Please, remember that this is a question-everything blog. A thinking blog. A conspiracy blog. If you want confirmation of your beliefs, do go visit the mainstream media. I am still a scientist (social sciences) at heart and I need to know the truth, not the pre-packaged manufactured crap that passes as journalism, etc.
Anyway, If Dr. Kaufman is right, we all have to re-think what is going on. This is starting to look like population control. The old method repeated ad nauseam: Create a problem, wait for the reaction, and come up with the solution, which you had since the beginning. The old propaganda game.
If the virus is a hoax, it is being done at the same time that the entire planet is deploying the 5G infrastructure. That’s antennas every 500 meters in your neighborhood. Something like that. Think about it, if people die because of extra sensitivity to 5G microwave radiation, you can blame COVID-19.
David Icke was deleted on Youtube and (pretentious) Vimeo last week just for making that connection. 5G and COVID.
THE STORY: There are some interesting connections and similarities between the coronavirus and manmade climate change hoaxes.
THE IMPLICATIONS: Some people are using the COVID-19 pandemic to push climate change propaganda, however, the fundamental point is that both of them exploit human emotion to modify behavior.
Learn the eerie similarities between the coronavirus and climate change hoaxes. Once you see the patterns of propaganda the narratives cease to work on you.
Coronavirus and climate change
may at first glance not seem to be connected. One is a tiny invisible virus, and the other is an issue as big as the planet itself. However, there are some eerie similarities. Firstly, look at their propagandistic value – they are both false narratives being used to manipulate your perception and centralize power in a NWO (New World Order) Global Government. Secondly, they are both hyped threats which play upon your emotions (fear, care, etc.). They create what is ultimately a fake emergency (even if there are legitimate problems connected to them). Recently Pope Francis has both implied and outright stated that the coronavirus outbreak was “nature’s response” to humanity ignoring ecological issues, and that “nature is throwing a tantrum so that we will take care of her.” Francis has long been a mouthpiece for Agenda 2030sustainable development plans, a way to usher in global governance while pretending to care for the environment. Are the NWO manipulators achieving in just weeks and months with the coronavirus hoax what was taking them years to achieve with the manmade climate change hoax?
The Essence of the Coronavirus and Climate Change Hoaxes: Making Humanity Itself the Enemy
The key feature of the manmade global warming/climate change agenda is to convince you that the carbon dioxide (CO2) made by humanity is ruining the planet. This is in spite of the obvious biological fact the CO2 is a gas of life; plants breathe it in and need it to live, and we need plants to live to produce our oxygen, so without enough CO2, we would be dead. As I covered in the article Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: Top 4 Fallacies of the Hijacked Environmental Movement, the green movement has been hijacked. The Club of Rome is one of 6 groups that are close to the center of the Rhodesian Round Table (ultimately funded by Rothschild) which also includes The Bilderberg Group, the CFR, the RIIA, the UN and The Trilateral Commission. The Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled The First Global Revolution? contains this passage:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together … all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Did you catch that? The real enemy is humanity itself. The NWO controllers want this insidious idea to infect people’s minds, erode their self-love and self-worth, and introduce the subsequent idea that you need to feel guilty just for being alive on this planet (after all, you’re breathing CO2, you traitor!).
Now compare this to what is going on with the fake pandemic of the moment, Operation Coronavirus. As I covered in 2 earlier articles (Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything and COVID-19 Umbrella Term to Operate a Fake Pandemic: Not 1 Disease, Not 1 Cause), we are still, amazingly, yet to have solid scientific proof that this virus exists. We have RNA fragments from lung fluid samples, but that doesn’t meet the standard of proof. The new coronavirus has failed Koch’s postulates; it has not been isolated; it has not been proven to exist. Thanks to work of Dr. Andy Kaufman and others, it has become apparent that certain organizations have taken an exosome and falsely claimed it is a new virus. Exosomes are secreted by cells as a natural response to toxins; they are pleomorphic and can turn into viruses. Exosomes are part of human body itself, as are viruses.
Thus, all the hype and hysteria has been generated by claiming that an exosome/virus is the new enemy, even though the exosome and virus are parts of the human body.
So we come full circle: the (human-produced) exosome/virus is the enemy (and thus humanity is the enemy, again).
CO2 is Like a Virus, Spreading Everywhere and Killing Us
You can find some examples of the absurd nonsense being written and spoken about coronavirus and climate change in James Corbett’s video here. Corbett exposes the propaganda and highlights how people are using the pandemic to further the AGW agenda. Some of the propaganda gems he exposed were how the so-called “climate crisis” is making the spread of infectious diseases like coronavirus more common and how a “study” found that climate change is releasing new and previously trapped viruses. So now, in addition to all the other NWO agendas (I’m at 21 and counting) that are being rolled out using COVID-19 as a pretext, you can add another layer to it: humans are “double plus bad” because we warmed the planet with CO2 and therefore helped release and exacerbate the spread of a killer virus. Wow. Do you feel so bad you want to kill yourself yet?
