To Infinity… and Beyond!?

“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.  It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.  Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.  For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.  These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”  Adolf Hitler, 1925

If you believe that the US actually landed men on the moon, you really need to think it through more carefully.  I am about to present proof that the Apollo moon landings in the late 1960s and early 70s were all one huge fabrication.

As already well documented in my book ‘Behind the Curtain,’ our whole financial system is based upon a gross lie, as is almost all of our fake ‘reality.’  So if most of what we are taught to believe-in is one massive lie… then why should learning that the moon landings were faked, be any more difficult to accept?

Firstly, keep in mind that there were probably only about 100 people involved in the moon landings hoax.  Mission Control in Houston as well as most of the men and women who worked on this project almost five decades ago, had no idea it was a fake.  But how is this possible you ask?  It is very simple really… the bankster elite who planned and executed this utter charade, never let anyone see too much of the whole picture.  The thousands of people involved only had their own small parts of the whole upon which to concentrate.  Mission control was in Houston, the launch site in Florida.  The engineers, mechanics, computer programmers etc., mostly in California, were all isolated from each other and there was no crossover between them.  So most people would never be able to figure out that the whole thing amounted to nothing more elaborate than a Hollywood production – and a very unconvincing one at that which is fairly simple to expose once we scratch even slightly below the surface.

In, 1962, then President JFK said that he had a vision of America “…putting a man on the moon and returning him safely before the decade is out.”  Now, as stated earlier, Kennedy knew this was impossible, he knew that the Russians had faked Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space and the Russians knew that the US technology was only at a similar state of advancement as their own, so they were complicit with each other’s claims and lies.  The best rocket scientists in the world, those involved with the space programme, informed Lyndon Johnson that the science was at least 30 years away from being able to accomplish such a task but the fact is… they were actually over-optimistic.

Indeed, almost half a century later and we still do not possess the technology to send a man to the moon and return him safely to Earth.  The powers that decided on this fraud concluded that if they could not send a man to the moon and get him back safely, then they would simply have NASA fake the project then keep the billions of taxpayer money used to fund this operation for themselves.  After all, as elaborate as the plan to ‘fake it’ was, it would have been an order of magnitudes less expensive than the ‘real thing’ would have cost.  The cost of the entire Apollo programme was $25.4bn in 1969 dollars and $180bn in 2015 dollars.

Several motives have been suggested for the US government to fake the moon landings – some of the recurrent elements are:

Distraction – The government benefitted from a popular distraction to take attention away from the carnage of the Vietnam War.  Significantly, lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, at exactly the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.

Cold War Prestige – The government considered it vital that the US should win the space race with the USSR.  Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive.  It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.

Money – NASA raised approximately $30bn dollars by pretending to go to the Moon.  Some of this could have been used to pay-off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.  In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterised as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.

Risk – The available technology at the time, and even that of today, is still not capable of landing humans on the moon.  The Soviets, with their own competing moon programme and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried ‘foul’ if the US tried to fake a Moon landing.  However, Ralph Rene responded to that accusation by saying that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the US silently began shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR.  He regarded this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence.  In fact, the Soviet Union in fact had its own moon-landings programme which were mysteriously shelved.

There is an old saying that, ‘a liar needs a good memory.’  Nowhere is this more evident than in the Apollo programme.  NASA constantly tells lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings by altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made.  This only serves to reinforce the evidence that NASA are constantly ‘fire-fighting,’ and being forced into a corner from which they cannot escape.  The longer that NASA’s extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract them, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous.

Many Apollo astronauts have since died, as have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have sometimes not quite got it right when talking openly in public.  Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA’s longest serving Administrator Dan Goldin, when interviewed by British TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994.  He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgotten that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit, 25 years previously.

The Van Allen Radiation Belts, some 600 – 22,000 miles above the Earth, is probably the main argument for not having reached the moon or anywhere near it.  The Van Allen belts refers to dense layers of charged particles trapped around the Earth by the Earth’s magnetic field.  The particles include protons, electrons, heavy ions that come from solar wind and cosmic rays (high energy particles from outside the Solar System.)  Interestingly, Dr. James van Allen himself, for whom the belts are named, was a critic of the moon landings programme throughout the rest of his long life, (he died at the age of 92 in 2006,) stating that it was ‘impossible’ that humans could pass through them safely.  But of course his words were never widely reported.

Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares from the sun.  Astronauts orbiting Earth in near space, such as those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the Earth’s Van Allen belts.  But the Moon is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band.  And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows that there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said that shielding at least two metres thick would be needed to protect humans from the radiation generated by the Van Allen belts, yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon’s surface were about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil – according to NASA themselves.

How could that possibly stop this deadly radiation?  And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why did rescue workers not use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the radiation dose that the Apollo astronauts would have encountered?  Not one of them ever contracted cancer – not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a huge solar flare erupted.  “They should have been fried,” said author and researcher, Ralph Rene.

Bill Kaysing, a pre-eminent Apollo researcher, worked as a technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company heavily involved in the Apollo programme.  During this time, Kaysing claimed NASA carried out a feasibility study which found they had only a 0.0017% chance of landing a man on the moon and returning him to Earth with the available technology and Kaysing argues convincingly that it was totally impossible for NASA to go from 0.0017 to 100% by 1969.  Surely if we could get to the moon with 1960s technology, it should be easy for us to get to the moon today.  However, all nations STILL have extreme difficulty placing an object in a high Earth orbit.

