As the USA celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, most of the world remains at least somewhat skeptical. Was it just another USG big lie about the real history of the 1960s—like the official versions of the Kennedy, King, and Malcolm X assassinations, the Manson murders, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, thebirth of the hippie movement, and so much more? Or is this one of those times the official sources happen to be telling the truth? Until recently the fake moon landings hypothesis was one of those conspiracy theories I didn’t believe. But after watching Massimo Mazzucco’s American Moon, and reading Moon Landing Skeptic’s article below, I’ve had to reconsider.
Here is a revised version of my article of the same title posted on April 1ston unz.com corrected and enriched by what I have learnt from the wealth of comments and the sources indicated in them (with American Moon first on the list). So it is now, even more than before, a collective work. Thank you all. -Moon Landing Skeptic
So this is it: the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a surveyshowed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year.
British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Centerrevealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings.
For Americans, a 1999 Gallup poll gave just 6 percent of skeptics, and a 2013 Pew Research poll showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. That is suspiciously low. A 2005-2006 poll “found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon,” which is closer to the British data and more credible. It is interesting to note that in a poll made by Knight Newspapers one year after the first moon landing, more than 30 percent of respondents were suspicious of NASA’s trips to the moon. Many of those early skeptics may have converted over the years, or simply lost the energy to dissent.
But the moon hoax theory gained new momentum with the spread of Internet, and the development of YouTube,which allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing. One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then came physicist Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America: How We Never Went to the Moon and Why, which introduced the issue of the Van Allen radiation belts.
Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30thanniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day invaluable for anyone willing to develop an informed opinion.
Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon(2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which offers insight into the historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see (also here).
Then, using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TV documentary Did We Land on the Moon? (2001), directed by John Moffet for Fox TV. It is a great introduction to the controversy, although it contains some errors in the interpretation of the lunar photographs.You can watch it here from its 2013 rebroadcast on Channel 5:
Did We Land on the Moon?
Very recently, Italian photographer and filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco, who had previously authored a great documentary on 9/11, released American Moon (2018), the best film on the Apollo controversy so far. It is remarkable for the precision of its argumentation and the relevance of its documentation. Mazzucco has the great merit of answering in detail each of the debunkers’ counter-arguments. As a filmmaker and professional photographer, his major contribution—though not the only one—is in the field of photo analysis (he corrects some of the common errors found for example in Did We Land On The Moon?). Mazzucco has solicited contributions from several other internationally renowned photographers, whose analyses are devastating for the credibility of NASA’s lunar photos. You can listen to Mazzucco on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio, but I strongly recommend the DVD:
American Moon trailer:
There are very few books available on the subject. I am not aware of a more researched one than One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space by German researcher Gerhard Wisnewski, originally published in 2005, from which I will quote repeatedly.
There is also some valuable material, which I will not discuss here for lack of space, in Randy Walsh’s The Apollo Moon Missions: Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight (Part I), published in 2018. His chapter 2 (reprinted in Nexus magazine) demonstrates that, as Kaysing suspected, the F-1 engines of the Saturn V rocket used in the Apollo missions did not have the fuel and the power required to send the fully loaded rocket (approximately 3,000 tons) into Low Earth Orbit. His chapter 3 details the navigation component of the Apollo Guidance Computer built by Raytheon and the impossible tasks it was expected to perform in order to safely navigate a manned mission to the Moon and back.
I am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the Matrix we have been living in.
First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am NASA? It does, because calling NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government, your educational institutions, the scientific community, and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proof, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.
But before that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can NASA prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide whether we should take their word for it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We will get to that.
But, first of all, can NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?
Yes, they can. They brought back pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms of moon rocks and soil samples, all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks prove the moon landings, don’t they? Yes they do, but only if it can be firmly established that they were not dug out from the earth. And that is the problem. As explained here, “meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that in 1967, two years before Apollo 11, NASA set up an expedition to Antarctica, joined by Wernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist for the lunar missions; Antarctica is the region on earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites. Meteorites were apparently brought back from this expedition, officially as reference to be later compared with Apollo samples (according to Mazzucco).
So the moon rocks are a far cry from proof of the moon landings. As a matter of fact, none of the so-called moon rocks can be proven to have been brought back from the moon rather than from Antarctica or somewhere else on earth. But it gets much worse: some of the so-called moon rocks have been conclusively proven to be fake. In the 1990s, British astrobiologist Andrew Steele was granted the special privilege to get close to some of the precious samples locked in NASA safes. Imagine his surprise upon discovering they contained bristle, bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon, and tiny earthly animals (Wisnewski 207). Another moon rock made the headlines when, 40 years after having been handed personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the Dutch prime minister, it was scrutinized and proven to be petrified wood.
Granted, a few fake moon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fakes. But it should be reason enough for starting a systematic scientific examination of the hundreds of other samples that the USA ceremoniously gave away in 1969 and the 1970s. Unfortunately, most are lost. As the Associated Press reported on September 13, 2009, “Nearly 270 rocks scooped up by U.S. astronauts were given to foreign countries by the Nixon administration. […] Of 135 rocks from the Apollo 17 mission given away to nations or their leaders, only about 25 have been located. […] The outlook for tracking the estimated 134 Apollo 11 rocks is even bleaker. The locations of fewer than a dozen are known.”
What other proof does the NASA have of the moon landings? The films and photographs, of course! Unfortunately, the films available from television archives are very blurry. How, for example, can we be sure that astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a real feather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free environment, when you can hardly see the objects? (Watch here a relevant sequence from What Happened to the Moon?) More importantly, how can we check that the appearance of low gravity in Apollo moonwalking films was not obtained by simply using slow-motion? Skeptics have pointed that if the film speed is doubled, it gives the impression of normal motion on earth. Some even question if the slow motion of the Apollo films is realistic at all. William Cooper, for example, explains that in an environment with one sixth of earth’s gravity, the astronauts’ leaps should be much longer and higher than on earth: they could logically jump six times higher than on earth. Some astronauts like Eugene Cernan of Apollo 17 obviously liked to do some playful “kangaroo hopping” on the moon, but why do they seem unable to jump higher than a foot?
