculate the trajectories for going or coming

          * we could not overcome then or now the problem posed by the van Allan radiation belts

          * we did not have the capacity to broadcast transmissions back to Earth from the moon

          * cameras were mounted outside the space suits, but are perfectly focused and framed

          * the backgrounds are as well focused as the foregrounds (via front-screen projection)

          * there are moon rover photos with no tracks in front or behind them (lowered by crane)

          * shadows are cast by multiple sources of light (but there should have been only the Sun)

          There are many more, where the astronauts behavior has been especially revealing. And once having claimed they could not see the stars, they were stuck with it. Moon has no atmosphere, so they would have been seen a points of light rather than diffused; but there would have been billions of them–it would have been the greatest visual display experienced by the eyes of man.

          But we didn’t go. And the most powerful proof–the moon rocks–were gathered when Wernher von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks that had been dislodged from the surface of the Moon and caught in Earth’s gravitational field. So they were real moon rocks but they did not reach Earth by the mode of transportation claimed. Just do a bit more research.

        2. Jimbo,

          Personally, I don’t care if NPH has new things, I care how persuasive it can be for newcomers to 9/11 truth. We don’t have to be convinced, others do. I’m not sure what point you are making in questioning whether it has made some people change their minds. Are you saying it falls short as a film? Are you saying there should be new things in it to convince people? And there is new stuff in there anyway – the video tampering is the best example.

          Has the “pro-Moon-landing side” offered anything new to prove the Moon landings took place? If they do, let me know. What McGowan concluded from missing tapes is a point if you want to criticize McGowan but it changes nothing about the central question. And Mazzucco does not argue that we should have been able to see stars. Why not wait for his film and criticize what he includes rather than things he doesn’t. As for Bart Sibrel, this is also beside the point. Whether you think he’s obnoxious or not has nothing to do with the evidence that the Moon landings did or did not happen.

          Finally, I must object to you saying, “how embarrassing for us if that guy makes it to the final cut.” Who is “us” and why should anyone be embarrassed because of something someone else does or does not include in a film? We have to get away from this idea that any individual statement can hurt the credibility of all those who question the official story of an event.

    3. You have been played by a master of the game. There is no atmosphere on the moon. They should have seen billions of stars as points of light, not twinkling (which is caused by scattering of light in the atmosphere) but brilliant and awe-inspirits. They were sheepish because they blew it on this point and have had to live with the consequences. Research on the moon landing hoax is every bit as legitimate as research on the 9/11 hoax. You need to be a bit more discriminating.

  10. I worked with very sharp people who programmed the Lunar Module computers. I don’t doubt that for a minute, but I do now question whether there were some things about the mission and their role in it, they had to falsify.

    1. The evidence demonstrates that there are things Dwain Deets “does not doubt” that are not true, which is a nice illustration of the distinction between degrees of subjective belief (or of strength of conviction) and objective measures of evidential support (or the strength of the proof), where the divergence between them indicates an individual’s degree of irrationality (call it “gullibility”).

      1. Well, in this case, what I do not doubt is that I worked with, that is, programmed computers that were named Apollo Guidance Computers. They were used in either the Command Modules or Lunar Modules. We, however, were using them in an aeronautical project called F-8 Digital Fly By Wire. And, we were supported by the team of contractors that had performed those functions for the Apollo Program. I’m not dreaming that.

        1. When confronted with a prima facie case that we did not go to the moon, if you want to maintain that we did, you are going to have to do better than to observe that you worked on computers, which do not appear to have had the capability of navigating man to the moon. And how can you be so selective, when there are at least a dozen arguments already presented that you ignore?

            1. Excellent, Dwain. We know there was a cover story. The Soviet’s launching of Sputnik had been a massive embarrassment to the United States, implying as it did that they were far advanced of the US in science and technology. JFK declared the plan to put a man on the moon, but there were enormous obstacles to accomplishing that task and ultimately we decided to simply fake it.

              Give the comments before yours, you conveyed the impression that, by having worked on one or more programs called “Apollo Guidance Systems”, you were implying they had been used to guide one or more of the Apollo rockets to the moon. But you have offered no good reasons for anyone to think that they were actually used for that purpose or even had the power to putt it off.

              Your post reminded me of those who attack the proof that Sandy Hook Elementary School had been closed by 2008, that there were no kids there and that it was done to promote gun control, by claiming to know someone who knew someone who had a child that died there. When asked their name or how they knew, they had no response–as a claim that they could not substantiate.

  11. They could have faked the first mission because they wanted to beat the Soviets. But fake 5 missions ? No way José, too many people involved. The Soviets would never let it go. All proofs of their passages are still on the moon.

    1. This is a possible explanation that would reconcile the oddities and inconsistencies that surround the Apollo 11 mission, with the fact that there was, indeed, men on the moon. In fact, the real 1st moon landing could have been happening simultaneously with the fake one that was being broadcast to the world. Success in the world stage was guaranteed with a fake one, and way too much at stake if they had failed miserably with the real trip to the moon.

      This possibility seems all the more likely when one compares the photographic evidence from 11 with the later missions. It is not a smoking gun by any means, but I can’t, for the life of me, imagine man landing on the moon for the very first time, with video and photo cameras, and not bothering to shoot sweeping landscape photos and/or video of this celestial body, which you find many examples of in the later missions. All we have are very narrow angles, and a horizon line that is without exception in line with the front screen projection technique.

      Doubt is the mother of wisdom, but also the fruit of ignorance.. . Which is exactly where we, the doubters, seem to be stuck at the moment. We doubt… Because we don’t know.

      1. Get over it! We did not go to the moon. It was an elaborate hoax. Huffington Post recently ran an article about a tweet from a physicist that allegedly blew moon landing conspiracy theories out of the water. But it was trite, saying anyone who doubts we went to the moon needs a new brain: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brian-cox-moon-conspiracy_us_55ada24ce4b0d2ded39fe56d

        I am trying to get the comments to upload, because I made quite a few and was surprised that they were allowed to stand. The most interesting comment on mine was from a guy who was in broadcasting at the time and explained that the amount of equipment that would have been required to broadcast back from the moon would have required a vehicle the size of a bread truck. I didn’t notice one on the moon.

        I think it would be a good idea for those who want to defend moon mythology to explain away the arguments I have made proving not only that we did not go to the moon but that it wasn’t even possible then–and remains impossible today. That we have never gone back is telling. I am also struck that no one seems to notice the enormity of the blunder in claiming that the sky was black and they could not see stars.

        1. Here’s the problem, Professor… For someone with such a grand academic title in front of his name, you seem to have a tremendously low threshold for requiring “proof”…

          So, someone says the equipment needed to be the size of a bread truck, and you have no qualms about disseminating that comment as a supporting argument. One would expect someone like you, who is buried deep in conspiracy “research”, someone who has the means to investigate and interview pertinent people to get to the bottom of this issue (among others). If you do not have a subject-specific professional and scientific background, you will need to seek people out who do in order to double and triple check these claims.

          I can make the same comment about most of the “beliefs” you hold dear as “proofs” in your arguments in this thread, your countless comments, videos and interviews all over the internet. which rarely pass the credibility smell test.

          For all I know, both you, and the bread truck guy can be correct. But do not talk down to me as if you have clearly accomplished that, and you are barely tolerating us, the dimwits. I ain’t no professor, but I do have a B.S. in BS!

          So, puh-leeze!!!!!