In his book, ‘We Never Went to the Moon,’ Kaysing writes that NASA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) worked together on faking the Apollo 11 moon landing.  An empty Saturn V rocket was launched but fell back to Earth when it was out of the public gaze and NASA also allegedly created a lunar landscape in ‘Area 51’ in the Nevada desert and according to Kaysing, the film-set was still there at the time of his writing.  Meanwhile, the astronauts and Mission Control were taking part in a meticulously staged hoax designed to fool the public into believing they had landed on the moon. Fake photographs and film were taken and the astronauts’ return to Earth was staged by dropping a dummy space capsule from an army plane into the ocean.  Kaysing went on to suggest that the astronauts were brainwashed and they and their families were threatened, to guarantee their co-operation with the hoax.

Another American author, Ralph Rene, also believes that astronauts could not have made it to the moon.  In his book, ‘NASA Mooned America!’ Rene claimed that the Apollo spacecraft would have needed at least an equivalent mass in lead of two metres of water shielding to prevent cosmic radiation from cooking the astronauts inside.  The hoax theorists believe that, when NASA realised they did not have the technology to take men safely to the moon by the end of the 1960s, they resorted to faking the lunar landings.  This ensured that they would score a propaganda coup against the Soviets and keep the money rolling in for funding their real space projects.

Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History” and respected historian A.J.P. Taylor referred to it as… “The biggest non-event of my lifetime.”

“NASA and other connected agencies couldn’t get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks.  …We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled.  All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage… No-one in the media was given the raw footage. The world tuned-in to watch the moon landing and what looked like two blurred white ghosts throwing rocks and dust.  Part of the reason for the low quality was that, inexplicably, NASA provided no direct link-up.  Networks actually had to film man’s greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston, making it impossible for anyone to examine it.”  Bill Kaysing

Bill Wood has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and is a space rocket and propulsion engineer.  In other words, a rocket scientist.  He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with McDonnell Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle.)  He also worked at NASA’s Goldstone facility as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions.  This facility in California, was responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from Apollo to Houston and he says that early video machines were used to record the NASA footage by the TV networks.  They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal.  The film was then sent onto Houston.  When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture.  In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two.  Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was ‘live’ was not, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage.

It has to be said, that the Moon Hoax debunkers, all those that believe the moon landings were real, tend to believe most of what they are told about everything by the bankster-controlled mainstream and nothing that they are told via the alterative media.  That is, they would also try to debunk every other aspect of my work.  And yet, as I hope I have proven, both in fine detail and through a continuous pattern, a ‘proof of system’ if you will, the banksters mastered the arts of deception and distraction, a long, long time ago.

This shot (below) of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the US flag on the moon’s surface was taken by a 16mm camera mounted on the lunar module.  Aldrin’s shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong’s and yet the only light on the moon – and the only light source self-admittedly used by NASA, was the sun, and this alone should not create such unequal shadows.  It is fair to suggest therefore that all shadows should run parallel to one another and be of equal, relative length.  But this is definitely not the case with many of the moon landing videos and photographs which clearly show shadows that fall in different directions and are of relative, unequal length.

This therefore must mean that multiple light sources are present, strongly suggesting that the photos were produced on a film set.  There are indeed hundreds of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting, which was certainly not transported to the moon.

NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, with subtle bumps and hills on the moon’s surface causing the discrepancies.  This explanation is frankly laughable.  How could hills cause such large angular differences?  In the image below, the lunar module’s shadow clearly contradicts those in the foreground, the differential being almost 45 degrees.

In consecutive Apollo 17 photos (AS17-135-20588 and 89,) the rock’s shadows change almost 180 degrees as if they switched studio-lights between shots and in shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that could not possibly occur in the blackness of space.

There are also anomalies with the ‘moon rovers.’  In one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed-up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks to be seen across the foreground of the entire photo, (below)…

There are many pictures which show moon rovers with no wheel tracks in front or behind them (as though they were set down into place) even though there are many footprints visible in the picture.  There are also pictures of astronauts with footprints all around them, but no prints leading to or from where they are, as if they were also lowered into place by wire.

And there is also one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light…

Many people have pointed-out that when the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it.  Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to ripple.

Many explanations have been put forward to disprove this phenomenon as anything unusual. For example, NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rippled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted.  Other explanations involve the ripples caused by the reaction force of the astronauts touching the aluminium pole, which is shown to shake in the video footage.

Next, I would also like to delve deeper into the question; where are all the stars in the moon photographs?

Not a single photograph allegedly taken from the surface of the moon shows even so much as one star in the background.  Because of the prevailing circumstances and a single-light source only (the sun,) there should have been a vista almost filled with tiny specks of light, in any direction away from the sun.  More stars then you could ever possibly see on even the clearest of nights on Earth because the moon has no atmosphere to distort and dim the images.  This phenomenon is explained away by NASA and its shills as being due to the fact that setting the exposure level to take account of the brightly glaring spacesuits would mean that the stars would be rendered invisible.  However, this does not explain why in instances where the exposure was of a much lower level than when taking shots with the bright space suits, that stars still did not show, even on those photos.