Fake Care: We Really Care for the Environment and We Really Care for the Elderly
These hoaxes are designed to hack human psychology by exploiting its weaknesses. The propensity for care and compassion for our fellow human being is naturally a wonderful thing that makes us human. Sadly, it can be exploited. The ruling class at the very top of the pyramid – the 1% of the 1% of the 1% – are characterized by their criminal, psychopathic and Satanic mindset. They don’t care. In fact, some of them even perform Satanic rituals to eliminate empathy and compassion (e.g. the cremation of care black magic ceremony at the Bohemian Grove). All their care is fake care, since they have suppressed it within themselves. However, they know how to pull the heart strings of the mass population, so they pretend they care and make deceptive appeals to “care for the environment” and “care for the elderly” to make people sign on to their agendas. While claiming they care for the planet, their corporations pollute the air, land and water with chemtrails, GMOs, heavy metals, microplastics and more. While claiming they care for the elderly, they think of them as useless eaters with no productive worth and constantly try to change the culture and the laws to make it acceptable to kill off the old people as soon as possible (see Dr. Richard Day’s account where he reveals the elite plan for a demise pill for the elderly).
The Creation and Exploitation of Fear: The Earth’s Going to Die and You’re Going to Die
Exploiting the natural human propensity to care is one side of the equation; the other side is ginning up and then exploiting fear. The NWO controllers are masters of this. The best types of propaganda mix truth with fiction, so they tell you that species are going extinct (true, except for the lie about polar bears declining), the planet will have more catastrophes, the planet will warm uncontrollably, you’re going to infect your loved ones, the planet’s going to die, you’re going to die, and on and on and on. They hire soul-for-sale scientists to “find” and “conclude” the theories the NWO paymasters want. It’s funny how you can “find” anything that you’re being paid to find. People can’t think rationally or clearly when afraid, since they are in their amygdala (fight-or-flight reptilian brain) not their pre-frontal cortex (the higher center of reason and logic). Plus, most people will believe anything as long as it’s repeated loud enough and long enough. Manipulating people is a piece of cake, really.
Mainstream Mouthpieces Try to Bring the Climate Change Agenda into the Coronavirus Pandemic
Check out this propaganda piece Time magazine, a very tenuous argument where the author even admits he has no evidence:
“I have no evidence that climate change triggered this particular virus to jump from animals to humans at this particular time, or that a warmer planet has helped it spread. That said, it’s pretty clear that, broadly speaking, climate change is likely to lead to an uptick in future epidemics caused by viruses and other pathogens. Scientists have understood for decades that climate change would change the way diseases spread, but, as the planet warms, those hypotheses are being tested and scientists are learning in real time. There are many links between climate change and infectious diseases, but I’m going to focus on one particularly novel—and concerning—area of knowledge: how rising temperatures are making our natural immune systems less effective.”
Here’s what MSM outlet NBC has to say about the coronavirus and climate change phenomena:
“And that is why, in the long term, the coronavirus will one day be seen as a fire drill for climate change.”
Here’s where this YouTube manmade climate change believer is taking it. The dangerous implication here is that if we can do all this for the coronavirus, why can’t we do the same for the climate; in other words, why can’t we utterly transform the shape of society because of climate change:
“The world jumps into action to deal with pandemics like the Coronavirus outbreak. But why don’t we respond in the same way for climate change?”
The coronavirus and climate change hoaxes have a lot of similarities, based on the way they make humanity – i.e. they make you – the enemy. They exploit emotions such as care and fear to modify mass behavior. Hopefully by reading this you can begin to see the pattern of these propaganda narratives so that they lose their effectiveness on you. Despite all the similarities, there is one big difference: the NWO have been able to achieve far more in far less time with the coronavirus hoax than with the manmade climate change hoax. We need to stay perpetually aware and vigilant if we hope to remain free.
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
THE MOON LANDINGS: A GIANT HOAX FOR MANKIND?
Moon landing skeptic
Are believers in danger of extinction?
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:
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?
Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica
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.”
The video andphotographic evidence
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.
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
Where have all the stars gone?
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:
Don’t ask Neil Armstrong
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.
Fasten your Van Allen Belt
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.
Kennedy, Johnson and NASA
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.
Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis
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.”
The notion that Russia interfered in the US elections – even without Trump’s collusion – has become an article of faith among the American political and media establishment.
“Russia under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin has presented a somewhat shocking quandary for the US ruling class. It found that Russia was no longer in the servile business of rolling over to pander to Washington’s tyranny in international relations. Under Putin, Russia shook off the vassal status that it had unfortunately acquired under the feckless presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991-99).”