The very low quality of the TV footage is due to the process by which it was obtained: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast” (as explained in this August 15, 2006 report by Reuters). To be precise, NASA claimed that the original transmission from the moon was in color video and that it was reshot from a monitor in 16 mm black-and-white (color from Apollo 14 on), using a kinescope, which is a lens focused on the monitor.
What we need for a proper investigation are the original NASA video recordings. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given an answer. NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said: “We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up.” 700 cartons of magnetic video tapes were missing, says the aforementioned report by Reuters, adding:
“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”
Also allegedly lost are all the telemetry data, received and recorded to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship, as well as the astronauts’ heartbeat. Also lost are the blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
(Editor’s note: Reports that “the missing tapes have been found and are up for auction this Saturday at Sotheby’s” have just been debunked by NASA, which says the tapes in question are not original, and that the original ones, including the telemetry data, remain missing. -KB)
As a result of this NASA admission, Russian officials have started demanding an international investigation.
To conclude on the topic of the missing original video recordings, it is appropriate to mention one the strongest arguments presented by Apollo truthers: the limited battery capacity brought on the Lunar Modules (as documented by NASA) was ridiculously insufficient for the transmission of a video signal to the earth, even if they had an antenna directly pointed to Houston, which they did not have. This point is well argued by American cinematographer Joe Frantz and a Radio Frequency engineer in this video (you will also appreciate watching the mindbogglingly transparent astronauts, betraying bad studio compositing).
We don’t have the films, butfortunately, we have the photographs. Besides planting a US flag and collecting rock samples (“never come to the moon without a hammer,” joked Alan Bean of Apollo 12),the astronauts spent much time taking photos on the moon. And let’s be fair: in 2015, NASA released to the public thousands of them in high resolution. They are accessible here, and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.
The Apollo 11 crew used a standard Hasselblad 500C with a few alterations, including the removal of the reflex mirror. The film used was a standard Kodak Ektachrome diapositive film, 160 ASA. That is a surprisingly sensitive film for a place where the sunlight is unfiltered by any atmosphere, especially considering that some photos, which came out perfectly exposed, were taken directly against the sun. There are also technical issues with the reliability of this material on the surface of the moon, where temperatures go from under 100°C minus to over 100°C plus: the only protection against heat for both camera and magazine was a reflexive coating. (How the astronauts survived such temperatures is an even more serious issue.)
Another problematic aspect is the professional quality of most of those pictures. Every single shot taken by Neil Armstrong, for example, is perfectly framed and exposed. Wisnewski (144-149) quite correctly points out how incredible that is, given the fact that Armstrong (or any other astronaut) could not take aim, since the camera was fixed on his chest where he could not even see it. Not to mention the difficulty of setting aperture, exposure time, focus and field of view manually with his pressurized gloves and no vision of the camera, and with no experience of photography in the moon environment. We need to remember that photography was a very skilled occupation in those days, even on earth, and it is quite astonishing to see that all of Armstrong’s shots were just perfect.
More to the point, is there any evidence that these pictures were shot on the moon? None whatsoever. They are easy to make in studios. As a matter of fact, NASA went to great lengths to train the astronauts in indoor settings reproducing the condition of the moon surface as they imagined it, fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose (even before anyone had seen real moon dust), and even simulating the black sky. Some of the photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such as the following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the “real” thing, if framed differently.
Armstrong and Aldrin practicing on fake moon dust under fake black sky
Let’s face it: there is no proof that any of the Apollo photographs are genuine. That may not be enough to destabilize the believers. But what should is that quite a few of these photographs are “replete with inconsistencies and anomalies,” in the words of David Percy, who proves his point in What Happened on the Moon?The film contains an interview of Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo Hasselblad. When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being in the shadow of the lunar module, as in the photo reproduced on the cover of Wisnewski’s book), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That escapes me… why.”
Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reason to suspect he was working for something other than what he was told, at least until someone challenged him to explain impossible pictures. Just a handful of people had to know the full picture, and it is not even certain that President Nixon was among them. It is estimated that around 20,000 contractors and suppliers, distributed in the four corners of the United States, worked on the Apollo project: none of their employees had the means, let alone the interest, to question the utility of what they were doing.As Wisnewski (121-126) illustrates with the Corona alias Discoverer program (a US research satellite launched around 1959 with the secret purpose of spying over the Soviet Union), it is wrong to assume that the US military, spatial and intelligence communities cannot keep a secret. To take another example, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project, which remained completely hidden from the public until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
I will not list and examine the anomalies of the Apollo photographs, since they are analyzed in the documentaries mentioned above. The recent documentary film of Massimo Mazzucco, American Moon,certainly gives the best evidence, presented by professional photographers, of the fakery of the Apollo photographs. One of its merits is also to dispel the wrong kinds of arguments, for example regarding the covered “crosshairs”.