For example, the scenes below which are obviously not very well lit, would have required a long enough exposure that would have been certain to capture every star in that part of the sky.  So where are they all?

One could also legitimately question why there were no specific attempts to photograph the stars themselves?  It would surely have made a beautiful visage, one never able to be seen from Earth and a change from all the pictures of the lander and the rover, moon rocks and mountains etc.

“It’s as if someone went to Niagara Falls and the only photos they brought back were of the car they drove, sitting in a nondescript parking lot.”  David McGowan, 2009

In fact the astronauts were asked this very question about the stars at their press conference, post splash-down and the almost disinterested answer came back to the effect that they ‘did not even notice’ the stars in the sky!  Did not even notice them – excuse me?  It must have been the single-most wonderful sight they saw on the whole trip, the vast, unimaginable vista of all of creation stretched out before them to infinity.  That is if they went in the first place, which of course they did not.  Amazing is it not how lying is so difficult to permanently maintain?  And speaking of the press conference, if you have never seen the footage of this event, the DVD is available to buy at a very reasonable price on the Internet and I would strongly suggest that you track it down and do so.  What is so striking and revealing about this is the absolute downbeat demeanour of the astronauts themselves throughout the entire session.

If someone had just completed the most wonderfully uplifting experience and had been on the most incredible adventure ever undertaken by the human race in its entire history, would I be wrong to suggest that they may have appeared happy, elated and exhilarated, flushed with success, even self-satisfied, experiencing a feeling of great achievement that they would wish to share with the world?  Obviously someone forgot to tell them this then in that case.  I have never seen a more morose, sullen, disinterested, less co-operative bunch of people in my entire life.  Anyone would have thought that they did not really go to the moon at all and were resentful of being ‘put on the spot’ and having to ‘think on their feet’ to answer all the awkward, unplanned-for questions they were being asked, including the one about the stars.

However, I think we may all have guessed the answer as to why NASA was so extremely coy about the star photography.  Could it have possibly had anything to do with the fact that the moon is at a different angle to the stars in comparison with the Earth, albeit a barely detectable one, given the vast distances involved?  And this would then have been guaranteed to constitute proof that the photographs had actually been taken on Earth as it would have only taken one vigilant, enthusiastic amateur astronomer somewhere in the world to find the nearest stars, take a few quick measurements and calculations and the whole thing would have been blown wide-open forever.

Of the seven Apollo missions to put ‘men on the Moon,’ six were claimed to be ‘successful’ and Apollo 13 was ‘aborted.’

As with the political assassinations already presented, there are also highly suspect, and very convenient deaths involved in the Apollo project also.  None more so than…


Virgil (Gus) Grissom

On 27th January 1967, the astronaut Gus Grissom along with two fellow astronauts, perished in a fire in what was to be Apollo 1 at Cape Canaveral, Florida.  Even in death, Grissom is still tormented by those who would believe that he did not live up to his country’s expectations, not to mention his own expectations.

On 13th April 1959, Air Force Captain Gus Grissom received official word from the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson air-force base that he had been selected as one of the seven Project Mercury astronauts.  Six others received the same notification; Lieutenant Malcolm Scott Carpenter, US Navy Captain, Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. (33rd Degree Mason,) US Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel John Herschel Glenn, Jr. (33rd Degree Mason,) US Marine Corps Lieutenant Commander Walter Marty Schirra, Jr. (33rd Degree Mason,) US Navy Lieutenant Commander Alan Bartlett Shepard, Jr., and US Navy Captain Donald Kent (Deke) Slayton.

The Mercury programme was the United States’ first manned space venture and the first step in the country’s quest to reach the moon.  Being a Mercury Astronaut meant being constantly subjected to scrutiny both by the public and by the media.  Hailed as heroes when the missions went well, they could equally expect to be chastised for any problems which might occur along the way.  Indeed, Grissom’s first space flight, aboard the Mercury Redstone ‘Liberty Bell 7,’ was somewhat less than a complete success.

Although take-off and re-entry went as expected, upon splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean, the 70 explosive bolts which held the hatch in place unexplainably exploded prematurely, forcing Grissom to evacuate the capsule and swim for his life while the rescue helicopter frantically tried to save the capsule from sinking.  It was unsuccessful, and Grissom nearly drowned whilst the Liberty Bell sank to the bottom of the ocean, never to be recovered.

This was only the beginning of Grissom’s media woes.  The press hounded him mercilessly, and he underwent an inquiry by NASA into the loss of the spacecraft.  Although his fellow astronauts strongly supported him, and the inquiry led to the eventual conclusion that the explosive hatch blew of its own accord, Grissom never recovered his previous reputation with the public or the media.  Much to his dismay, the exhaustive testing done on similar spacecraft with the same explosive bolts yielded no explanations for the explosions, as the bolts, never again exploded prematurely in any of the tests.