“The fundamental issue for Washington is that Russia is not a vassal for American imperialism. That’s why there will be no reset. There will only be reset when American imperialism is replaced by a law-abiding, genuinely democratic US government. Until then, expect more US hostility, confrontation and even war towards Russia.”
Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages
Why There’ll Be No US-Russia Reset Post-Mueller
President Donald Trump and his White House team may have been cleared of collusion with the Kremlin in the 2016 presidential election. That startling conclusion by Special Counsel Robert Mueller after nearly two years of investigation, might be viewed by some as giving Trump freedom to now get on with normalizing relations with Moscow. Don’t bet on it.
Mueller’s report, and US attorney general William Barr’s appraisal of it, only partially vindicate Trump’s long-held claims that the whole so-called “Russiagate” story is a “hoax”.
Yes, Mueller and Barr conclude that neither Trump nor his campaign team “conspired” with Russia to win the presidential race. But Democrat opponents are now dredging up the possibility that Trump “unwittingly” facilitated Kremlin cyber operations to damage his 2016 rival for the White House, Hillary Clinton.
In his summary of Mueller’s report, Barr unquestioningly accepts as fact the otherwise contentious claim that Russia interfered in the US election. Democrats and the anti-Trump US news media have not been deterred from pursuing their fantasy that the Kremlin allegedly meddled in US democracy. Trump has been cleared, but Russia has certainly not. It very much continues to have the smear of interference slapped all over its image.
At the heart of this narrative – bolstered by Mueller and Barr – is the false claim that Russian cyber agents hacked into the Democrat party computer system during 2016 and released emails compromising Clinton to the whistleblower website Wikileaks. That whole claim has been reliably debunked by former NSA technical expert William Binney and other former US intelligence officials who have shown indisputably that the information was not hacked from outside, but rather was released by an insider in the Democrat party, presumably based on indignation over the party’s corruption concerning the stitch-up against Clinton’s rival nomination for the presidential ticket, Bernie Sanders.
That is real scandal crying out to be investigated, as well as the Obama administration’s decision to unleash FBI illegal wiretapping and dirty tricks against Trump as being a “Russian stooge”. The Russian collusion charade was always a distraction from the really big serious crimes carried out by the Obama White House, the FBI and the Democrat party.
In any case, the notion that Russia interfered in the US elections – even without Trump’s collusion – has become an article of faith among the American political and media establishment.
That lie will continue to poison US-Russia relations and be used to justify more economic sanctions being imposed against Moscow. Trump may be cleared of being a “Kremlin stooge”. But he will find no political freedom to pursue a normalization in bilateral relations because of the predictable mantra about Russia interfering in American democracy.
But there is a deeper reason why there will be no reset in US-Russia relations. And it has nothing to do with whether Trump is in the White House. The problem is a strategic one, meaning it relates to underlying geopolitical confrontation between America’s desired global hegemony and Russia’s rightful aspiration to be an independent foreign power not beholden to Washington’s dictate.
Russia under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin has presented a somewhat shocking quandary for the US ruling class. It found that Russia was no longer in the servile business of rolling over to pander to Washington’s tyranny in international relations. Under Putin, Russia shook off the vassal status that it had unfortunately acquired under the feckless presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991-99).
Putin’s landmark speech in Munich in 2007 was certainly a watershed moment in geopolitical relations whereby the Russian leader condemned US rampaging across the Middle East with criminal wars.
Then there was the failed attempt in 2008 by the US and NATO to over-run Georgia, failed because of a decisive military intervention by Russia in support of neighboring South Ossetia.
The return of the Cold War in US-Russia relations under former President GW Bush was due to the realization in Washington that Putin and Russia were no longer subordinates that could be pushed around for the gratification of American imperialism.
The Americans then tried another tack. Public relations and inveigling.
When Barack Obama took over the White House in 2009, there was the famous “reset policy” initiated by Washington towards Moscow. In March 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva with a jokey “reset button”, purportedly to demonstrate a willingness in Washington for a new beginning in bilateral relations.
Ominously, Clinton’s State Department mislabelled the button with the Russian word for “overload” not “reset”. Her inane cackling to ingratiate herself with the skeptical Lavrov was also a giveaway of a phony reset.
Look how hollow such ostensible claims for “reset” by Washington have since manifested.
Admittedly, there was a significant gain in Obama’s negotiation of substantial nuclear arms reductions with the New START treaty in 2010.
However, it didn’t take long until Washington was back to its usual business of subversions and covert wars for regime change against foreign states that didn’t kowtow to its dictates. We saw this with ample evidence in the overthrow of Libya’s government in 2011, the attempted ouster in Syria beginning the same year, and the even more daring American intervention in Ukraine in early 2014 when it installed a rabidly anti-Russian regime through an illegal coup d’état.