          1. David, You can respond the my arguments or you can attack me. That is an elementary fallacy that I spent 35 years teaching undergraduates to avoid. His background and observations look “good as gold” to me. When you have something to offer by way of rebuttal of the arguments I have made, let us know. But if you have nothing better to offer–as I suspect–then don’t post.

            1. There are so many easier ways to attack you, sir!!! Which is something I do not engage in. called you on what I felt was a flimsy statement by you about the lunar bread truck, which, nonetheless, seems to equip you with this cocky certainty and

              Did you also teach your students the fallacy falling back on the word fallacy to avoid an argument?

              So… Let’s rewind… Would you care to let us know what the background and observations of this person is and let us decide if they are as good as gold… Because, over the years, I have seen many arguments and data points turn out to be as good as something else. Some of those were yours, Professor.

              1. Well, I was finally able to access the discussion thread for Huffington Post, where my comments have now been removed. But I am pretty sure I copied them and sent them to some friends, so I may be able to recover them. Meanwhile, since I have advanced a dozen or more arguments to show we did not go to the moon, why don’t you address them instead of more ad hominems?

                Even BrasscheckTV has done a piece on the moon landing hoax, which can be accessed here:

                http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/29320.html

                1. So, you are saying you tossed dozen or more rocks in the well, and ask me to find them for you? Hmmmm…

                  I trust the other reader’s comprehension skills to decide if and where I “ad hominem’ed” you. I think we are done here. Unless you wanna tell me about the bread truck. Thanks.

                  1. That observation came to me originally in an email from Anthony Meeks. I sought his
                    permission to post it and to use his name. Now you can write directly to him yourself:

                    On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Anth Meeks wrote:

                    Jim,

                    One more item to add to the fake moon landing.

                    There is no way the Lunar Module could have broadcast a live tv image from the moon in 1969. I worked for a tv station a few years ago and even today it takes a large room loaded with equipment to send a signal up to an antenna for live broadcast.

                    Live broadcasts were possible in 1969 but it required a vehicle the size of a bread truck in order to produce a live remote signal. I would love to ask a NASA apologist exactly where all of that equipment was situated in the LEM much less ‘where’ was the antenna located that sent a signal 239k miles back to earth. Hilarious.

                    Anthony Meeks

        2. “I think there is a consensus, at least in the West, that the North Korean program is at best dual-use and at worse entirely cover for an offensive capability.”–

          http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/01/29/us-needs-defend-space-assets-pentagon-space-expert-says/79522066/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

          I think the moon landing hoaxers are largely on the populist right and therefore underemphasize this raison d’etre. The US military was having a helluva a time getting quality personnel as anti-Vietnam War sympathies penetrated elite formational institutions; a broad conspiracy would be a way to discipline and compartmentalize technological workers and theorists.

          I spent 1984-87 as a satellite operator at Space Command 1000 SOG, Offutt AFB and this topic came up only very occasionally as a ludicrous proposition–but that proves nothing.

          Simulated telemetry broadly disseminated requires someone with more aerospace engineering background than I have to debunk. Proving photographic evidence fraudulent is necessary but not sufficient. Also, scientific “progress” is another collective delusion that hinges on perspective. Is the calculator really an improvement over the slide rule? Has the Green Revolution solved hunger? Has human morbidity improved globally? And what happened to baseball pitchers’ stamina?

          The “conspiracy theory” I came to believe, oedipally driven like most of them, was that of a group of goodhearted generals sabotaged three Atlas launches in a row after the Challenger event to build trust with the Soviets during the wrap up of the Cold War. After all, if most people want to do good, and anonymity is a form of praxis, than why wouldn’t the great majority of conspiracies be born from good intentions, good in the utilitarian rather than tribal sense?

          1. Kind of an odd smear against those of us who have found good reasons to doubt that we went to the moon–“I think the moon landing hoaxers are largely on the populist right and therefore underemphasize this raison d’etre”–since I am not a right-winger but a professional scholar who is dedicated the discovery of truth, where the claim that we went to the moon rings very hollow.

            I am astonished that one of you after another has nothing to support your belief than attacks on the messenger, where you appear to be incapable of addressing the message. I have given at least a dozen arguments supporting the conclusion that we did not go to the moon, where you and yours have offered nothing in rebuttal but suppositions and conjectures. That doesn’t cut it.

            When are you going to go through this thread and identify the reasons presented that provide evidence that we did not go to the moon and, instead of attacking me, for example, give some good reasons for believing that we actually did go? Certainly the idea of a recruiting gimmick to secure the services of qualified personnel with technical backgrounds falls completely short.

            1. My point being that the civilian space program was used as cover for military strategy and due to their strong patriotism the populist right has sometimes been less critical of war spending. I was only recently exposed to this interpretation but now have read some of the popular revisions of the history of the moon landing.

              I’m not sure whether “you’re” right about the photography but the issue of telemetry hasn’t been sufficiently addressed. If the photography is false it doesn’t necessarily prove the moon landing was unsuccessful because maybe the propaganda needs were regarded as too important to be left to crappy video.

              I’m not intending to use “right populist” pejoratively just giving my superficial impression after reading a few threads, Dave M.(populist left?), Fetzer, and am not being dismissive or clumsily arrogant.

              My point in the quote about N. Korea is to support the idea it might be a hoax and a reason why by showing a possible case of projective public policy.

              I would want to contribute to the argument rather than attack people or mischaracterize

              I’m not sure whether “you’re” right about the photography but the issue of telemetry hasn’t been sufficiently addressed. If the photography is false it doesn’t necessarily prove the moon landing was unsuccessful because maybe the propaganda needs were regarded as too important to be left to crappy video.

              I’m not intending to use “right populist” pejoratively just giving my superficial impression after reading a few threads, Dave M.(populist left?), Fetzer, and am not being dismissive or clumsily arrogant.

              My point in the quote about N. Korea is to support the idea it might be a hoax and a reason why by showing a possible case of projective public policy.

              I would want to contribute to the argument rather than attack people or mischaracterize arguments. I can’t stomach the superficial, pseudo-scientific attacks on people practicing history whatever their ideology or conclusions. When I was in the Air Force in the 80’s Pravda and Izvetia were about as edifying as the Washington Post and New York Review of Books. The recent crap mathematically proving the difficulty of keeping secrets is appallingly vacuous and pompous, for instance.

              1. Ralph, I am not suggesting that you have nothing to contribute to the debate, but quite a number of points have been made that would preclude that having happened. I know the photographic anomalies backward and forward: your casual dismissal of faking the photos to cover real trips to the moon REQUIRES SOME KIND OF PROOF. It is an example of an untestable hypothesis.

                There are many more problems with the moon landing hypothesis, some of which are exposed in some of the classic videos about this issue. One I would especially recommend is “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?”, which I watched at the Morgan Hotel in London years ago. It sparked my interest in a topic that I had previously had no reason to question. I recommend it:

                Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon … – YouTube

                Get back with some good reasons to believe we really did go to the moon, which could include (a) debunking the dozen or more arguments made in this thread, (b) presenting some reasons to believe that, although the footage and other forms of proof were faked, we actually did land men on the moon. That would be a great start. But I strongly suggest you watch this fascinating film.

    2. No offense, but given that your estimate of the number of missions is wrong, we can’t have much confidence in your estimate of the number of people involved. But just for kicks, how many people would it take to fake one mission? Five missions? Seven?

      And how would we know what the “Soviets” did or didn’t say. Are we to expect that their news media are composed of honest, disinterested, seekers, and brokers, of truth?