Just to give beginners an idea, here is an example of inconsistency in the direction of the shadows on NASA photo n°AS14-68-9486/7, which, according to the skeptics, prove a source of light closer than the sun (and not “multiple light sources,” as is wrongly said in Did we Go to the Moon?):
The claims based on the analyses of shadows, however, are open to endless refutations. I find it much more instructive to examine carefully some of the photographs of the lunar modules, which can be found in high resolution on the NASA archive site. I recommend browsing through them and using basic common sense.Ask yourself, for example, if you can believe that the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle (here, here, or here) could have landed two astronauts on the moon and sent them back into lunar orbit to reconnect with the orbiting Command Module. Or pick Apollo 14’s LM Antares (here), or Apollo 16’s LM Orion (here, or here with the rover that miraculously came out of it), or Apollo 17’s LM Challenger (here). Keep in mind that these shabby huts had to be hermetically pressurized in a vacuum environment, each time the astronauts went out in their extra-vehicular explorations,and that, in the last two cases, two astronauts spent more than 3 days (respectively 71 hours and 76 hours) on the moon and slept 3 nights in the module. If you want to be guided along this reflection, watch this 15-minute video. But you will get a better presentation of the problem in American Moon.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module with Neil Armstrong
Ascent Stage of Apollo 17’s Lunar Module, photographed from the Command Module before rendezvous
If the Apollo crews had photographed the moon’s starry sky, NASA could have used the images to counter accusation of fraud. Back in the 1960s, it would have been very hard to use computer calculations to make the stars’ constellations consistent. Unfortunately, no one thought about it at NASA. The astronauts were asked to look down and collect rocks, not to look up and study the stars. It is as if NASA were a congregation of geologists who despised astronomy. And to think that they spend billions of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit!
Before the Apollo missions, it was widely believed that the stars would be glaringly bright when seen from anywhere beyond earth’s atmosphere: “astonishingly brilliant” is how Yuri Gagarin described them, from his orbital trip around earth in 1961. And Gemini astronauts flying in low earth orbit in 1965-66 had also testified to marveling at the beauty of the stars.
Here is a picture presented on NASA website with the following explanation: “If you could turn off the atmosphere’s ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today’s daytime sky might look something like this” (from McGowan ch. 12):
Yet the Apollo missions apparently dispelled that prejudice:there were no stars visible in the moon sky. Period. The problem is not that the stars are not visible in the NASA photographs of the moon surface: that is normal, according to the photographers interviewed by Mazzucco, since the exposure needed to capture the stars would have overexposed the lunar surface. The problem is thatthe astronauts saw no stars with their own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, consistently declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” in the words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.
Was it because the luminosity of the moon surface was too strong, so that their eyes couldn’t adjust (a day on the moon lasts 27 earth days, so the astronauts who landed on the illuminated side of the moon never experienced a night on the moon)? If that was the reason, then at least the astronauts should have seen plenty of stars when travelling between earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. When they orbited around the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves in pitch darkness, and still saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around the moon several times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong were on the moon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t remember seeing any!” That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think of from an astronaut, but the whole press conference is a bizarre experience to watch.
1969 Press conference by the Apollo 11 crew:
Neil Armstrong’s November 1970 interview is just as bizarre. It has been used by several skeptics as evidence that he is lying. I highly recommend this very professional analysis commissioned by Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet TV from by Peter Hyatt, a nationally recognized expert in deception detection. I find it devastating for the credibility of Armstrong.
Peter Hyatt analyses Armstrong’s deception:
After that, Armstrong must have been ordered to keep away from interviews. He made a last quick appearance on July 20th, 1994, in the presence of President Clinton, only tocompare himself to a parrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and to conclude with a cryptic remark about “undiscoveredbreakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” Then he returned to his seclusion and refused to participate (or was asked not to) in the 40thanniversary celebrations of his legendary moonwalk. Fortunately for the keepers of the myth,he has now left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood.
We set out to find out if there is any proof that the moon landings were real. We have not found any. Instead, we have found evidence that they were not real. But in fact, it was hardly necessary: NASA engineers themselves tell us they are impossible, for the simple reason that the astronauts would have to travel through the lethal Van Allen Radiation Belts that start at 1000 miles above Earth and extend to 26,000 miles above Earth. Even beyond these radiation belts, the astronauts would continue to be bombarded with all kinds of deadly radiation (you can read a good article on the radiation issue here).On June 24, 2005, NASA made this remarkable statement:
“NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. […] the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option” (quoted in McGowan, ch. 3).
There are hundreds of documents available by NASA engineers explaining why travelling beyond lower earth orbit remains an obstacle for manned missions, for example this one:
“Space radiation is quite different and more dangerous than radiation on Earth. Even though the International Space Station sits just within Earth’s protective magnetic field, astronauts receive over ten times the radiation than what’s naturally occurring on Earth. Outside the magnetic field there are galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), solar particle events (SPEs) and the Van Allen Belts, which contain trapped space radiation. / NASA is able to protect the crew from SPEs by advising them to shelter in an area with additional shielding materials. However, GCRs are much more challenging to protect against. These highly energetic particles come from all over the galaxy. They are so energetic they can tear right through metals, plastic, water and cellular material. And as the energetic particles break through, neutrons, protons, and other particles are generated in a cascade of reactions that occur throughout the shielding materials.This secondary radiation can sometimes cause a worse radiation environment for the crew.”
NASA engineer Kelly Smith has explained in a short documentary on the ongoing Orion program (Orion Trial by Fire) that the Van Allen Belts pose such serious challenges that “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space” (full documentary here). The key sequence is included in the 10-minute video below, among other sequences of astronauts inadvertently admitting that the technology to send men beyond lower earth orbit is not available yet. You especially don’t want to miss veteran NASA astronaut Donald Roy Pettit explaining that the technology is, in fact, not available any longer: “The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again.”
NASA admits we never went to the moon:
The radiation obstaclemay be the reason why no manned mission to the moon, or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted since the daysof Tricky Dick. Remember, the International Space Station is orbiting at a distance of 250 miles from the earth, whereas the moon is about one thousand times farther away. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a new endeavor to “gain a new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). No manned mission to the moon came out of this announcement.