We are also presently seeing this criminal American imperialism being conducted brazenly towards Venezuela, where Washington wants to overthrow a socialist president in order to get its corporate hands on the South American country’s vast oil wealth.
All the while, Russia has become ever more resolute its defiance of Washington’s global gangsterism. Moscow’s military defense of Syria from US-led regime change was certainly a pivotal moment in defining the limits of Moscow’s tolerance, as was Russia’s defense of Crimea.
For these reasons, Washington in its chagrin has moved to abandon the other major arms control treaty, the INF, which could allow it to install short and medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, thus aggravating threats and tensions with Russia. The future of the much-vaunted New START treaty is also in doubt because of American vacillation. So much for Obama’s “reset”.
These are the structural, strategic factors in why Washington is set on a course of hostility towards Moscow. It has got very little to do with President Trump being in the White House or whether he has been cleared of “collusion” with Moscow.
The fundamental issue for Washington is that Russia is not a vassal for American imperialism. That’s why there will be no reset. There will only be reset when American imperialism is replaced by a law-abiding, genuinely democratic US government. Until then, expect more US hostility, confrontation and even war towards Russia.
No longer bound by a gag order, former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos has gone public about his Mueller probe conviction, describing the Russia collusion narrative as a ‘hoax’ manufactured by intelligence agencies.
No longer bound by a gag order, former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos has gone public about his Mueller probe conviction, describing the Russia collusion narrative as a ‘hoax’ manufactured by intelligence agencies.
Papadopoulos, who served 12 days in prison last fall for lying to investigators, has launched a media blitz to clarify “misinformation” about his guilty plea following the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Papadopoulos explained that the FBI had tried to pressure him to “admit” that he had told someone at the Trump campaign about his conversations with a shadowy professor, Joseph Mifsud. Painted as a Russian agent by the FBI, Mifsud told Papadopoulos during a London meeting that Russia had possession of Hillary Clinton’s emails. The professor went missing in September 2018.
“Because if I had told anyone in the campaign, it would have been a conspiracy, but it would have been based on Western intelligence basically fabricating the entire thing,” he said.
“As I am talking to Mueller’s people and they are trying to get me to say something that I know is not true, I just couldn’t. I had to stick to the facts, the truth.”
The 31-year-old was framed as the cornerstone of the Trump campaign’s alleged collaboration with the Kremlin, after he supposedly told Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, that Russia had Clinton’s emails.
But Papadopoulos told ‘Fox & Friends’ that he never discussed the issue with Downer.
“I actually was the one who reported Downer to both the FBI and Bob Mueller because of his very bizarre, strange behavior during my meeting with him. He was pulling his phone out, he was recording me. It was very bizarre,” he said.
Ultimately, Mueller’s probe into alleged Russia collusion was a “hoax,” Papadopoulos said, but he wasn’t allowed to comment on it until after he was sentenced.
Papadopoulos is currently promoting a book about his experience, “Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.”
Mueller’s nearly two-year probe, which ended on Friday, concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Curiously, investigators charged Papadopoulos with “lying in order to conceal his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries” – an allegation which the former Trump official is now disputing.
The official story, says the expert, is “stupidity on stupidity.”
I agree with him.
The question is: Why did the British government think that they could get away with such an obvious hoax? The answer is that the people in Western countries don’t know anything about anything. They live in a world in which their reality is a product of the propaganda fed to them by “news organizations” and Hollywood movies. They only receive controlled explanations. Therefore, they know nothing about how anything really functions. Read the account by the Israeli expert to understand the vast difference between the British government’s hoax and the reality of how an assassination is conducted.
The Israeli expert got me to wondering why the British government thought anyone would fall for such a transparently false story. Having just read David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth’s new book, 9/11 Unmasked, and David Ray Griffin’s 2017 book, Bush and Cheney: How They Runed America and the World, the answer became obvious. The British government had watched the idiot Western populations fall for the official 9/11 conspiracy story in which a few Saudi Arabians, who could not fly airplanes and without the support of any intelligence agency, caused the entire security apparatus ot the United States to fail utterly, and no one was held responsible for the total failure. The British government concluded that anyone who could possibly believe such an obviously false story would believe anything.
I remember coming to that conclusion years ago before the official conspiracy theory in the 9/11 Commission Report was blown to pieces by thousands of scientists, structural engineers, high-rise architects, military and civilian pilots, first responders on the scene, and a large number of former high government officials both in the US and abroad.