      Finally, wouldn’t the “Soviets letting it go” be better explained by the entire “cold war” being just as much contrived nonsense as the Apollo missions?

  12. (all italics below by Professor Fetzer)

    * we did not have the propulsion power necessary to escape Earth’s gravitational field

    What is this assertion based on? Any links, experiments, calculations?

    * we did not have the computing power to calculate the trajectories for going or coming

    Once again.. You know this how?

    * we could not overcome then or now the problem posed by the van Allan radiation belts

    Many academic and scientific explanations available online, with calculated radiation exposures, and analysis of this data, which conclude that the exposure was far below dangerous levels, especially considering the doughnut shape of the Van Allen bely, which allows for a maximum of 1 hour of exposure each way. (links available upon request)

    Do you have any such calculations that actually contradict these numbers and analysis?

    * we did not have the capacity to broadcast transmissions back to Earth from the moon

    Says your online friend, who knows more about bread trucks than the does about cutting edge broadcast technology of the 60’s.

    * cameras were mounted outside the space suits, but are perfectly focused and framed

    Focus: High quality light-fast lenses, especially state of the art Zeiss lenses, allow shooting at very small aperture settings, and therefore allow for “always-sharp” images in a brightly lit environment like the moon surface,

    Frame: Before releasing the photos, they crop and rotate and straighten images, as you can tell by the angle and/or size of then crosshairs

    * the backgrounds are as well focused as the foregrounds (via front-screen projection)

    Once again, easily explained by basic photography, optics and the lack of atmospheric light diffusion.

    * there are moon rover photos with no tracks in front or behind them (lowered by crane)

    What reason would the hoaxers have to lower the rover by crane? They forgot about the tracks? Out of gas? Kubrick’s continuity person fell asleep?

    * shadows are cast by multiple sources of light (but there should have been only the Sun)

    I am assuming we are not talking about the long debunked different angle shadow phenomenon… If that is the case, can you link to these images that show more than one light source?

    1. “* shadows are cast by multiple sources of light (but there should have been only the Sun)”

      In a video scientist Micho Kaku says the two angles are probably caused by the sunlight crossed by earthlight, light much brighter than moonlight.

      Re the pristine photos, I am a terrible photographer but once I got to use a Hasslebland camera and somehow my photos never looked better.

  13. I have analyzed the entirety of the Apollo 16 footage. I measured gravity events, finding several instances where the lunar gravity was undoubtedly incorrectly simulated. The discrepency arises because in order to simulate the actors on the wire rigs the film speed is approximately 44 fps where as to simulate falling objects 59 fps was used. It was only replicated correctly approximately 85% of the time. Also close examination shows the dirt falling faster than the astronauts.

    Multiple speeds were used, the main speed was 44 fps or about 55%. A variety of frame rates was extracted from a high speed master before transfer to video. In fact the majority of the footage shows a crude telecine process. The majority of it having a duplicate frame in a 4/5 ratio. This results from the transfer from film to video, 24 fps to 30. Of course the GTCA specs site a frame rate of 29.97, however the footage does not conform.

    I also discovered dozens of impossible sounds, the most compelling is Charles Duke tapping a rock sample on the seat lid of the rover making loud mechanical tapping noises. With the only active microphones being the astronauts head set… This is not physically possible! Many instances of hammering are accompanied by the sound of the strike! Not possible! This has never happened in any of the space walks in the decades that followed. Never!

    There are multiple instances of impossible sounds throughout the footage. I have even extracted the sounds of their boots in the sand!

    It is quite laughable actually, when you retime the footage to the speed it was performed it is clear they are on wires. The many moments were they are struggling against the counter weight are a dead give away.

    What I thought may have been a master hoax in fact turns out to be a very poor one actually. It looks ridiculous, it is ridiculous. After the gravity analysis I knew for sure. The sounds sealed it.

    I wanted to know for myself, went looking for my own evidence beyond the ones we always hear about. I found it in great abundance.

    These are not circumstantial but physical evidences. The lunar grav simulation is falsafiable, it is not consistant. Sound does not travel in a vacuum and the astronauts suit does not propagate sound waves from using any hand tools. Especially the tapping of a rock!

    A thousand proofs can be undone with a single falsification. I found that falsification, it is right there in the footage.

      1. Hello David, Yes I have made several videos.

        For starters here is some retimed footage using specific frame rates. I have also done restorations to the footage.

        As for the hammering sounds, the suit does not act as a drum. This is confirmed by modern astronauts very clearly. The suit contains layers of insulation, latex and rubber tubing. Sounds can propagate through the hard fittings of the suit, However the suit does not act as a drum.
        We would have to explain why modern astronauts have never experienced hammering sounds or any sounds from any hand tools what so ever?

        For the most part, the microphones operated in VOX mode, as in voice activated, meaning there is a threshold for noise level in order to activate the microphone, above that of the suits internal systems and the astronauts regular breathing.

        Here’s the clip of Duke tapping the rock sample. This is not possible.

        Here is a summary of other audio events. Yes, we have several examples where there can be no sound conduction at all.

        Here is a summary of the initial gravity analysis. The failed events can be easily measured and confirmed.

        Also here is a breakdown of the mythbusters “jump salute” confirming the validity of the use of both wires and slo mo.

    1. Never mind, Apollo. I found what you are talking about in the “documentary” linked below.

      The problem is that this analysis is based on bad science. I don’t know that you are in agreement with the guy in the video, but he shows us an alarm bell ringing in a vacuum and not making sound, as proof that we should not be hearing any sounds on the moon.

      This would have been true for sound waves traveling through the air, but it does not take into consideration the sound traveling through solid materials in contact with each other. In the moon scenario, this would be the hammer, the suit, the wiring inside, the mike (which is not in a vacuum) that is picking up the sounds…

      I am not one to shy away from facing the possibility of a conspiracy or a hoax, and that includes the moon landing… But, in this instance, unless you provide a video that shows recorded sounds coming from elements that are NOT IN DIRECT PHYSICAL CONTACT with the astronauts, I say the sounds you hear are proof of nothing!

      Just ask Professor Fetzer (above), who is convinced we did not have the technology to transmit signals from moon in 1969, but he is equally convinced that that we DID have the technology to send beams from outer space and pulverize steel buildings back in 2000-2001.

      1. Hello again David.

        Bad science is making proclamations of truth without evidence.

        We have several astronauts on record stating that no sounds can be heard when hammering, tapping or using any hand tools what so ever. Never in any modern space walk, and in fact only occurred sometimes on the moon. Why is that?

        The tapping of a rock? Do we really think this minuscule amount of energy can propagate through the suit to activate the VOX?

        If that were the case almost all sounds could, and a spacewalk would be a noisy job indeed.

        These are hard science questions of physics, meaning they can be verified with actual tests. It has been, in the decades of legitimate spacewalks for multiple decades. If you have evidence that your scenario regarding hammering is true I would greatly appreciate it.

        Also, we have several examples where there is no contact with the suit. Negating the conduction argument completely. I missed this one above.

        1. Thank you for your replies and the videos. I appreciate it, Apollo.

          I was already familiar with the gravity issues, but had not heard a sound a analysis as extensive as yours, which, at least at face value, I find very compelling.

          But, now that I have found someone as knowledge able as you, I am also compelled to ask:

          The footage you have used for the sounds… Are they verifiable originals from NASA?