Time is working to the advantage of the Apollo truthers, for every year that passes makes people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?” Less than half of the British and Russians still believe in the moon landings. Among the educated, this percentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty years, when Americans realize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will the United States of America survive the exposure of this giant hoax? Lies tend to reproduce themselves like living organisms, since every lie needs to be covered up with more lies. Conversely, the exposition of one lie leads to the exposition of other lies, as people lose trust and start to question everything they were taught.
If the moon landings were real, it would be easy for the NASA to put an end to the controversy. As Massimo Mazzucco reports in his film American Moon: “The possibility of inspecting the location of the moon landings came in 2007, when Google launched the Lunar X Prize international contest. The contest offered a $30 million reward to the first private organization that could send to the moon a robot capable of traveling at least 500 meters by transmitting live images to the earth. More than twenty different teams from around the world have expressed their desire to participate in the contest. Google also introduced an additional $4 million bonus for those who would be able to transmit live TV footage from one of the Apollo missions’ moon landing sites. At that time, Astrobotic Technology, a Pittsburgh company, announced that it planned to visit with its own probe the most famous landing ground of all: that of Apollo 11.” But strangely, rather than viewing this contest as the opportunity for an independent proof of their Apollo missions, NASA issued in 2011 unprecedented legislation demanding that no robot approach any of the Apollo mission landing sites within a radius of 2 kilometers. NASA’s 93-page “Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the History and Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts” justifies the decision by the need to preserve the historical moon landing sites from possible contamination. To comply with NASA’s demand, Astrobotic Technology shifted its aim toward the moon’s north pole, and all other participants in the Google contest likewise decided to play by NASA’s rules and waive a $4 million bonus, as reported in the article cited by Mazzucco, titled “Rocketeers obey NASA moon rules”. In 2018, Google announced that no competitor would be able to meet the deadline of March 2018. At the same time, NASA produced a new document emphasizing again that any project to interfere with the Apollo landing sites should get its approval.
If the Apollo moon landings were faked, serious questions ought to be asked about NASA, to start with. And then there is a need for some deep thinking about what has become of the United States since World War II. And beyond that, the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our minds. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.
The first step is to grow out of our infantile beliefs about NASA, and do some basic study on what it is all about. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Many people today commend Eisenhower for warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex, and the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Ironically, the foundation of NASA was itself a giant leap for the military-industrial complex. There is no question that NASA’s so-called “civilian space program” was first and foremost “an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems” (in McGowan’s words). The NASAAct of 1958made explicit provisions for close collaboration with the Department of Defense, and in practice, the Pentagon was involved in all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, as early as 1969, and concluded:
“It remains imperative to have NASA keep its status as the decorous front parlor of the space age in order to reap public support for all space projects and give Defense Department space efforts an effective ‘cover’.” (quoted in Wisnewski 296)
Besides launching satellites for espionage purposes, NASA was to contribute to the development of transcontinental rockets. For after WWII, the equation was simple: “Rocket + atom bomb = world power” (Wisnewski 62).
The para-military purpose of NASA is essential to understanding the Apollo hoax. For in matters of military programs, “what the public knows is also known to the enemy. This means that in principle the public and the enemy can be seen as essentially one and the same thing” (Wisnewski 7). Therefore, we should understand that deceiving the American public was not a perversion of NASA’s original purpose, but an integral part of it.
It fell upon Kennedy to sell the moon program to the Congress and to the American public in order to increase NASA’s budget dramatically. On May 25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one orbit around the earth, Kennedy delivered before the Congress a special message on “urgent national needs.” He asked for an additional $7 billion to $9 billion over the next five years for the space program, for the purpose, he claimed, of“achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space.”
Kennedy can be blamed for fooling the American public, but it is likely that he had been fooled himself, just like he had been tricked by the CIA into the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion a mere month earlier. In any case, the moon was Johnson’s idea, not Kennedy’s. It is believed that Kennedy was convinced by a memorandum of Lyndon Johnson, titled “Evaluation of Space Program” and dated April 28, 1961, supposedly based on deliberations with top NASA officials. The memo assured the president of the feasibility of “a safe landing and return by a man to the moon” “by 1966 or 1967”, if “a strong effort” is made. As for the benefit of it, Johnson put it this way:
“other nations, regardless of their appreciation of our idealistic values, will tend to align themselves with the country which they believe will be the world leader—the winner in the long run. Dramatic accomplishments in space are being increasingly identified as a major indicator of world leadership.”
Two weeks after receiving Johnson’s memo, Kennedy made hisfamous speech to Congress (May 25, 1961): “I believethat this nation should commit itselfto achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.” Then, a month later, he officiallymade his vice-president head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council with the charge of exploring the moon project. As Alan Wasser has said:
“Few people today realize or remember, but a single man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending ‘The Space Race’”.
That explains why Texan industries were the greatest beneficiary of the space program, and why the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Centerin 1973.
Under Eisenhower, Johnson was both the Senate Majority Leader, and a key player in the Texan sector of the military-industrial complex. It is interesting to know that the original draft of Eisenhower’s farewell address, written by his assistants Malcolm Moos and Ralph Williams, spoke of the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”,butEisenhower dropped “Congressional”—in fear, perhaps, of Johnson. Johnson’s corruption aggravated after he became vice-president and appointed his Texan friends at the head of the Navy: first John Connally, then Fred Korth, who resigned in October 1963, after the Justice Department (led by Robert Kennedy) implicated him for corruption in the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force TFX aircrafts.
Johnson’s control over the NASA was achieved through James E. Webb, whom Johnson got nominated as administrator of the NASA. He played a decisive role in lobbying for the Apollo program. Webb was so closely tied to Johnson that he resigned when Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for reelection in 1968, thereby avoiding being in charge during the glorious Apollo moon landings.