“I didn’t do anything.  I was just lying there and it just blew,” he protested.  However, the media painted him as a failure, a coward who panicked and blew the hatch in an attack of claustrophobia. Even after his death, perhaps because he was an easy target and could not defend himself, the public opinion of Grissom was still questionable.  In the book and the movie, ‘The Right Stuff,’ Tom Wolfe portrayed Gus as… “…the goat among the astronauts, a hard-drinking, hard-living type who courts the favours of barmaids with gewgaws he promises to carry into space.  He is also held up to the world as a man who screwed up, who panicked, blew the explosive hatch off his capsule and allowed it to sink to the ocean floor after re-entry.”

Grissom’s luck was better on his second space flight, however.  Selected to command the Gemini 3 mission shortly after his completion of the Mercury 7 flight, he became the first man ever to fly twice in space.  But he had yet to live down his reputation with the loss of his Liberty Bell capsule.

After his second, successful flight, he was notified confidentially by NASA that he had been chosen to be the first man to set foot on the moon.  Project Apollo was now underway, and Grissom with Edward H. White and Roger Chaffee, were selected for the first mission.

The Apollo I mission was undertaking a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight, when a fire stated to be caused by an arc of electricity in the pure oxygen atmosphere of the sealed capsule of Apollo 1, destroyed the capsule and incinerated all three astronauts.  A tragic end to the career of Gus Grissom, who even in death, was pilloried by both the media and Congress.

Dr. John McCarthy, the director of research, engineering, and testing for North American Aviation, the aerospace company primarily responsible for building the Apollo capsule, laid the blame literally at Grissom’s feet.  His hypothesis was that the command pilot may have kicked or scuffed a wire lead connected to an air-sampling instrument.

The ignition source was never determined, but there were over a dozen fire hazards in the module, and the module’s design was grossly flawed in terms of safety.  Most notable of these hazards was the inward-opening exit hatch.  There was very little room inside, and in the panic of fire, the crew would have been severely hampered in exiting had they opened it.  This is a moot point however, as the hatch would not even open with a crowbar after the module was pressurised.  The interior was supplied with 100% medical-grade oxygen during the pre-launch, and thus, the air itself instantly burst into flame once the fire started, blowing out one of the cabin’s walls within 15 seconds.  The three men did not die from smoke inhalation, since they were fully suited with their helmets on, but were killed by the fire itself.

As unfair as McCarthy’s observation obviously was, it was rescinded almost immediately when he could not find proof to support his hypothesis. Grissom would have had to have been a contortionist to have reached that particular wire and create enough force to move it.

NASA eventually concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, White and Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule.  NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote-off the catastrophe as an accident.

“My father’s death was no accident.  He was murdered,” Scott Grissom, son.

In February 1999, Scott Grissom, went public with the family’s long-held belief that their father was purposely killed by fire aboard Apollo I.  They believed that the numerous safety flaws were so grossly negligent that NASA could not possibly have overlooked them all, but instead deliberately provided them, and then sabotaged the equipment in some way as to ensure an electrical spark once the cabin was sealed and pressurised.

Scott Grissom strongly suspected that his father had somehow irritated the NASA hierarchy in the past, possibly due to the embarrassment of the Liberty Bell 7 incident, and his general outspoken-ness.  Scott claims that in 1990, he was able to inspect the Apollo 1 command module, and found a “fabricated metal plate” behind a switch on one of the instrument panels.  The switch controlled the capsules’ electrical power from an outside source to the ship’s batteries and he argued that it was the placement of this metal plate that was an act of sabotage.  He claimed that when one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship’s batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

NASA denounced the younger Grissom’s conclusion as “…the ravings of an understandably angry child,” but has never bothered to refute it.  Whether such a metal plate existed in the cabin is not publicly known, but in another stunning development, a leading NASA investigator charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and the two other astronauts.

Clark MacDonald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence.  Breaking more than three decades of silence, MacDonald said that he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.  He also claimed that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space programme.  “I have agonised for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn’t want to hurt NASA’s image or cause trouble, but I can’t let one more day go by without the truth being known.” He said.

Grissom’s widow, Betty agreed with her son’s claim that her husband had been murdered… “I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon.”

There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch could accidentally blow without being pulled — a fact that led NASA to remove the devices from future spacecraft designs.  Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks, but neither were ever found.

Grissom, was the senior astronaut and also maybe significantly, the most critical of the problem-plagued Apollo programme, and the main Apollo contractor, North American Aviation.  With billions of dollars at stake, Grissom had become a problem for NASA.

On one occasion, shortly before the tragic fire that claimed their lives, Grissom hung a lemon on a wire coat hanger on the Apollo 1 rocket (picture below) during a publicity photo-shoot and in addition made an unauthorised statement to the press in early January 1967 to the effect that he believed that the ‘Moon landings’ were at least ‘a decade away,’ for which he was severely reprimanded.

Grissom’s lemon

That was probably his death sentence signed and sealed right there and then.  Indeed, less than a month later all three ‘rebels’ were dead.  Shortly before his untimely death Gus Grissom had also said to his wife… “If there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it’s likely to be me.”  And among his last words before he died, when there was a communications failure with the capsule just prior to the fire, were, “How are we going to get to the moon when we can’t communicate between two buildings?”

Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space programme. The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his own home to a secure safe-house.