          In other words, does NASA have these clips available to the public? And, if yes, do their versions also have the (unfiltered version of) the same audio?

          What is your best guess as to which mic picked up these sounds?

          If it is not the mics inside the suits, was there a mic on the cameras they have used. Or some other external mic picking up the sounds?

          In a hoax scenario, would there have been a reason for the fakers to shoot with sound at all?

          Or, is the inference, since they were on earth, sound traveled through the air and was picked up by the VOX?

          Lastly… The reference to the astronauts saying they did not hear any sounds… Do you know the source and the context of that comment? I’d love to look it up.

          Thanks in advance.

          1. Thanks very much Dave for kind words and the intelligent responses.

            I can answer some with certainty, others I can only speculate.

            The footage I used was sourced directly from the NASA Lunar journal archive. In most cases I have included the video number for reference at the bottom or corner of the screen. These are as original as we can get.

            Yes, they are available, Including unfiltered audio. Although better quality mpegs from A15 have gone. Which is unfortunate as they, in particular contained some very obvious and glaring speed changes in the footage.

            I included the original audio of Duke tapping the sample on two occasions during the mission. That is the original audio where the tapping can easily be heard. The footsteps are original however retimed with the pitch intact.

            My best guess as to the mic picking up the audio?

            I am speculating here, I believe that at times it is the astronauts microphones picking up the sounds, indeed propagating within an atmosphere and possibly a mic associated with the GATC itself. I think this because of the frequency and nature of the sounds. Particularly those involving the rover. Incidentally, a number of these sounds could be explained by conduction if there were a microphone attached to the rover. I can find no reference to this being the case. There were other mics in the com systems of the LM, these were integrated. The only active mics on the surface were on the astronauts headset.

            A reason why they would have a open mic?

            That is a very good one. Yes it seems absurd and easily avoidable. Perhaps a cultural and dated view has something to do with it. And some arrogance to boot. I honestly can’t answer that.

            IMO the multiple lines of evidence point to the conclusion the footage was filmed on Earth, not just what I have presented but that from other researchers as well. You could try aulis.com for some serious investigations of many aspects. This is my conclusion of course. But measuring the gravity is simple enough. I may do some how to videos so people can confirm it for themselves.

            The reference to the sounds heard or not heard is discussed in the transcripts of Apollo 15 when some hammering is heard by mission control and the headset mic. It is quite nonsensical and contradictory with one astronaut saying he had heard it and another saying they did not but it still activated the VOX somehow. The suit acting as a drum was Conrad Bean’s guess, and that is the only word we have from NASA on this subject. Contradicting the statements of modern astronauts. Again the tapping of a rock is an extreme case far from the energy of hammering and has never been remarked upon.

            Here is some hammering from A16. First the original, the strikes can be heard can be heard in the unfiltered audio. Then the extracted and cleaned version simply for illustrative purpose. Note no comments are made regarding the noise of the hammer here from the astronauts or mission control.

            Thanks. I will be dissecting A17 soon.

            1. Thanks for your reply, Apollo.

              In regards to the “jump”… I understand your greater point where you assert that the speeds have been manipulated in in general… However, in this instance (jump), I feel the speed of the jump and the fall are somewhat irrelevant, as you would be able to achieve the same effect by speeding up a genuine moon video (if there is one of course😉.

              What I find more troubling is the height of the jump.

              The apollo 11 space suit is meant to weigh around 180 lbs with the backpack and all… If I were to assume, generously if I might add, 200lbs body weight for the astronaut, we get a total of 380 earth pounds, which translates to roughly 65 moon pounds. Even when we factor in the relative lack of mobility in a space suit that would prevent the astronaut jumping as high as he could without a suit, it feels like with 65bs of effective weight (a third of what the astronaut’s muscles are used to), the jump should have been much higher. Especially when you consider that, even though the myth busters suit and backpack were hollow and light, the person still had his full body weight to fight in order to jump, whereas the astronaut weight a fraction of that on the moon.

              That said, it is still possible that the constraints of the suit, inability to bend knees and ankles and upper body cancels out the gravity advantage. I can’t say I’m able to assess that accurately, to be honest.

              Your thoughts?

              1. The astronauts are working within an atmosphere, no need for hidden life support systems.

                What is relevant is the exact same speed factor used to reverse the slow motion lunar video is used to simulate lunar gravity with, surprisingly accuracy!

            2. A couple of quick points:

              Just watched the side by side a few more times, and I think it is important to pint out that the myth buster dude does not have the same level of constraint on his movements that a real space suit, with two layers of boots for example, would put on the astronaut.

              If you focus on their feet, you will note that the astronaut seems to be unable to bend his ankles at all, while the earthling benefits from a full extension of the foot.

              Also, I’d like to pint out that the dust/dirt lifted off the ground seems to fall back other quickly, and had this been a slowing down of the video, you’d expect the dust to have the same slowed down descent on to the ground.

              Lastly… And this is a blanket question about dust and dirt. If we go along with the assertion that the landings were filmed on earth, would you not agree that there would have been many instances of airborne dust and other particles in at least some of the videos, at least momentarily suspended in the air? Are you aware of any such instances?

              1. I agree David, The under structure of the suit would have an effect on the range of motion. The suit is flopping around on our myth buster. I won’t bring up the pressurized thing.

                As I mentioned in the video (text) The suits under structure would add to the realism of the replication.

                As for the dust, this is one of the clinches, the dust does fall faster than the astronauts. It does so in the salute jump, you can also see a good example in the first video when Charlie is struggling against the counter weight to pick up his hammer, that is real speed btw.

                Free fall objects would be filmed at 59 fps for lunar speeds while the astronauts, counter weighted for approximately 40 to 45% filmed at 44 fps will replicate lunar speeds.

                Speed changes are observable in the original footage. Different speeds were used accordingly. For the astronauts the speed was in relation, generally in proximity to that of the camera.

                The difference in speeds to replicate Lunar gravity is where the hoaxers messed up at times.
                These are the failures I document in the gravity analysis. They always, always correspond to the other speeds used such as 54.55% or 57.15% to match Earth gravity exactly!

                The footage was filmed on Earth.

      2. David, Why don’t you get your facts straight before attacking me in relation to 9/11? You are confusing me with Judy Wood. While I featured her in a series of interviews between 2006 and 2008, I do not accept her theory of DEWS. You attribute to me is inaccurate and wrong.

        If you want to understand my view, which is that the heavy lifting (in blowing apart the Twin Towers from the top down and converting them into millions of cubic yards of very find dust) was done using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes. Do a little research.

        I find your attempts to defend an indefensible hypothesis rather striking. Some proofs are very simple. For example, we have seen many photos of well-defined moon-boot prints in the lunar dust. To form and retain impressions requires moisture. There was none on the moon.

        Instead of chasing will-o-wisps related to 9/11 in an effort to discredit me, think about how difficult it is to make an impression in dry sand. It won’t stick because of the absence of moisture. So how can boots make those well-defined impressions on the moon? They can’t!

        1. “think about how difficult it is to make an impression in dry sand. It won’t stick because of the absence of moisture. So how can boots make those well-defined impressions on the moon? They can’t!”

          Say it was the consistency of talcum powder and not sand it would be easy to make an impression, no? Did the supposed moonwalkers not say the surface was powdery akin perhaps to volcanic dust? I’m at work now but when i get home I’m going to lay out a layer of baby powder and see if I can’t leave in it a finger dent.