At first I did not connect the zionist neoconservatives’ plot, outlined in their public writings (for example, Norman Podhorttz in Commentary) to destroy 7 Middle Eastern countries in five years (also described by General Wesley Clark) and their statement that they needed a “new Pearl Harbor” to implement their plan, with the attack on the World Trade Center. But as I watched the twin towers blow up floor by floor it was completely obvious that these were not builldings falling down due to asymetrical structural damage and limited, low temperature office fires that probably did not even warm the massive steel structure to the point of being warm to the touch. When you watch the videos you see buildings blowing up. It is as clear as day. You see each floor blow. You see steel beams and other debris fly out the sides as projectiles. It is amazing that any human is so completely stupid as to think what he is seeing with his own eyes are buildings falling down from structural damage. But it required many years before half of the American people realized that the official account was pure bullshit.
Today polls indicate that a majority of people do not believe the official 9/11 propaganda any more than they believe the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the alleged Gulf of Tonkin attack, or the report from Admiral McCain (father of John) erasing Israel’s responsibility for the destruction of the USS Liberty and its crew during LBJ’s administration, or that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or Iran had nukes, or the many lies about Syria, Libya’s Gaddafi, or Somalia, or Yemen, or the “Russian invasion of Georgia,” the “Russian invasion of Ukraine.” But at each time the idiot population, no matter how many times they had learned that the governments lied to them initially believed the next lie, thereby permitting the lie to become fact. Thus, the idiot Western populations created their own world of controlled explanations.
Only a deranged person could believe anything any Western government says. But the Western world has a huge number of deranged people. There are plenty of them to validate the next official lie. The ignorant fools make it possible for Western governments to continue their policy of lies that are driving the world to extinction in a war with Russia and China.
Like myself, Ron Unz has noticed that the 9/11 Truth movement has succeeded in totally discrediting the official 9/11 story. But the unanswered question remains: Who did it?
Unz says it was Israel, not Bush & Cheney. This is also the position of Christopher Bollyn. It seems certain that Israel was involved. We have the fact of the Mossad agents caught celebrating as they filmed the collalpse of the WTC towers. Obviously, they knew in advance and were set up ready to film. Later they were shown on Israeli TV where they stated that they had been sent to film the destruction of the buildings.
We also have the fact of the large profits made by someone that the US government continues to protect on shorting the stock of the airlines, the planes of which were allegedly hijacked.
In other words, the 9/11 attack was known in advance, as was the destruction of WTC building 7 as evidenced by the BBC reporter standing in front of the still standing building announcing its destruction about a half hour before it occurred.
Unz and Bollyn’s case against Israel is powerful. I agree with Unz that George W. Bush was not part of the plot. If he had been, he would have been on the scene directing America’s heroic response to the first, and only, terrorist attack on America. instead, Bush was moved out of the way, and kept out of the way, while Cheney handled the situation.
I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax 9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefited. Halliburton received large munificent US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above the US Constitution and statutory US law.
Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.
The Israeli government could not have ordered the destruction of the crime scene, opposed by the New York fire marshal as a felony. This required US government authority. The steel beams, which showed all sorts of distortions that could only have been caused by nano-thermite were quickly sent to Asia for reprocessing. The intense fires and molten rubble in the buildings’ remains six weeks after their collapse never received an official explanation. To this day, no one has explained how low-temperature, smothered office fires that burned for one hour or less melted or weakened massive steel beams and produced molten steel six weeks afterward.
Unz is correct that Israel made out like a bandit. Israel as a result of 9/11 got rid of half of the constraints on its expansion. Only Syria and Iran remain, and the Trump regime is pushing hard for Israel, even against Russia, a government that at its will can completely destroy the United States and Israel, something that much of the world wishes would happen.
Unz is correct that right now the totally evil and corrupt US and Israeli governments have the entire world on the path to extinction. However, he omits American responsibility, that of the evil Dick Cheney, the Zionist neoconservatives who are Israel’s Fifth Column in America, and the utter insouciance of the American people who do not show enough intelligence or awareness to warrant their survival.
The internet is abuzz with the hilarious discovery of a Weather Channel reporter caught faking like he’s barely able to stand in hurricane-force winds while two guys casually stroll down the street behind him.
Hilariously, he’s leaning in the wrong direction, since the correct maneuver is to lean into the wind. As you can see in the laugh-out-loud video below, he’s actually leaning away from the wind while faking like he’s barely able to stand. This is yet more proof that many so-called journalists are actually just “crisis actors” who use TV broadcasts to carry out elaborate hoaxes and staged crisis events.
An on-screen number shows the wind is actually just 29 mph where this reporter is located, which explains why other people are able to easily walk around in shorts.
See the full video at this REAL.video link, where it won’t be banned:
The Weather Channel is the same fake news network that repeatedly claims hurricanes are caused by man-made “climate change,” insisting that the world never saw hurricanes before humans started burning fossil fuels.
Not only is the Weather Channel fake news; it’s also fake science. Now, we have video proof that the so-called “weather reporters” are really just hilarious hoax actors who pretend to create a crisis scene where none exists.