The Apollo I disaster led to a series of congressional hearings into the incident and NASA.  During the hearings, one launch pad inspector, Thomas Ronald Baron, sharply criticised NASA’s handling of the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape the capsule earlier than officially claimed.  Baron was a safety inspector on the Apollo project who after the fire, testified before Congress that the Apollo programme was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon.  He also claimed that his opinions made him a target, and on 21st April 1967, reported on-camera to news reporters that he and his wife had been harassed at home.  As part of his testimony, Baron also submitted a 500 page report detailing his findings.  Then exactly one week after he testified, Baron’s car was struck by a train and he, his wife and his stepdaughter were all killed instantly.  His report mysteriously disappeared, and to this day it has never been found.

In fact, no less than eleven Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before undertaking their missions, three had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, seven died in six separate (yes, six separate) plane crashes, and one died in a car crash.  Overall, a highly unlikely series of coincidences that I will allow the reader to make-up his or her own mind upon.

Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, at the request of Bill Kaysing, interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the so-called ‘moon rocks.’  “Did you examine the ‘moon rocks,’ did they really come from the Moon?” Jacobs asked and the geologist’s only response was to laugh.  Both Paul Jacobs and his wife died from ‘cancer’ within 90 days of this incident.  Yes both, within 90 days!

Astronaut and ahem, ‘first man to walk on the Moon,’ Neil Armstrong, could have made millions through endorsements and personal appearances.  Courted by kings, praised by politicians, he could have signed a myriad of book and film deals telling his amazing story.  But instead, he became a virtual recluse who used a fake name to receive his mail and refused to talk about his incredible feat.  He also suffered with mental illness in his later years, some say maybe as a direct result of his name being used as the ‘foundation stone’ for the biggest lie in history.  Or maybe it was that he became paranoid by the overwhelming number of sources exposing him as a liar?

In fact none of the astronauts give public interviews or took questions at speaking events and as already stated were all very unconvincing, nervous and shifty in their first press conference upon their return from the Moon.  This press conference in its entirety is actually very enlightening and is well worth a watch if you can get hold of a copy.  It was certainly still available as a mail-order DVD at the time of publication of this book.

Rumour also has it, that Apollo 12 astronaut Charles (Pete) Conrad Jr., was intending to ‘go public’ about the fake Moon landings on their 30th anniversary back in July 1999.  He was however unfortunately ‘killed in a motorcycle accident’ one week before the anniversary.  Another sad ‘coincidence.’

President Lyndon Johnson made certain Apollo files classified, with a declassification date of 2026. This is so that those involved in the Apollo scam would be long dead and gone, but we need not wait until then for the truth behind Apollo, as the truth is now already well known.

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.  It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the Earth’s gravity and, having travelled all the way to the Moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to Earth.  Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three… each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”  ‘Conquest of the Moon,’ Wernher von Braun, 1953, Viking Press.

Of course, Wernher von Braun obviously quickly forgot this opinion completely, when his ‘sponsors,’ the CIA, had put him in overall charge of the ‘team,’ in the race to outdo the Soviets in space and weapons research, not to mention make a whole boatload of money for the banksters and their greedy friends.

Ironically, it was an American, Dr. Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945,) the rocketry genius, who was the father of the space programme.  A man of great vision and humanity, he was ignored by the US government, only to see his revolutionary research and patents put to another use by Wernher von Braun and his crew.

So, how and where did NASA fake the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take-off, for all the Apollo Moon landing TV transmissions? Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51.  There may well have been some pictures taken at the infamous Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at NASA’s own Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.  NASA Scientists knew in the early 1960s that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and so the plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation.

The Lunar Orbiter and Landing Approach simulator (LOLA,) was a $2 million facility built at the Langley Center around 1963/64.  The lunar terrain detail within it was gathered by the American Lunar Orbiter series of probes that mapped the entire surface of the moon in greater detail than ever before.

This facility had an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long and the massive crane system supported five-sixths of the vehicle’s weight through servo-driven vertical cables.  The remaining one-sixth of the vehicle weight pulled the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force.  During actual flights the overhead crane system was ‘slaved’ to keep the cable near vertical at all times.  A ball-joint system on the vehicle permitted angular movement for pitch, roll, and yaw.

According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled lunar module.  However no rocket powered LM was ever suspended from this crane and in any case, most people know that it is totally IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine.  The landings were controlled purely by traverse and the raising and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane.

The mock LM was traversed the full length of the crane, and simultaneously lowered at the same time in order to create an authentic looking lunar landing, when viewed from within the mock LM itself.  The power supply to the mock LM was by cable from the crane tower.  This enabled a large fan, (fitted beneath the mock LM), to create the dust scatter effect of a rocket engine as it descended to the fake Moon surface.

 The film shown to public of the LM supposedly blasting off from the Moon’s surface was also created beneath this crane at LRC.  The mock LM was simply attached to the crane, and hoisted very rapidly at the same time a pathetic looking blast-off simulation was enacted beneath it.  The film was then speeded-up for showing to the public, and it is interesting to note that the camera filming this sequence cut short once the LM had reached the crane maximum height. In other words WHY did the camera not continue to film the LM until it was out of view?  Quite simply because it was not possible to do so under the circumstances in which the ‘lift-off’ was faked.