          1. Okay, so I have a small tub of Johnson’s baby powder. It’s powdery and dry. To simulate a notched boot sole I am using a plastic packet of two pills I use for my prostate. So I press the pill packets a few times into the powder and there are very distinct tracks in the powder. You may disregard what Fetzer sensei says and know that boot prints on the moon are entirely possible.

            1. Jimbo, My bet would be your talcum powder is loaded with moisture. Just as it’s easy to leave an impression in wet sand, it is virtually impossible in dry. So I doubt your “experiment” proves your point. And since we are discussing reasons for skepticism, why does NASA refuse to use the world’s most powerful telescope to look at the surface of the moon and see what’s there?

              1. And, by the way, granting that your experiment with talcum powder leaves impressions, if we have proof that moon dust is comparable to talcum powder, then images like boot prints are possible. But if that is indeed the case, the photos of moon rovers with no tracks in front or behind or between their wheels are further proof that they were lowered into place by a crane.

        2. My apologies, Professor, for having attributed Woodisms to you… My mistake.

          As for the prints in the dust… I really don’t know first hand… Like you, I have never been to the moon… Like you, I am not a geologist, chemist or astronomist… So I have to rely on people who provide scientific explanations that are independently verifiable, so that I don’t base my conclusions on half truths.

          Here’s what they say:

          The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. When a meteoroid impacts the Moon, much of the energy goes into fracturing the surrounding structure causing breaks in the molecular bonds. On Earth, these “exposed” bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut’s boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds are created. The new bonds enable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form despite the absence of water.

          So… Have you read or heard or thought of a counterargument that says, no, the moon dust is not silica… And that it really is not capable of holding footprints? If yes, where? Who or what is the source for your assertion?

          You see? You keep telling me that I am attacking you… But I am not attacking you really, but your arguments, and the pretense of expertise which you seem to feel justifies the level of certainty you project on to your evasive but aggressive and scornful commentary. That’s all.

          As I have mentioned before, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of any kind of conspiracy, since they happen all the time, since the dawn of civilization, and probably before that… Apollo Project (above) has made some assertions in his comments and videos, for example. I tried, to the best of my ability, to hold his feet to the fire, without insults or condescension, and he came back with proper answers, cordial language and attitude, and explained himself. And now, I feel this sound analysis definitely needs to be looked into for any valid argument pro or against the hoax idea. That’s how these things work… I am not a believer… Just a skeptic.

          1. David, NASA is going to have “an explanation” for every anomaly. The challenge is to sort them out. This is a simple argument that they can respond to but (so far as I can see) not defeat–like the claim moon-walkers could not see a universe with boundless stars! We can even see them from Earth and the visibility from an atmosphere-less would be spectacular.

            Here is an interesting short video in which admissions are made from the International Space Station that we have never gone beyond low Earth orbit and, from a NASA engineer, that we are still working to solve the problem posed by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. With the passage of time, fewer and fewer players remember that we are supposed to have gone to the moon!

            1. David, NASA is going to have “an explanation” for every anomaly. The challenge is to sort them out. – J.Fetzer

              Something we seem to agree on finally. Yes, it is very important to be able to “sort” these explanations out, which is a major challenge… But then, there is also the added challenge of sorting the sorters out.

              1. David, It is fallacious to evaluate an argument on the basis of its source. Even experts can be wrong and majority opinions are often mistaken. The key is to address the evidence and the arguments, not who is making them. The ad hominem is a species of the genus known as the genetic fallacy. Even dubious sources can make sound arguments. Evaluate them!

                1. David, It is fallacious to evaluate an argument on the basis of its source. – J.Fetzer

                  Au contraire, Professor. I would argue that the source of the information is extremely significant in evaluating the “argument”. You are not suggesting that all arguments are created equal, and should be evaluated equally, are you? Is that not a bit on the simplistic side?

                  If the source is a human being, his/her motives, his/her psychology, hidden and overt past and present affiliations, possible hidden or overt agendas, past and present political and religious views, ethical philosophy, past and present words, past and present credibility, sanity, insanity, and a million other factors determine not IF the argument should be evaluated, but HOW the source ought to be evaluated.

                  Somewhat similarly, if the source is an institution, their declared and undeclared agendas, missions, motives, where in the food chain they are located, by whom they are funded, by whom they are directed, etc. are also extremely important factors in evaluating the source, the argument, the news or analysis they are providing, conspiracies they are exposing and/or hiding…

                  Let’s just agree that It is fallacious to evaluate an argument EXCLUSIVELY on the basis of its source.

                  While that is the case, the accusation of “Ad Hominem”, which is one of the earliest classifications of any fallacy, has itself become a most commonly used fallacy in the 21st century. In fact, I’d like to coin that phrase if no one else has already: The fallacy of the ad-hominem-accusation…

                  Can you point out when and where you feel I have exercised “ad hominem” attacks against you, or anyone else on this page (or elsewhere) for that matter… If you do, I will definitely learn from it.

                  As for the arguments and evidence you are prompting me to evaluate… Which ones are we talking about? There have been quite a few presented on this page, and I believe I have already evaluated them to the best of my ability, and commented on quite a few of them to the best of my ability. Sorry if it has not satisfied your expectations.

                  1. David, Why are you being so defensive? I was only responding to your remark about sorting out those who were making arguments. It was an obvious point (sometimes bad men do good things, sometimes smart men make dumb remarks, and such). You elevate it to the level of a federal offense. There are objective standards for evaluating arguments regardless of source.

                    You seem to want to psychologize. I wasn’t attacking you or claiming that you had accused me of an ad hominem. But I know something of which I speak, since I offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Common fallacies are special pleading (only citing favorable evidence) and popular sentiments (what is widely believed must be true).

                    There are relative degrees of good and bad arguments, which involve drawing conclusions on the basis of evidence. The authenticity of the evidence, of course, can itself become a source of argument, as in the case of the moon landing photographs. I was commenting about your remark, “there is also the added challenge of sorting the sorters out”, which is another thing.

                    1. Professor,

                      I am glad to see you found my reply “defensive”. I was worried you’d find it offensive actually.

                      I have no intention to make this page into a bickering zone… And I can only imagine certain regulars having had enough of our exchanges, which have now devolved greatly to a hominem-against- hominem level, and are mostly off topic.

                      You entered this thread with a loaded package of conspiracies like McCartney, Sandy Hook, Holocaust, etc. Whether each one of those claims have any merit or not, I felt that you were doing a disservice to a possible fruitful discussion here by introducing truth-by-association from the get go, and reacted to your bullet point assertions, a majority of which have no validity in an argument for or against a hoax, and did not really justify the level of certainty you were attributing to them. That is all!

                      In any case, I feel we are not arguing on even ground, Professor.

                      You are treating me as just some guy on a blog (which is exactly what I am by the way) and you lay on me your well seasoned tactics that you employ when you post on these blogs and engage people, and frequently exercise appeal to false authority by justifying your conclusions with your “academic title and the 35 years of teaching”, and prompting people to “do research” whenever you do not find it convenient to argue, and calling ad hominem when you get criticized. Which is all fine and dandy, because, after all, you are a professional. Plus, you don’t know me from a hole in the wall.

                      I, on the other hand, have the benefit, as well as the burden of having read, listened to and observed your argumentative tactics for nearly a decade. I confess that I am well familiar with your movements within the so called movement, and the short and long term effects you have had on it. For this reason, you might say I am prejudiced against you, but I’d prefer to see it as I have an opinion about you. And, I am not psychologizing anything… You are displaying a psychology, I am just observing… And pointing some of it out. You might have been teaching for 35 years, but I have been learning for over 50… Now, where does that leave us?