The Apollo program received also the efficient support of Senator Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma, another close business partner and political ally of Johnson. In his memoir Wheeling and Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator,Johnson’s personal aide Bobby Baker “recounts his efforts in collecting the half-million dollars in cash demanded by Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma from the Savings and Loan industry in return for a favorable legislative adjustment” (Andrew Cockburn, “How the Bankers Bought Washington: Our Cheap Politicians,” CounterPunch).
In his recent film American Moon, Massimo Mazzucco brings in key information that enriches our understanding of the relationship between Johnson and Kennedy, and may shed some light on Kennedy’s assassination. We learn that, although Kennedy left the Apollo project under Johnson’s supervision, on September 18, 1963, he summoned Webb in the Oval Office to share his doubts about the possibility and the value of sending men to the moon, which would cost “a hell of a lot of money,” suggesting that enough scientific knowledge could be gained by simply sending probes. “Putting a man on the moon isn’t worth that many billions,” he said during that recorded conversation. Webb insisted that it was too late to change plans.
Two days after this meeting, in a speech to the United Nations, Kennedy publicly invited the Soviet Union to collaborate in space exploration, and in particular in “a joint expedition to the moon.” Khrushchev politely declined the Americans’ offer with this statement:
“At the present time we do not plan flights of cosmonauts to the Moon. I have read a report that the Americans wish to land on the moon by 1970. Well, let’s wish them success. And we will see how they fly there, and how they will land there, or to be more correct, ‘moon’ there. And most important—how they will get up and come back. We do not wish to compete in sending people to the Moon without thorough preparation.”
Two days later, Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. The chronology is important because it reveals that Kennedy tried to neutralize one of the major arguments of the moon race, which was to make it a battleground of the Cold War. This attempt by Kennedy must be put in relation with what is otherwise known about Kennedy’s secret communications with Khrushchev and Castro in his efforts to end the Cold War, and with his now well-documented intention to withdraw American troops from Vietnam.
NASA was not just a camouflage for military developments. It was a manufactured dream to keep Americans looking up at the sky while their government was committing atrocities in Vietnam. And so, NASA had also close ties with the movie industry. Its first boss, T. Keith Glennan (1958-1961) had a long experience in running film studios in Hollywood (Wisnewski 298).
During the transition period between Johnson and Nixon, Apollo 8 allegedly carried three astronauts ten times around the moon. Then, after two more testing missions (Apollo 9 and 10), six Apollo crew landed on the Moon from 1969 to 1972, all during Nixon’s presidency. Wisnewski (130-139) provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from Vietnam war crimes (read also McGowan ch. 3). Apollo 11 landed on the moon two months after the media exposed the illegal bombing of Cambodia. Nixon’s phone call from the White House to Neil and Buzz on the moon worked his popularity up. TheApollo program stopped just after the official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia. So, writes Wisnewski,
“while the United States of America was murdering thousands of Vietnamese people, burning down one hectare after another of virgin forest and poisoning the land with pesticides, it was at the same time trying to fascinate—or should one say hypnotize?—the world with a conquest of quite another kind.” (131)
“For the rest of the world the cultural and technological thrill caused by the lunar landings must have been as overwhelming and disarming as the negative blow of September 11. To this day the USA draws strength from the boundless admiration generated by those lunar landings. And I still maintain that this ‘conquest’ of the moon, that ancient myth of humanity, elevated America to the status of a quasi-divine nation. / The moon landings fit in with the country’s overall psychological strategy of self-aggrandizement coupled with subjugating, undermining and demoralizing others.” (287)
“Civilian space travel became a form of ‘opium for the people’, a promise of redemption bringing a new and better future for the universe.” (63)
The Apollo 11 crew, just returned from the Moon, “looking rested, shaved and fresh faced, as though they had just returned from a day at the spa” (McGowan ch. 10)
Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a whole.Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all other earthly nations. A lot has been said about institutional religions as means of collective mental control. But no religious belief can compare to the moon landings in terms of the cynical abuse of people’s gullibility. And no religion could compete, until recently, for the numbers of believers worldwide.
The deeper lesson is that it was made possible by television, and would have been impossible otherwise. Hardly anybody would have believed it if they hadn’t seen it with their own eyes.
In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Alice tells the White Queen “one can’t believe impossible things,” but the Queen insists it is possible with enough practice: “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” With television, believing in six impossible moon landings came without effort.
Before being broadcast on TV, the Apollo moon landings were studio productions. No wonder, then, that one of the most influential whistleblowers was Hollywood filmmaker Peter Hyams with his film Capricorn One (1978).
Although it has no bearing on the issue of the reality or possibility of the moon landings, and should not be taken as argument, I’d like to mention here one of the most intriguing developments of the moon hoax conspiracy theory: the suggestion that director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with the NASA in the making of the Apollo moon films while making his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), on which he started working as early as 1964, just after finishing his antimilitary film Dr Strangelove. The rumor has that Kubrick was then pressured into a Faustian pact in exchange for fundings and other help. That Kubrick received support from the NASA for 2001is actually no secret: the scenario was co-written by Arthur C. Clark, an enthusiastic supporter and contributor of NASA adventures, and several assistants for the film, such as Harry Lange and Frederick Ordway, had worked for NASA and aerospace contractors. Some therefore believe that 2001 was part of a NASA program both to fascinate the public with space travel and to test production techniques.
That hypothesis first arose when skeptics studying the Apollo photos and films became convinced that they had been made in movie studios using the technique called frontscreen projection, which had been perfected by Stanley Kubrick for his film 2001.