Fake lunar surfaces beneath the crane

The above pictures were taken by Bob Nye on 20th June 1969, one month before Armstrong supposedly made his ‘giant leap for mankind.’  The picture on the right shows the lander hovering above the fake Moon crater surface beneath the crane.  The picture on the left, taken at night, looks like a realistic Moon setting, and the light source seen in left picture is the same light source that highlights Buzz Aldrin in the controversial picture of him allegedly on the Moon.  Those lights are fixed on top of the crane gantry, as shown in an earlier picture.

The pictures below demonstrate how the astronauts were suspended from the crane in order to simulate low gravity.

They eventually settled for an upright position with the astronaut suspended by strong elastic bungee cord, so that his feet were only just touching the ground, similar to a ‘baby bouncer.’  As the astronauts walked in any given direction, the overhead crane moved in the same direction and this enabled the astronauts to literally float along in a crude ‘moon walk’ fashion.

There is a classic piece of film that depicts Apollo 17 astronauts supposedly cavorting on the Moon and one of them is actually suspended 2 feet horizontally off the ground.  This sequence lasts for a couple of seconds, so how do NASA officials explain that and why is it that no-one else has passed comment on this patently absurd shot?  It is clear evidence that the ‘astro-not’ in a fake space suit is suspended from wires.

The high-resolution picture above top, depicts a 20-foot diameter sphere which can be rotated from below.  In the left of the picture can be seen a huge blank placard.  This is the scene before work began on converting the sphere to an authentic looking Moon complete with craters, (for lunar approach), and the placards were to be used to depict the orbiting of the moon.

Notice also the rail track around the placards, (there were 3 placards in all) and note the moving trolley gantry on the track upon which the camera was mounted.  Firstly, it began to film the rotating sphere, (lunar approach) and then would swing around and began scanning the fake lunar surface on the placard to simulate a lunar orbit.  The picture above right depicts the sphere after modelling work.  Notice how the background is dark with no stars visible.  Remove that man from the picture and it could EASILY pass as being taken by the Apollo command module circling the Moon.  It is absolutely evident that there were a number of people involved in the faking of Apollo but NASA’s response to these allegations was that if it were faked, someone would have ‘blown the whistle.’  Well, the NASA staff involved are all sworn to secrecy, and they surely would prefer that they and their children remain alive.  There is no doubt that the threats used to buy their silence would have been taken extremely seriously.

NASA claim that picture above is the far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8.  Compare this sphere with the one shown directly above it.  It speaks for itself, does it not?  In all of these pictures notice the black background.  We really need to ask the question also… ‘What possible purpose could these no doubt incredibly expensive to produce, life-like models of the moon have served, if not to fake mission photographs?  What would have been the point of all the time and expense taken to construct them?  I have given this a lot of thought and I personally cannot think of even one single, plausible reason for it.

But in fact, the vast majority of NASA’s fake moon pictures were created in the mid-1990s.  The proof lies in the fact that most do not appear in any books or magazines prior to 1990.  Ninety-five percent of NASA’s fake Moon pictures on their websites, were never seen in any form, prior to the launch of the internet.  Once the internet became widely available, they had to produce a considerable number of fake moon pictures, for all six missions; otherwise the public would want to know why there were so few.

Science fiction’s portrayal of covered-up or faked space missions dates back many decades.  In the February 1955 issue of Galaxy Science Fiction magazine, author James Gunn published a story entitled The Cave of Night. The story dealt with a manned mission to Mars which goes wrong, stranding an astronaut with no hope of rescue and the climax of the story is shocking, utilising the notion of fakery to portray an erroneous perception of the outcome of the mission.

The plot of the 1969 movie ‘Marooned’ also involved a manned mission to the Moon going wrong.  The failure of a re-entry rocket leaves the occupants of the lunar capsule stranded in space and although there is no cover-up inherent to the actual space-flight, the original script called for the suggestion that a story would be created to perpetuate the notion of a heroic attempt to rescue the astronauts, should they have perished.  The film received the full support of NASA, including the use of Cape Kennedy for interior and exterior location filming.

‘Capricorn One’ (1978) however, went much further than ‘Marooned,’ featuring a plot that utilised Hollywood trickery and gimmicks to fake the first manned space flight to Mars.  In the film, the astronaut crew are removed from their rocket and driven to a film set in the desert to record fake footage of their planetary touchdown.   However things spiral out of control for the hapless fake astronauts when their rocket is seen to explode on take-off, in front of millions on live TV, thus meaning that NASA now has on its hands three ‘dead’ astronauts.  Of course they realise that their lives really are in danger now and attempt to escape before the space agency can deal with them in the usual manner.

Bizarrely, this film also received full support from NASA, which is strange given how NASA has generally avoided supporting Hollywood productions that cast the agency (or fictional agencies with a resemblance to NASA) in an unflattering light.  The film was directed by Peter Hyams, who would go on to also direct ‘2010: The Year We Make Contact,’ the sequel to Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ six years later.

According to the Clavius website, the first mention of Stanley Kubrick and his possible involvement with the Apollo cover-up appeared in 1995 on the Usenet newsgroup.  The Clavius group have dedicated themselves to sceptically debunking all notions of an Apollo cover-up (meaning that they are not exactly the most unbiased or objective source of reference material.)  However the time-frame to which they refer, does seem to tally.  There are no apparent references to Kubrick and the Apollo cover-up before this time period.