                      (If you choose to reply to this, I will let it be the last word between the two of us. Let’s just go back to the moon… Figuratively speaking, of course.)

                    2. David, Your position is incoherent. You tout SOURCES as IMPORTANT, but when I explain that I not only have excellent credentials as an author and a scholar, who has published books on all the subjects you enumerate and more–including JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, the moon landing and the Holocaust–you attempt to dismiss and to trivialize me.

                      That really doesn’t cut it. Check out my CV at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/, which offers abundant proof that I should be acknowledged as an expert across many areas of research, including the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge and of computer science, AI, cognitive science and evolution and mentality. And that’s apart from my conspiracy studies.

                      I have three books on JFK, one on 9/11 (with another in the works), one on Sandy Hook, one on Boston (which has just appeared), and another with 100 pages on the moon landings, 100 on the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, two chapters on the first death of Saddam Hussein and two on the second death of Osama bin Laden, and four more on the Holocaust.

                      So there really are good reasons to regard me as a source, where I make no pretensions to infallibility. My conclusions across the board, like all other scientific conclusions, are tentative and fallible in the sense that, even though they are supported by ample evidence, they might be mistaken, and where new evidence or alternative hypotheses may require their revision.

                      My point has been that arguments must be evaluated INDEPENDENT OF THEIR SOURCES. But if you are going to place emphasis on SOURCES, then my background and publications qualify me as an EXPERT SOURCE on all of these subjects–not infallible, as I have explained, but as AN EXPERT–where I value criticism and am eager to learn from my mistakes. Are you?

                    3. Jim Fetzer said:

                      “David, Your position is incoherent. You tout SOURCES as IMPORTANT, but when I explain that I not only have excellent credentials as an author and a scholar, who has published books on all the subjects you enumerate and more–including JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, the moon landing and the Holocaust–you attempt to dismiss and to trivialize me”

                      How dare you “attempt” to dismiss and trivialize me!…..the audacity!!!

                      It doesn’t matter who you are or what you’ve accomplished, Dr. Fetzer, you still need to cite sources, even if you are Werner von Braun or Richard Feynman.
                      You can’t cite yourself as a source or an authority.

                      “Check out my CV at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/, which offers abundant proof that I should be acknowledged as an expert across many areas of research, including the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge and of computer science, AI, cognitive science and evolution and mentality. And that’s apart from my conspiracy studies”

                      Dr. Fetzer!…..you’re blowing your supposed expertise out of all proportion!

                      “I have three books on JFK, one on 9/11 (with another in the works), one on Sandy Hook, one on Boston (which has just appeared), and another with 100 pages on the moon landings, 100 on the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, two chapters on the first death of Saddam Hussein and two on the second death of Osama bin Laden, and four more on the Holocaust”

                      If you keep pumping yourself up like that, you and your whole Laboratory are liable to explode, Uncle Fetzer!

                      So, Dr. Fetzer doesn’t need to cite sources like the rest of us mortals…..he simply cites his own expertise.

                      Dr. Fetzer claims to be a “professor of logic”, but I think I’ve discovered an heretofore unknown logical fallacy of which James Fetzer is the model.

                      It is the “Fetzer Fallacy” which is “An appeal to Megolomania”, alternatively called “An appeal to Nacissism”.

                      Congratulations, Dr. Fetzer…..you now have a logical fallacy named after you that you can teach to your students of “logic”!

                      James Fetzer said:

                      “We didn’t have the propulsion power to escape Earth’s gravity”

                      Do you have a source for that, Dr. Fetzer?…..I mean a source other than Dr. James Fetzer.

                      “The five F-1 engines equal 160,000,000 horsepower, about double the amount of potential hydroelectric power that would be available at any given moment if all the moving waters of North America were channeled through turbines”

                      http://www.apollosaturn.com/facts_figs.htm

                    4. Stop playing the sock puppet and give us some proof that we actually did go to the moon. I have given dozens of disproofs–here and elsewhere, especially by the contributors to AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015). Get off you duff and stop the trivial game-playing and GIVE US SOME GOOD REASONS TO THINK WE WENT. There is a principle under the law known as “fraud vitiates everything”. If there is an element of fraud in a legal case that materially impacts that case, the entire case has no merit. I have given many, but let’s take the case of the moon rover with no tracks in front or behind or between its tires. On the assumption that moon dust has the molecular structure to allow prints to be made (boot prints, for example), their absence indicates that they were deposited there by means of a crane. On the other hand, if moon dust does not have the molecular structure to allow prints to be made, then the existence of photos of boot prints establishes alternative lines of proof of fraud. Pick your poison, but you have advanced no good reasons to believe that we actually went to the moon–and for the very good reason that we did not! Good luck!

          2. Fetzer is wrong.

            Talc (baby powder) is a silicate (I looked it up.) and it contains no water. It is in fact used to absorb water. Wet sand my eye. The tracks I left in the baby powder look as crisp as that moon photo (if we really went to the moon)

            Having an opportunistic ignoramus like Fetzer on this our side while we compare the moon landings with 9/11 is what will embarrass the truth movement. I look forward to the film but heaven help the movement and its credibility if Mazzucco goes anywhere James Fetzer.

            1. Well, I am willing to be proven wrong, but your attitude is beyond belief. What have you ever done to expose governmental complicity in JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, the moon landing hoax or the Holocaust? I can think of lots of names for someone like you, but to suggest I am the problem, when you have nothing to your credit, is absurd!

              1. There are lots of ways to defeat the moon landing hypothesis, where the failure of one does not defeat the others. For someone to make the simple-minded claim that the arguments I have made should be ignored because boot prints were possible (assuming that talcum powder and moon dust are comparable) displays an astounding absence of reasoning ability.

                I make no pretensions to infallibility and, if talcum powder and moon dust ARE comparable, I am willing to grant that I was wrong about this. But, as I observe above, that makes photos of moon rovers with no tracks in front, behind or in between their wheels further proof that they were lowered into place using a crane. Jimbo needs to get his head screwed on right.

            2. Jimbo. Talc is hygroscopic. Talc absorbs water from the atmosphere.

              ” The adhesive interactions in talc are strong enough to overcome the unfavorable entropy, and water adsorbs strongly on talc surfaces.

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249429/

              Please read the summary of this experiment. You would have to vaccum-dry the talc to get a rough estimation of moon-dust. And then still you would have to consider the effects of lower gravity.

      3. David. Did you hear the lid close?

        I really doubt a spacesuit would transfer sound as precisely as that. I might transfer a low-volume and muffled sound though.

        1. I take this back. If the spacesuit was pressurized, then sound waves could propagate through the air inside of the suit.

          Inter-suit acoustics could be more of less effective than acoustics in our own atmosphere, since the gas inside of the suit may not replicate atmospheric conditions perfectly.This would depend on the purported pressure inside of the suit (ask NASA), as well as the quantity and quality of the gasses used.

          This is something to consider when arguing along these lines. Higher pressure would yield lower Acoustic Impedance, and the type of gasses used would have a more complicated effect.

          With that said, I still think the evidence points to a hoax.

      4. Loopy. You are confusing me with Judy Wood. Check out my review of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, on amazon.com and you will see she and her minions have attacked me 7,500 times! I wish my critics would do some research before they make fools of themselves.