REAL.video users are having a field day with the hilarity. A user channel named Rainbow Rising has posted a parody of the Weather Channel, where a man hilariously claiming to be barely surviving a vicious storm while his hand manually shakes a palm tree to simulate hurricane-force winds.
The case of the death and resurrection of the Russian journalist A. Babchenko in Kiev is even more surreal than it seemed so far. According to Ukrainian sources and court documents the whole hoax was part of an attempt to raid and take over a private company. High levels of the Ukrainian security services staged the whole affair not only to blame Russia but also for someone’s personal gain.In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open hostility against its people, came via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position. Babchenko found a job with ATR, a Crimean Tatar TV station. The fine-print on the ATR websitesays that it “was supported by the Media Development Fund of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine”.
On May 29 the Ukrainian government claimed that Babchenko had been assassinated. As usual the death of a journalist hostile to Russia was used by NATO aligned media to blame Russia, the Kremlin and Putin. That there was zero evidence that Russia was involved did not matter at all. A photo of the allegedly killed Babchenko laying in his blood emerged.
The very next day the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko and the head of the National Security Service (SBU) Vasyl Grytsak (also written as Hrytsak) held a press conference and presented a very alive and happy Arkady Babchenko. He had not been shot at all. The whole hoax, it was explained, was launched to find the people behind an alleged assassination campaign originating in Russia. In this official version the Russians hired some Ukrainian “operator” who then hired the “killer” to assassinate Babchenko. The hired killer told the police about it and the hoax of Babchenko’s death was staged to find the culprits behind the plot.
All those western “journalists” who had believed Ukrainian government claims without any evidence and wrote unfounded accusations against Russia were not amused. The Ukrainian government exposed them as the mere propaganda tools and fools they are. The “journalist” Babchenko himself, interviewed by Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky, comes off as a naive and rather dim light.
Yesterday the “hired killer”, one Alexey Tsymbalyuk, wentpublic. He is a Ukrainian nationalist who had fought against the the Russia supported entities in eastern Ukraine. He has since become an orthodox priest.
via Alec Luhn Would an operator for Russia hire an Ukrainian nationalist and priest who had fought Russian aligned entities in east-Ukraine to kill a well known anti-Russian figure? Hmmm.The SBU did not confirm that Alexey Tsymbalyuk is the “killer” but Ukrainian media seem to believe him.
The General Prosecutor of the Ukraine named one Boris German (also written Herman) as the Russian paid “operator” who had hired Alexey Tsymbalyuk to kill Arkady Babchenko.
Boris German denies that he worked for Russia.
According to Strana.ua (Russian, machine translation), Jewgenij Solodko, the attorney of the accused “operator” Boris German, rejects the accusations against his client. Boris German (the man) is co-owner of a Ukrainian joint venture with the German (the country) company Schmeisser (also written Schmyser or Shmyser) which produces optics for sniper rifles. German’s company had good relation with his customers at the Ukrainian defense ministry. He had also supported the “anti-terror-operations” of Ukrainian nazi formations against the “Russians” in the east.
The attorney says that over the last six month German’s apartment and company had been searched by the SBU several times. The SBU, he alleges, shook German down for some $70,000. The SBU, he writes, had not presented any evidence of any Russian involvement. The attorney denies, according to the Strava.ua report, that his client had any connection with Russians.
Meduza’sreport on German’s court appearance presents a slightly different version:
The man charged with trying to organize the murder of the Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko announced in court on Thursday that he was acting as a Ukrainian counterintelligence agent.German says he started cooperating with Ukrainian counterintelligence after he was approached by an “old acquaintance” living in Moscow who “works at a Putin foundation, organizing unrest in Ukraine.” German says he was told to learn more about the flow of Russian money into Ukraine funding certain politicians and “terrorist groups.”
According to reports in the Ukrainian media, German said his acquaintance in Russia is named either Vyacheslav Pivovarkin or Vyacheslav Pivovarnik. It’s still unclear if German accuses this person of ordering Babchenko’s murder.
It is curious that the attorney makes claims which are partly contradicting those made by his client.
The killing, the killer and the operator who hired the killer were all fakes. Arkady Babchenko, Alexey Tsymbalyuk and Boris German all worked with the Ukrainian security service. All seem to have anti-Russian credentials.
But wait, the mess gets even deeper.
In our piece yesterday we laid out how the Ukrainian plot and other recent incidents were arranged to discredit Russia just in time for the start of the soccer World cup in Russia. It turns out that this was only one aspect of the hapless plot.
Bloomberg writer Leonid Bershidsky points to a piece by one Volodymyr Boiko, a “parachuting instructor in Kiev”, who describes (in Ukrainian) an even darker level of the story.