The theory had already been around for some time, when a French “mockumentary” called Dark Side of the Moon, by Franco-Israeli TV director William Karel, was aired on Arte channel in 2002, as an attempt to discredit the theory with the filmed confession of a fake Kubrick, and deceptive editing of interviews of Rumsfeld and Kissinger. The strategy is to pretend to support a conspiracy theory with some phony “proof” that is easily debunked, in order to fabricate a ready-made argument against the whole moon hoax theory. In my opinion, the very fact that an institutional media outlet finances and broadcasts such a program, and get Rumsfeld and Kissinger’s permission to misuse their words in order to discredit the Kubrick thesis, is reason enough to take the thesis seriously.
The Kubrick theorygained new vigor when film directorJay Weidner,after documenting the frontscreen projection used in Apollo photos and films (here),added to it the hypothesis that Kubrick cryptically confessed his participation through his 1980 film The Shining. Weidner presents his arguments in his 2011 documentary film Kubrick’s Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick. Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. He also gives a brief summary of his theory in the documentary film Room 237 (2012), available on Vimeo (Weidner’s contribution is between 00:44:25 and 00:51:55, and between 1:16:00 and 1:16:45).
When I first heard of that theory and watched Room 237 (I haven’t watched Kubrick’s Odyssey), I didn’t think much of it. But after watching anew The Shining with it in mind, studying Kubrick’s other films (especially his fatal Eyes Wide Shut, released on July 16th1999, the 30thanniversary of the launching of Apollo 11, as Kubrick had required by contract)and their layers of hidden meanings,and learning of his perfectionist obsession with every detail, I find the theory not only fascinating, but highly plausible.
Weidner’s starting point is the observation that, although the film The Shining is allegedly based on Stephen King’s novel of the same title, Kubrick ignored the scenario adapted by King himself, and changed so many things in the story that it can be said to be a totally different story—which made King quite resentful. Kubrick seems to have used King’s novel as a cover for a story of his own. What is therefore interesting is to focus exclusively on the elements of the film that depart from King’s novel, and on the details that seem to have no direct bearing on the main narrative. Weidner is not alone in taking this approach: many Kubrick admirers believe that the film has hidden meanings. Some argue, convincingly I believe, that it contains cryptic references to child abuse, also an underlying theme in Eyes Wide Shut. But Weidner reads into the film a subtext that amounts to an autobiographical confession of Kubrick’s role in faking the Apollo moon landings eleven years earlier.
According to that interpretation, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) represents Kubrick himself, while the Overlook Hotel (built on Indian burial ground), represents America. The manager of the hotel, Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson), made to look like JFK, represents the US government (as well as perhaps the JFK Space Center), while his assistant Bill Watson, who keeps observing Torrance without uttering a word, represents the Intelligence underworld.
Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)
Two scenes in particular give the keys to this cryptic narrative. The first one is when Danny (representing Kubrick’s child, that is, the Apollo films) rises up wearing an Apollo 11 sweater, on a rug with a design similar to the Launch Complex from which the Apollo rockets were launched. Soon after, Danny enters room n°237, which contains the secret of the hotel. The room number was 217 in King’s novel, but Kubrick changed it to 237 in reference to the distance of 237,000 miles that separates the earth from the moon (according to the common estimation at the time). The “room n°237” is in fact the “moon room”, because “room” looks similar to “moon” when read backward, and Kubrick has taught us to read words backward in the scene where the word “redrum” becomes “murder” in the mirror.
The second most important scene from the point of view of Kubrick’s cryptic subtext is when Wendy discovers that Jack, who is supposed to write a novel, has been typing one single sentence over and over again: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” That sentence, which must have been chosen by Kubrick for a very specific purpose, takes a secondary meaning once you realize that All, in American typewriter script, is indistinguishable from A11, which can stand for Apollo 11.
When Jack then catches Wendy reading the pages, he tells her how deadly serious his contract is:
“Have you ever thought for a single solitary moment about my responsibilities to my employers? […] Does it matter to you at all that the owners have placed their complete confidence and trust in me, and that I have signed a letter of agreement, a contract, in which I have accepted that responsibility? […] Has it ever occurred to you what would happen to my future if I were to fail to live up to my responsibilities?”
Besides these two scenes, there are a number of other clues that support this subtextual reading. Why did Kubrick, for example, make the design of the Indian tapestry in the main lounge resemble rockets? Does Jack aiming at them with a ball represent Kubrick “shooting” the Apollo films?
Just after that shot, Wendy and Danny go into the hedge maze. Jack then looks over a model of the maze inside the lounge, which merges with the real maze in cross fading, suggesting that the maze is not real. This is also hinted by the aerial shot of the Overlook Hotel, which clearly shows that there is no maze next to it. Coming from Kubrick, this cannot be a continuity error.
Puzzling spatial impossibilities in the film have also been discovered by careful students of the film such as Rob Ager. They are no mistakes, for Kubrick gave himself a lot of trouble to produce them. Therefore, they must have a message to tell, possibly that what appears to be outdoors was in in fact filmed indoors .
There are also two brief allusions to television that fit with the alleged subtext: a sarcastic remark on the notion that what is seen on television is “OK” (watch the scene here), and a mysteriously wireless television (impossible in 1980) showing the film Summer of 42.
“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”
Another possible clue left by Kubrick to let us know that he intended The Shining to be read as cryptically autobiographical, is the documentary that he asked his daughter Vivian to shoot on the set of the film (now included as bonus in DVDs). It makes Kubrick appear as a mirror image of Jack Torrance. This has been detected even by critics with no interest in the Apollo theory, such as Rob Ager, who writes:
“Kubrick’s decision to allow a documentary film to be shot on the set of The Shiningwas an unprecedented departure from his usual ultra-secretive work policy. All of the behind the scenes footage was shot by his daughter Vivian. Without realizing it, many film critics and biographers have accidentally identified Kubrick’s motive for releasing this documentary. Time and time again they have described his edgy behind the scenes behavior as being comparable to the film’s main character Jack Torrance. One of the biographies I read […]even claimed that there were running jokes on set about the similarities in appearance and behavior between Jack Nicholson’s character and Stanley Kubrick. My theory is that Kubrick was deliberately creating these character parallels between himself and Jack, both in the documentary and among his crew in general. But the most prominent example of this parallel is Kubrick’s degrading treatment of the actress Shelley Duvall (Wendy) and the actor Scatman Crothers (Halloran), both of whose on screen characters are victims of Jack Torrance’s madness.”
Although constructive anger can aid intimate relationships, work interactions and social expressions, it may be more harmful to an older person’s physical health than sadness, potentially increasing inflammation, which is associated with such chronic illnesses as heart disease, arthritis and cancer, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.
Barlow and her co-authors examined whether anger and sadness contributed to inflammation, an immune response by the body to perceived threats, such as infection or tissue damage. While inflammation, in general, helps protect the body and assists in healing, long-lasting inflammation can lead to chronic illnesses in old age, according to the authors.
The researchers collected and analyzed data from 226 older adults ages 59 to 93 from Montreal. They grouped participants as being in early old age, 59 to 79 years old, or advanced old age, 80 years old and older.
Over one week, participants completed short questionnaires about how angry or sad they felt. The authors also measured inflammation from blood samples and asked participants if they had any age-related chronic illnesses.
“We found that experiencing anger daily was related to higher levels of inflammation and chronic illness for people 80 years old and older, but not for younger seniors,” said study co-author Carsten Wrosch, PhD, also of Concordia University. “Sadness, on the other hand, was not related to inflammation or chronic illness.”
Sadness may help older seniors adjust to challenges such as age-related physical and cognitive declines because it can help them disengage from goals that are no longer attainable, said Barlow.
This study showed that not all negative emotions are inherently bad and can be beneficial under certain circumstances, she explained.
“Anger is an energizing emotion that can help motivate people to pursue life goals,” said Barlow. “Younger seniors may be able to use that anger as fuel to overcome life’s challenges and emerging age-related losses and that can keep them healthier. Anger becomes problematic for adults once they reach 80 years old, however, because that is when many experience irreversible losses and some of life’s pleasures fall out of reach.”
The authors suggested that education and therapy may help older adults reduce anger by regulating their emotions or by offering better coping strategies to manage the inevitable changes that accompany aging.
“If we better understand which negative emotions are harmful, not harmful or even beneficial to older people, we can teach them how to cope with loss in a healthy way,” said Barlow. “This may help them let go of their anger.”
Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.
That is an expression I often quote in reference to various things people are doing and creating. When I hear about new AI capabilities and developments, it comes to mind.
Artificial Intelligence is developing at breakneck speed. While many technological advances benefit humanity, there are plenty of others that may have devastating outcomes.
Even more horrifying, though, is the very real possibility that artificial intelligence will fully infiltrate every aspect of our lives and eventually take control of the world.
The thought of losing what freedom we have left to robot overlords is terrifying, especially considering that AI has no sense of humor and is willing to kill over a joke and that robots already can hate without human input.
A new video from Truthstream Media poses a serious question we all should be considering:
Do People Realize They Are Creating Their Own Overlords?
“…sophisticated algorithms are being created to ensure the AI will know more about a person than they probably know about themselves, let alone what any spouse or significant other ever could.
Society is being programmed to not just trust but irrevocably merge their lives with these machines.
This will change us.” (source)
This is part two of a set of reports on where exactly these artificially intelligent digital assistants are taking society in the very near future.
To watch Part one, click here: The Infallible AI “Oracle” and the Future of “One Shot” Answers
Do you think AI will eventually take over? Will humanity eventually serve robot overlords? Do you think this sort of thing can be prevented, or are we doomed? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, an academic and political scholar based in Wisconsin, made the remarks in the aftermath of racist tweets by Trump, who has called on several female lawmakers critical of his policies to return to their countries of origin.
In a series of tweets on Monday, Trump said the congresswomen — three of them Muslims — were “spewing” “racist hatred,” calling on them to “go back” to the “broken and crime-infested’’ countries they originally came from.
Trump was referencing Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib Michigan and Ayanna Pressley Massachusetts.
Save for Omar, who is from a Somali refugee family, the three other lawmakers are American by birth. Tlaib has Palestinian heritage.
“It is quite amazing that Trump thinks this is a winning strategy,” Barrett told Press TV on Tuesday. “We can see why he believes he can try to accuse these left-leaning congresswomen of being outside the mainstream of especially his base, given that Trump’s base is a nativist and largely white population.”
“This really shows the polarization that the American electorate has gone far beyond where it ever used to be,” he added.
Trump has doubled down on his remarks, saying that the lawmakers in question have left Israelis feel “abandoned” by criticizing Tel Aviv’s crimes against Palestinians.
“Why is Trump equating the office of the president and the people of Israel? Well maybe that is because… Trump is in fact a Zionist asset or he has been,” Barrett argued.
Referring Trump many pro-Israel policies since taking office, he said this was not a far-fetched theory.
“Maybe Trump should go back to where he came from, which is the genocidal” Israel, he added.
The analyst said Trump’s remarks were also similar to the case of billionaire child sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, in that in both cases “rich, old, white men feel free to abuse young women from poorer backgrounds” and different races.
Barrett said it was not wise for Trump to use such rhetoric against other women while he was one of the many powerful men who are accused of complicity with Epstein.
Major Israeli media outlets have launched a systematic bullying campaign to demonize Germany’s leading news weekly, Der Spiegel, after it recently revealed that two small pro-Israel organizations were directing Berlin’s Middle East policy.
Reacting to Der Spiegel’s article, Israeli Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, which is close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed that journalists involved in the article were linked to the fake news reporting by Claas Relotius, a well-known investigative journalist.
The Jerusalem Post and several other Israeli media outlets on Monday also accused the German magazine of promoting Israel-related anti-Semitism and demanded an apology.
Der Spiegel, a 71-year-old publication, is renowned for its quality journalism and is read by hundreds of thousands of people in print and by millions online.
The defamatory campaign by Israeli media comes after a team of six Spiegel journalists wrote in a three-page article that two Germany-based organizations – Values Initiative and The Middle East Peace Forum (Naffo) — used “dubious methods” to mount a “targeted campaign” to secure a Bundestag (parliament) resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
The German magazine in its weekend publication went onto point out that German lawmakers did “not want to reject the resolution out of fear of being labeled an anti-semite.”
In May, a cross-party alliance in the German parliament Bundestag voted to condemn as “anti-Semitic” the BDS movement, which calls for economic pressure on Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian territories.
In a move welcomed by the Tel Aviv regime, the majority of German lawmakers in the Bundestag voted in favor of a motion that accuses the BDS of using anti-Semitic tactics to fulfill its political goals.
The resolution was submitted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fellow-conservatives, their Social Democrat coalition partners, as well as the Greens and Free Democrats.
The vote was denounced by the BDS as anti-Palestinian.
Der Spiegel further revealed that the two organizations were “front organizations” for the Tel Aviv regime with links to the Israeli spy agency Mossad.
Naffo “advocates for positions of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” and “carries out aggressive lobby work” in Berlin’s government district, the magazine noted
The authors stated that the “questionable methods” of Naffo involved a conference where positions were exchanged with politicians and trips were arranged to bring German MPs to Israel.
The magazine has stressed that the organizations run a “network” and wield outsized “influence.”
The article also quoted German Undersecretary of State Niels Annen, who criticized the two pro-Israel groups: “Any attempt to influence the balanced position of Germany or Europe in one of the sides’ directions is problematic.”
Israel and its allies in Washington and other Western capitals have long railed against the BDS, which calls for people and groups across the world to cut economic, cultural and academic ties to Tel Aviv.
Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS has claimed several recent successes in isolating Israel.
JULY 16, 2019
“We have reason to believe that the Grace 1 was carrying its shipment of crude oil to the Banyas Refinery in Syria. That refinery is the property of an entity that is subject to European Union sanctions against Syria.”
– Fabian Picardo, chief minister of Gibraltar
“[Praise for Gibraltar and the British marines] for this bold move to enforce Syria sanctions [that deny] valuable resources” to the Syrian government.
– British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt On Twitter
The EU has banned the sale of oil to Syria. Very well, but what has that to do with Iran, or its sales of oil to Syria? Tomasz Wlostowski, a lawyer who specializes in EU regulations, says there is no legal basis in EU sanctions law to take such action.)
– Tomasz Wlostowski on Twitter
What gives the UK the right to seize on July 4 an Iranian oil tanker in Spanish territorial waters, force it to Gibraltar, interrogate its four-man (non-Iranian) crew, and arrest its captain and chief officer?
Why, the request of the U.S. of course.
The Spanish government has stated that the British marines and Gibraltar port authority operated at the behest of Washington, after Trump threatened then called off airstrikes against the Islamic Republic. (Gibraltar authorities deny this.) The piratical act was naturally denounced by Iran, which threatens to seize a British tanker if London does not return its vessel. The Brits respond that they might return the ship if given assurances it was not headed to Syria; indeed, Foreign Minister Hunt had a “constructive” phone call with his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif.
Iran for its part denies that the ship was heading to Syria, but what if it was? What is wrong with any country selling oil to Syria, whose government is recognized by many large powerful countries and needs oil to recover from its horrific civil conflict?
The EU has slapped sanctions on Syria since the Arab Spring protests and outbreak of war in Syria in 2011, in compliance with the U.S. decision to effect regime change through aid to armed rebels, and a concerted U.S.-Israeli campaign to isolate Damascus. The premise is that the U.S. determines a government’s legitimacy; when it withdraws it, Europe must go along.
And when Europe tells Iran it must not sell oil to Syria, Iran must go along. Despite Iran’s extraordinary patience in the face of Trump’s provocations, its determination to stick to the JCPOA, its willingness to discuss with France some changes to the deal, it remains a pariah in Washington’s eyes.
Despite the fact that Trump himself is deplored by world leaders generally and the U.S. has lost prestige in the world since his election, Britain still does its bidding. The British ambassador to Washington has been obliged to quit his post after the leaking of diplomatic cables accusing Trump of ineptness and incompetence, but still, London marches almost lock-step with Washington in foreign policy.
Britain might have told Washington: “We don’t have any right to seize a commercial vessel in foreign waters engaging in legal activities. And why would we want to cooperate with you in exacerbating tensions with Iran?” Instead the British Marines act as Trump’s buccaneers.
The U.S. press does not problematize the ship seizure itself. It reports on attempts to “violate sanctions” as though the sanctions are themselves proper and worthy of observance. China, Russia, India, South Africa, many countries do not sanction Syria or buy the U.S. interpretation of Syrian realities. It is not the “international community” that wants to punish Syria, or cut its ties to Iran. It is the U.S., which seems of late to be testing its lingering clout with its allies.
The UK was on board the Iraq War-based-on-lies, but has not committed to a U.S.-Israeli-Saudi war on Iran. Perhaps the favor of the tanker seizure was designed to deepen London’s involvement in the U.S.’s long-term regime-change projects in both Iran and Syria. As Trump tries to woo the UK away from Europe, the “special relationship” acquires new meaning, even as an ambassador departs for candidly noting the Trump administration’s ineptness. The seizure looks to me like a loyalty statement. Britain remains the U.S.’s poodle.