As documented earlier, Hollywood has always served its bankster masters well.  From everything we know about the truly great film-maker Stanley Kubrick, he was certainly not what could be called a Hollywood ‘team player.’  In fact, the total opposite is nearer the mark. Fiercely independent, he was a perfectionist who moved over 5,000 miles away from the centre of the movie universe, just to be free to do things his own way.  But, given his love of new technology, creative challenges, and absolute control, the idea that NASA would be ‘over the moon’ as it were, to have him on-board to help them fake the Apollo Moon landings… well, it would be the perfect match, the perfect challenge, if it were true.

In October 2002, the William Karel-directed ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ mockumentary film was aired on the French TV channel Arte.  The film seemingly supported the idea that the television footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked and recorded in a studio by the CIA, with help from Stanley Kubrick.  The film included interviews with notable agenda players such as Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters and Apollo astronaut, Buzz Aldrin.  However, further investigation of these interviews revealed that they were actually carefully edited from existing interviews that had no connection to Kubrick or the faking of the Apollo 11 footage.

The official blurb of the film says… “Filmmaker William Karel pursues his reflection on the relation of the United States with image, cinema and their capacity to produce ‘show.’  What other story can lend itself to such an examination but the space conquest, a war of image and show more than anything else.  What if it was just a huge hoax initiated by the two great powers?  Between lies and truths, this film mixes actual facts and others, completely trumped-up.  Playing with irony and lie, its purpose is to entertain and raise the question of the use of archive, which can be made to tell whatever you want.”

Whatever one makes of the mockumentary, there is a certain irony to this exercise in contextual dissembling, given that this is something the mainstream media appears to do on a daily basis. Tellingly, the film exercises techniques that have been the hallmark of certain media psy-ops, such as Orson Welles’ 1938 ‘War of the Worlds,’ radio broadcast.

It is curious that the film also contains interviews with Kubrick’s widow Christiane, who discusses the Kubrick / Apollo connection in a far more ‘realistic’ context than the other featured interviews. We really should ask why she became involved.  The most interesting and detailed parts of the film are contained in her interviews and if, as some have suggested, the film was a CIA exercise in debunking, was Christiane a willing participant?

The ‘Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Hoax’ article and the Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary have done much to muddle the notion of Kubrick’s possible involvement in the Apollo cover-up.  But, if Kubrick’s involvement was real, then these pieces are certainly convenient for those agenda players wishing to prevent researchers from getting too close to the truth.

It is also worth mentioning the theory that ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ was also utilised as part of the agenda-driven drug-related counter-culture of the late 1960s. It is important to note that this phenomenon has a clear overlap with the work of NASA and the state-sponsored mind-control paradigm, respectively.

For all the examination of the ‘Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Hoax’ article and the Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary, please understand that a great deal of strong circumstantial evidence existed long before the notion was ever fully articulated.  For example, Jay Weidner, a researcher and expert photographer who has virtually dedicated his studies to Stanley Kubrick and the global agenda, has plausibly demonstrated that the front-projection process (used so successfully in the ‘dawn of man’ sequences of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey) shares key similarities with some of the abnormalities identified in the Apollo ‘moon’ footage, such as the clear lines of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.

In order to understand Kubrick’s connection with the bankster Elite and the military-industrial complex, one must look back at his career as a whole.  Kubrick is remembered as being a notorious perfectionist with a meticulous attention to detail and the production of his films was often laboured and incredibly lengthy.  Actors were pushed to the limits of their ability and patience, as often scores of ‘takes’ of one short scene were repeated until Kubrick was satisfied with the result. It is known that there was no piece of set dressing or background that hadn’t been placed or framed without his prior approval or specific reasoning and the same is also said of his wardrobe choices and actors’ appearances. This should come as no surprise, given that Kubrick began his profession as a photographer – an art that requires a precise knowledge of framing and context in order to be fully proficient.

Some researchers have claimed that Kubrick became trapped within his profession and that his art became a conduit through which he used illusion and imagery to reveal the greater truths that he had come to realise.  It is also claimed that his alleged involvement in the Apollo hoax would have abetted these circumstances. However, Kubrick’s disdain for aspects of the establishment was already apparent much earlier in his career.

In February 1993, the legendary researcher, the late Bill Cooper discussed 2001: A Space Odyssey on his radio show.  Cooper described the Monolith as a symbolic catalyst for the beginning of the programming / control of humanity and how the Monolith effectively imparts ‘forbidden knowledge’ to humanity, dismantling ‘paradise’ in its wake.  As witnessed in the ‘dawn of man’ sequence of the film, the ‘forbidden knowledge’ leads to the death of one ape at the hands of another.  Cooper believed that the ape, ‘Moonwatcher,’ was a symbol of the first priest or initiate of the mystery school teachings – instrumental in guarding the secrets of the ages, astral theology, the study of the Sun, Moon and Stars, etc.  Cooper also highlighted the six transformations that Bowman goes through in the finale of the film, the sixth level of attainment in the mystery school teachings, and the associated ‘666’ paradigm of occult teachings.