        For more proof that we did not go to the moon, see “The Real Deal: The Great Moon Landing Hoax with Dennis Cimino”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4llfIjJBuk

  14. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

    (Truth and Shadows is feeling a little spooky these days, with nobody around… Just wanted to see if anyone is even reading… If a lunar module falls in a forest…. )

    1. Readership is very strong for this article. Maybe we were spoiled the last few years having Hybridrogue1 contributing between 35 and 40 per cent of all TS comments, but I actually find it refreshing to have no one dominating the comment section. While HR claims anarchy and general looniness rein without him to police things, the truth is he can’t stand being on the outside. All he can do is dominate his own blog (I think he handles about 95 per cent of all comments there) and obsessively comment on this one. We should have a pool on how long it will take him to comment on this comment. Everyone have their predictions ready?

      1. Craig said:

        “We should have a pool on how long it will take him to comment on this comment. Everyone have their predictions ready?”

        Put me in for ten bucks!

        I say it will happen before I get this comment typed.

  15. The dirt would seem to have been mixed with a fraction of oil.

    Some boot prints in the video appear with a sheen at certain angles, very well defined with a broad specular highlight.

    Very quickly the suit becomes dirty, with it sticking all over. The minute amount of oil would stop free floating “äir” borne particles.

  16. Just trying to get a life-size picture of pilots, even those with the “right stuff”, after watching the flying bedstead crashing in flames, nearly killing Niel Armstrong, concluding that no further testing or development is needed to ensure that the LEM is “go” for launch into an unfamiliar environment. After all, only their lives and the ultimate success of every one of the moon missions was riding on every landing and blastoff on the lunar surface going perfectly from that point. With balls like that, how did any of them ever get off the ground at all? If you have not watched Kubrick’s Odyssey by Jay Weidner you should. It does a pretty good job of deconstructing Apollo on its own. What was Stanley trying to tell us in “The Shining”?

    1. To comment on the flying bedstead. That one, a trainer version, was modified from the research version developed and tested at the NASA center at Edwards AFB where I worked that went by various names through the years, but nominally Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC). The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) was very successful. The Lunar Landing Trainer Vehicle (LLTV) was managed by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). When the LLTV crashed, DFRC personnel experienced with the LLRV naturally wanted to help investigate the crash and offer recommendations, but JSC insisted on investigating it totally themselves.

    1. That website has been terminated by David McGowan’s own daughter. The archive that had been available for years on the WayBack Machine has similarly been shut down recently. There is still at least one website where Dave’s work can be viewed: http://www.futile.work/dave.html It is strongly recommended to download any PDF file one finds interesting before that archive also disappears into oblivion.

  17. I may be striking another dissident note on this thread. The moon landing hoax, assuming it is indeed a hoax, is much less promising to activists who wish to fix the world than the 9/11 hoax, essentially for the following reasons, which ironically the article alludes to:

    * The moon conspirators’ master achievement, like the 9/11 conspirators’, is the censorship, the process by which opinion-makers and institutions that would ostensibly benefit greatly by exposing the hoax instead live the official cover myth as an absolute truth: from Russian astronomers to Iranian rocket engineers to North Korean photography experts to Venezuelan TV anchors to etc. As such, the subconspiracy that moon activists ought to focus on is, like for 9/11, the censorship.

    * As the article suggests Mazzucco admits, the analytical demonstration of the moon hoax requires a fair understanding of photographic and filming techniques. People who are not cognizant or intelligent enough to master these techniques may, correctly from their perspective, view an argument between Mazzucco and official myth defenders as a disagreement between experts that they are not qualified to arbitrate. By contrast, should any 9/11 holy inquisitor ever have the nerve of denying any resemblance between the video record of 9/11 and of a controlled demolition, even people with average mental abilities would understand with minimal effort that her/his analysis is based on an obvious and major error. If the same holy inquisitor concedes the resemblance, (s)he opens her/himself to listing the macroscopic attributes that justify her/his concession. From then on, a savvy 9/11 activist has no difficulty cornering her/him into more concessions that end up making a case for the criminal controlled demolition. Still more importantly, ordinary people distinguish with minimal effort who is the analyst and who is the charlatan.

    * Whenever enough 9/11 activists understand the previous point, they may run the 9/11 holy inquisitors into ridicule, shame and oblivion, obtain a monopoly on 9/11 outreach and an opportunity to teach 9/11 to the general public with little interference. This would be much more difficult to accomplish with the moon hoax.

    * The moon hoax does not affect much today’s life. By contrast, 9/11-induced nefarious activities show no sign of abating, starting with the open-ended U.S.-led warmongering. Therefore, many ordinary people will experience more motivation to dig into 9/11—perhaps starting by simply dropping the use of demeaning epithets against 9/11 dissidents—than into the moon.

    Love,

    1. Daniel, I agree with you 100% about the overwhelmingly greater importance of the myth of 9/11 over the moon landing hoax. And I have devoted far more time and effort to exposing 9/11–from founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth in late 2005 to keynoting the American Scholar Conference in 2006 to organizing the Madison Conference in 2007, keynoting the International Symposium on 9/11 Truth and Justice in Buenos Aires in 2009, organizing the “Debunking the War on Terror” in London in 2010 and The Vancouver Hearings in 2012. I edited THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, the first book on 9/11 from Scholars, in 2007 and expect to publish a sequel in the near future. But the moon landing hoax deserves to be debunked because it was the most monumental of them all. The American people are entitled to the truth about their own history, which I am doing my best to promote. Your post has the virtue of sincerity and significance, which many others lack.

    2. I haven’t read all these comments yet but I completely agree with David’s points. Putting it in my own words, although the above says it more eloquently that I ever could: I think the moon landing “hoax” is a huge distraction as I think we move into areas which are even more impossible to prove or disprove than 9/11. When you really look into this area it becomes SO murky and so convoluted since it touches on a multitude of deep (space?) politics, technology and even the concept of a breakaway civilisation that you can easily get lost and never come up for air. This is conceptually very tough and utterly impossible for the average bod inculcated by official culture. Achieving a growing consensus regarding 9/11 is nigh on impossible as it is. The moon landings hoax is so saturated with “tin foil” stigma that it’ll always remain a no go area for most and in a way that is qualitatively different to the 9/11 crime. In that sense it becomes prime quality disinfo fodder and dilutes and distracts from the momentum of 9/11 research.

      I do get where you’re coming from, those seeking the truth about the moon “hoax” (I tend to think there some lies sandwiched with truth on this one) but I think such revelations will never see the light of day as it connects to issues which include tangential areas of an almost techno-scorcery and as such, the system will be hermetically sealed against even the slightest progress. 9/11 has chinks in its wall the latter does not.

      1. Your intentions may be pure but your position is silly. Quite a few of us want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the scams pulled on the American people and of the world. Far from being untestable, the moon landing hypothesis has already been falsified on multiple grounds. All these things “look murky” until you actually conduct some research.

        1. Well, you may call my position silly – I think it’s realistic. It’s not a matter of avoiding the research because it looks murky, that wasn’t my point. Rather, cultivating the ability to discern what kind of research has the most potential to widen the cracks in the psychopathic edifice under which we currently live. I think 9/11 – although still painfully slow – has that potential whereas the moon landings – despite your conviction – does not. But I’ll salute your efforts for trying even if the evidence you have cited so far is not as conclusive for me as it for you.