Boiko quotes from official Ukrainian court reports giving their case numbers and dates. He starts (machine translated):
Just do not laugh. The imitation of the “murder” of Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko, which caused such anger in international diplomatic and human rights circles, was a way to resolve the corporate dispute between the founders of the Ukrainian-German joint venture “Schmayser”, whose head Boris Herman, SBU head Grytsak and the Prosecutor General Lutsenko was declared the customer of murder and terrorist, acting on the tasks of Russian special services.
The court papers show that the whole affair started in February 2016 and was about an attempt to take over a company. Since 2016 German, the executive director of the company, was fighting off creditors including the founder of the company. These creditors alleged that German, or the company he led, had not paid back some loans and demanded to take over the company to cover their losses. German argued that the loan had been repaid and produced receipts. The creditors said that they were counterfeit. Several cases and many motions were filed and the whole court case ran for nearly two years. German seems to have won it.
Such attempt to take over a company via fraudulent court claims have been a distinct feature of the “wild east” after the Soviet Union broke apart. In Russia, in the Ukraine and elsewhere fraudulent legal cases, physical raids, intimidation and murder were regular means to grab industrial assets. As such the German case is nothing remarkable. But its further development into an absurd hoax makes it special.
As their attempt to raid German’s company through a court campaign over minor loans failed, the raiders, with SBU chief Grytsak seemingly behind them, thought out a different way to go after German. Hence the Babchenko hoax and the “operator” allegations.
Volodymyr Boiko continues (machine translated):
But “getting” Herman through the police his opponents could not, because judges consistently refused to choose a precautionary measure due to the insignificance of the crime. And then the order was taken by the Department of Counterintelligence of the SBU. Apparently, it is a primitive provocation directed at the arrest of the head of the joint venture “Schmyser” in order to take away the share of the authorized capital of the enterprise, which he, according to the opponents, owns unlawfully.
The story Boiko tells is consistent with the claims German’s attorney made about long ongoing SBU raids of German’s apartment and company. The court paper Boiko cites seem valid. It likely is a real part of the Babchenko story, but it still may not be the whole truth.
The staged murder, with a fake cadaver, a fake killer and a fake operator behind it, was endorsed (video) at the highest levels of the Ukrainian government.
“Western” media used the hoax to accuse and defame Russia and its president Putin without the slightest supporting evidence. That alone is already a serious mess and reveals the utter failure of “western” journalism and media.
The background of the case, a takeover of a company by illegal means, demonstrates the total social failure of the “western” coup in Ukraine. The worst of the worst, robber barons like Poroschenko and criminal bankers like Kolomoisky went on to steal billions of “western” aid while the Ukrainian state fell apart. Defying the courts, the power of the state is secretly abused for slapstick worthy plots to grab up industrial assets.
The victims are the people of Ukraine who were robbed of their means and their security. Russia, the permanent boogeyman of the “west”, is least to blame for it.
People from all over the world have called Oobah Butler begging to book a reservation at his trendy London restaurant, The Shed at Dulwich.
“People were trying to blackmail me to get tables,” Butler told As It Happens guest host Jim Brown. “There were TV executives trying to get in contact with me, all kinds of people.”
There’s just one problem. No such restaurant exists.
‘It kind of just came to me when I sat one day eating toast in the place that I live, which is a shed.’ — Oobah Butler, pretend restaurant owner
The Shed at Dulwich — which was briefly the top-rated London restaurant on the review site TripAdvisor — is actually just a shed that Butler lives in.
“This is how far the housing crisis has gone,” he said with a laugh. “It’s not even cheap.”
He was sitting in his tiny, overpriced home last spring when the idea for the elaborate hoax struck him.
“It kind of just came to me when I sat one day eating toast in the place that I live, which is a shed.”
A non-existent restaurant was briefly the No. 1 rated restaurant of 18,092 in all of London, U.K. (TripAdviser)
The London writer has some experience with TripAdvisor deception. His first paid writing gig was to pen fake reviews for restaurants — which is against the review site’s rules.
He likens the job to the famous scene in the sci-fi movie The Matrix, when the lead character learns he lives in a false reality by taking a red pill.
“All of a sudden, now everything is like the false reality,” he recalls.
He began crafting his own false reality by registering The Shed at Dulwich on TripAdvisor, describing it as a small, appointment-only destination for foodies.
He got everyone he knows to write incredible, five-star reviews, praising the homemade food and cozy atmosphere, and of course, talking about how hard it is to get a table.
This is a sampling of some of the totally fake reviews that propelled the totally fake restaurant to the No. 1 spot on TripAdvisor in London. (TripAdvisor)
He also built a website, which described The Shed as “London’s best kept secret.”
“It’s all about mystique,” Butler said.
Butler filled the site with beautiful pictures showcasing the fake restaurant’s fake food.