There are also further subtle indications of 666 embedded in the film… “It also appears that the ‘monoliths’ in the movie appear for 666 seconds. The time between the first appearance and final disappearance of each of the four ‘monoliths,’ the four times added together, is 666 seconds. Additionally, there are apparently 666 camera shots starting from ‘The Dawn of Man’ (the first shot after the opening credits) to ‘The End’ (the last shot of the closing credits.)  The running time of the film in seconds, from the beginning of the Overture to the end of the Exit Music (total exhibition time), is allegedly equal to the number of moon orbits contained in 666 years (8903.) Alternatively, the running time in seconds, from the beginning of the MGM lion logo to the fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases contained in 666 years (8237.)  Everything before and after the movie proper, that is, the overture, end credits, and exit music times, adds up to 666 seconds.  For an ‘added bonus,’ the director Stanley Kubrick was reported to have died 666 days before the year 2001, on March 7th, 1999.” Jay Weidner.

Jay Weidner has also proposed that Kubrick created ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ as a “visual and alchemical initiation into the on-going transformation and evolutionary ascent of man to a so-called Star Child destiny.” The obvious analogies are the celestial alignments that precede each of the alchemical transmutations in the film.  The second main allegory is the monolith or ‘black stone’ that initiates these transmutations.  Again this mirrors the alchemical lore about the black stone (known under numerous names – most notably ‘The Philosopher’s Stone’) causing the transmutation of the alchemist.  The film itself (the dimensions of the movie screen) shares the same dimensions as the monolith, prompting some researchers to consider the act of viewing the film as part of a greater, symbolic ritual.

“Kubrick completely reveals that he understands the ‘Great Work.’ The monolith represents the Philosopher’s Stone, the Book of Nature and the Film that initiates.  Stanley Kubrick has truly made the Book of Nature onto film.  Using powdered silver nitrates, that are then glued onto a strip of plastic, and then projected onto the movie screens of our mind, Kubrick has proven himself to be the ultimate alchemist-artist of the late 20th century.”  Jay Weidner.

Despite clearly being on the inside (and obviously a Hollywood ‘illusionist,’) Kubrick’s films have told us more about the hidden, global bankster agenda, than any other Hollywood endeavour, albeit largely in the form of allegory and metaphor.  Was Kubrick’s decision to enact a form of disclosure, to hide hidden clues, hidden meanings in his work, prompted by guilt or some twisted, dark sense of humour?  Did he become a prisoner of an industry that he once loved, and decided to articulate the things he came to see and understand?

There are those that believe Stanley Kubrick was killed by the bankster-Illuminati for revealing too much about the secret society in his final film ‘Eyes Wide Shut.’  While his official cause of death was listed as cardiac arrest (certainly not shocking for a 70 year-old man,) some researchers point to the preponderance of Illuminati symbolism in his films, his clean bill of health prior to dying, and the strange editorial takeover of the film before its release as evidence there was more going on than initially meets the eye.

Believers of this theory, many of whom also believe that Kubrick was enlisted by the US government to produce the faked Moon landings, view the prevalence of Illuminati symbols in his films as more than just the result of unconscious archetypes. They are evidence that Kubrick himself was a part of the Illuminati, and was using his films as a vehicle for communication with outsiders, as way to reveal the existence of a globalist conspiracy.  Indeed, many if not all of his films, including ‘The Shining,’ ‘2001,’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange,’ are full of Illuminati symbols, most notably the ‘one eye’ symbol.

The ubiquitous ‘one eye’ symbol and the pyramid shape, often seen in popular culture indicate strong evidence that the world’s major celebrities are puppets of the Illuminati.

However, if Kubrick’s body of work is rife with Illuminati symbolism, his final film ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ is the climax. Not only is this film about a mysterious, perhaps murderous, secret society, it is drenched in allusions to the New World Order cabal.  Occult symbols such as the pentagram can be found throughout the film, as well as multiple references to rainbows and looking glasses, which are notoriously used to evoke ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and the cultural brainwashing of MK-ULTRA and other CIA operations.

Eyes Wide Shut, the phrase itself, is a calling card among secret societies, meaning ‘my eyes are shut to your misdeeds, brother.’ This anonymity is required of the participants, otherwise the society’s moneyed elite would be revealed.  As one character in the film says, “If I told you their names I don’t think you’d sleep so well.”

Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising evidence for Kubrick being murdered by the Illuminati is the events surrounding his death.  Kubrick had no history of heart disease in his family and was very healthy prior to his passing.  More importantly, he died only days after submitting the first cut of the film to Warner Brothers at which point, the film was commandeered by them and heavily edited.  At the time, the editing was attributed to the need to mask out the hard-core sexual imagery in the orgy sequence, yet edits to the film regarding sexuality were very minor.  It is difficult to believe that so much energy would be invested into editing images that displayed sexual deviance no more lascivious than the vast majority of Hollywood films of today.

Is it possible that this scene and others, originally contained images and/or dialogue that revealed the New World Order in a way that was dangerous to their security?  Was Kubrick trying to ‘out’ the secret society, or at least ‘mess with their heads’ in some way?

Regardless, it is worth noting that Stanley Kubrick’s wife has gone on record at least once claiming that she does not believe that Kubrick died from a heart attack.  So perhaps it is no coincidence that Kubrick passed exactly 666 days before 1st January 2001 the first day of the year in which his most famous film takes place and symbolically, the first day of the 21st century.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top