  18. How about we do some of Mazzucco’s legwork and debunk those pesky debunkers ourselves. Here is a link to the Mythbusters moon show. It’s occasionally confusing but still pretty convincing to me. Why not have a look yourselves and report back here to show where they got it wrong. .

    Where I was confused was the part where they try to debunk the supposedly fake, supposedly twice lit photo of the bright white astronaut standing in the dark shadow of the lander. They contend that the reflectivity of the surface lit the subject or something and they make a model and photograph the scene. Sure enough their photo matches the NASA photo thus “busting” the myth. However, in the filming of the guy taking the photo the white astronaut is black, shaded by the lander as conspiracy theorists contend. BUSTED! lol

  19. I think perhaps the hardest part to fake is the moon dust that flies off of the wheels of the Lunar Rover.

    Here is one video that shows it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4

    Does the dust look like it is under the influence of the moon’s gravity?

    I would think that the wheels would throw the dust further and higher than what you see in this video.

  20. a lot of proof that beyond Van Allen, the Solar flares, and the photo fakery, the vehicles lacked the ability to get rid of heat accrued in direct sunlight, and that the suits and suit life support capability wasn’t up to it at all really. the Saturn never achieved the necessary velocities to loft the 48 tons to the moon either. Extensive proof of photo fakery, etc…

    overwhelming proof these missions were in fact not possible and the overwhelming proof of fakery really supports it.

  21. I still feel so sad for people who talk about why did Russia not say anything about this faked moon landing conspiracy. People who are deceived still talk about nations as independent govts/groups of people because they dont know who they are or what they were born into! If you still think the cold war was real you are deceived. There is one government on this planet with different flavors/leaders all loyal to the freemasonic movement ….that government is called the United Nations, after USA attacked Iraq and spent billion to do it who controls the oil? The United Nations.Why is there a central bank all countries have one central bank controled by a small groupd of europeans? Hmm United Nations and the World Bank..?

    1 John 5:19
    19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

    Why would faking the moon landing be important to satan?It has to do with the end of the world and the HUGE conspiracy that will take place to deceive the world and get people to receive the antichrist.

    When the elite and satans american occult groups working with their nazi partners ( US New York banks funded the nazis building of tanks and planes to kill us soldiers…you know that right?) to build the first ufos using nicholas teslas technology during WWII they were all working to setup the New Age, read about hitlers thule society. The New Age where people would abandon the idea that GOD created the world by forming adam and even in the garden of eden. The new age and witchcraft teaches that all people on this earth evolved from adam and eve the same as the bible but they say that adam and eve arrived on the earth by ufos from another planet. This is evidence in the the necromonicon which is like a bible of witchcraft for some people and a statement of the beliefs of many witches.

    The point of doing this fake landing was not to deceive the russinas it was to deceive the humans. The idea that we are evolving and more able to explore outerspace is important to fueling the prideful rebellion in the mind of the dead and blind sinners who want to move away from GOD and accept the new age lies that the humans have no moral truth and can live in sin and folow the new demonic age which only wants to spiritually pollute and destroy GODs creation and lead to Armageddon

    The global conspiracy is worked by a secret and organized group know as freemasonry, a group that openly worships lucifer and say that lucifer is god in their own writings.Now you know why America has 50 pentagrams on its flag…those are not stars stars are circular balls of gas buring in space, not 5 pointed pentagrams…also you can see why washigton DC has the street designed into a pentagram with the tip of the pentagram resting on the white house…do your research the conspiracy is old and powerful…like satan

    You should study encounters between freemasons during war…In a documentary movie about exposing freemasonry( I do not remember the name now) a naval soldier noted how a american warship did not sink a german submarine because the captain of the german submarine was doing a masonic over the head hand sign for assistance repeatedly on the highest part of the submarine during wwII and the usa warships captain was also a freemason so he did not attack the german submarine.Why? Because these 2 freemasons know that above the military leaders rules of their countries is the freemason loyalty.This is the conspiracy that has the power to create a falsified lunar landing..secret groups organized by demonic power to control the world and nations just like Holy and pure GOD has said in his message to warn humanity…..it is called the Bible and the sinners and demonic oppressed are against it always because of their own spiritual infection.

    We are not animals who have evolved from when nothing exploded and created some single cell creations.We are spiritual beings in a spiritual war and because most people are spiritually dead and deceived the people believe the lies of this world. There are many millions pf people who have demons working in them becasue of the sins of their parents and their own sins and they can not receive the truth. Whether the truth that the religion of evolution is a lie or that men were not born to be gay they are just sick and evil and enjoy perversion because it is in them…humans are know to reject truth and defend lies for their sin nature

    For those who dont want to believe in the Bible read about the discovery of Noahs ark by Ron Wyatt and also the destroyed gay cities of sodom and gomorrah where the city still has balls of sulfur in the walls…reality is not for most people because people are heathens they just want pleasure and the lies provide pleasure and false comfort. Most will not turn to Jesus so he can clean them of their demons/sins.The end of the world is coming so you should wake up becasue this life, this test will not go on forever.

    To all the slaves who like the darkness go on and believe that man could fly to the moon in a tin can with less than a comodore 64 computer for guidance while passing and returning through deadly radiation and layers of orbiting rocks, continue believeing that osama bin laden whose family builds us military bases in saudi arabia was behind 9/11.Continue believing that nothing exploded and made monkeys that became humans (the evolution religion)…you people are blinded by your sins and are heading for destruction…you feel comfortable when there is relative peace and the sun is shining but this will not last…DEMONS HATE YOU BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WAKE UP AND BE SAVED…I have personally done exorcism I know these things are REAL and I have beeter things to do that waste my time…people who look and seem normal have demons in them in many cases! these demons keep people on sexual addictions, following false religions and believing and defending lies…these sinners are all united under satan and his lies…dont believe in demons ? look up on youtube- chris angel flying.

    Revelation 3:17

    For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

  22. While I think the moon landings were probably a hoax because of the issue of the Van Allen radiation belt and photos which showed no imprint by the 14 ton lunar lander on the surface yet adjacent footprints by the astronauts, there are some key issues that are difficult to explain;
    1) Where did the 842 lb of moon rocks come from? They are similar to rocks that a Russian probe to the moon allegedly recovered and constitute too much mass for a small probe to carry.
    2) Five mirrors were left on the surface, the only Apollo experiment which is still going on. Some were put there by unmanned craft, but only two are accounted for in this manner.
    3) Why are there no whistle-blowers, given the size and scope of NASA and the number of contractors involved. Even with strict compartmentalization of the agency, there would have had to be many who saw the full picture or who wondered about odd aspects of their specific part of the enterprise.
    4) Why weren’t the Soviets more vocal about questioning the authenticity of the Apollo landings if they were fake. There are some who contend that they used the threat of this to coerce Nixon into the Great Grain Robbery of 1972 where 25% of U.S. grain production went to the Soviet Union one year and caused a massive run up in agricultural prices.

    On a side note, I find it interesting that Rumsfeld & Cheney were close advisors to Nixon during the period of the Apollo missions. They obviously held important positions in the Bush Administration years later during 9/11. Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, changed the protocols for scrambling military jets 3 months prior to 911 requiring layers of approval. He did not answer the phone on 911 and was down on the Pentagon lawn helping carry stretchers instead of manning his post as Defense Secretary. Just the day before he was on television talking about $1.3 trillion in spending being unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget and declared a war on Defense Dept. bureaucracy. Was this done in an effort to give the appearance that he wasn’t involved in the events to follow?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s