A fudge brownie topped with whipped cream was really a painted urinal cake with a dollop of shaving cream.
This mouth-watering dessert from The Shed At Dulwich is actually a urinal cake and shaving foam. (Chris Bethell/Vice)
A hunk of bacon next to a fried egg is actually a close-up of Butler’s foot.
“I wanted people to be drooling over my foot, literally.”
A fried egg resting on a succulent cut of meat — or is it? (Chris Bethell/Vice)
‘I wanted people to be drooling over my foot, literally,’ says fake restauranteur Oobah Butler. (Chris Bethell/Vice)
Pretty soon the fake restaurateur starting getting calls from would-be customers seeking reservations.
He told them The Shed was all booked up for the foreseeable future.
That just made people want to eat there more.
“People stated applying for jobs at my non-existent restaurant, you know?” he said. “A PR agency wants to represent my non-existent restaurant. All this stuff, it got way out of hand.”
Finally, on Nov. 1, seven months after Butler began his ruse, The Shed at Dulwich became the No. 1 London restaurant on TripAdvisor.
Asked for comment, a TripAdvisor spokesperson told As It Happens:
“It is important to note that generally the only people who create fake restaurant listings are journalists in misguided attempts to test us. As there is no incentive for anyone in the real world to create a fake restaurant, this is not a problem we experience with our regular community — therefore this ‘test’ is not a real world example.”
The company also said it uses “state-of-the-art technology to identify suspicious review patterns” to stop real businesses from manipulating their rankings.
But Butler didn’t stop there.
“I’ve created this amazing reality online, now the only challenge left to do is try to recreate that in reality,” he said. “So I opened The Shed for one night only.”
He set up tables in his garden and hired his friends to pretend to be servers and patrons. Then he stocked up on instant food, like microwave dinners and instant soup mix.
His first real customers were an American couple on their first trip to Europe.
“We served them this food and they looked so miserable,” he said.
“There was this moment that I can just remember so clearly. I was looking from a distance and the woman, who described herself as a foodie, she got out her phone to take a photo of the mac and cheese, looked at it through the phone, and then just didn’t take the photo. She put it away. I felt kind of guilty at that point.”
An American couple is served a heaping plate of frozen microwave macaroni and cheese at The Shed at Dulich. (Theo McInnes/Vice)
But as they brought in new customers, people seemed to be having a good time. All of them gave positive feedback to the servers, and some even tried to book future reservations.
Even the Americans left a good review.
“The power of the internet is so strong that people will not even trust what’s in front of their eyes or what is going in their mouths,” he said.
After his one-night only experiment, Butler fessed up and removed The Shed from TripAdvisor. You can still see an archive of it here. He also wrote about the hoax for Vice News.
“You could just say that this has proven that everything we know is just essentially nonsense,” Butler said.
“But I’m an optimist, so what I would say is I think that this proves that if I can make a fake restaurant in my shed … anything is possible. There you go. What about that?”
Tell me America, you have lied about everything else, why should we believe you? China knows, and it holds all your wealth stupid Americans. Stupid, stupid Americans, do you actually believe NASA lost all the tapes from the moon landing?
With more and more evidence mounting that the Moon landings were faked for Cold War posturing, this Russian investigation could blow the lid off the hoax.
Man’s supposed greatest achievement is becoming a comically bad cover-up. In this video, Melissa Dykes from Truthstream Media reports on a Russian investigation into the alleged Apollo Moon Landings. With more and more evidence mounting that the Moon landings were faked for Cold War posturing, this investigation could blow the lid off the hoax.
It may have taken this long, but our intelligence cowboys have proven what we have long believed that the so-called Russian hacking of the DNC campaign and the entire 2016 US presidential elections, was just a hoax.
The mainstream media have yet to present their own technical proof on the matter, aside from their usual quoting from anonymous sources at the Pentagon and Langley.
In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
* * *
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
“Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
Some viewers have been left somewhat disturbed by the footage, while others have branded it a fake, saying the shadowy figure has been edited to look like a ghost. Taxi drivers picking up so called “ghost passengers” has been a phenomenon in the Ishinomaki area of northeast Japan since the tsunami and earthquake hit the area in March of 2011.
It was reported earlier this year that at least seven taxi drivers have reported picking up a “phantom fare” since the devastating disaster that left over 19,000 dead.
No, this isn’t another Pokémon hunt. In fact, it’s a lot more terrifying than that. If you’ve ever wondered what an alien invasion would look like, then look no further this three-legged extraterrestrial ‘spotted’ in the Russian city of Novosibirsk.
As a siren booms around the city warning of its presence, a tripodic alien reminiscent of Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds can be seen emerging from the mist and fog that cloaks the metropolis, surveying the scene for its next victim far below.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone