American Moon

by Miles Mathis

First published March 2, 2020

In 2017, Italian director Massimo Mazzucco released the film American Moon, proving once again the Apollo missions were faked. This film is basically a large expansion of the previous 2001 FoxNews film Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Both use Bill Kaysing's book We Never Went to the Moon as a starting point, but American Moon takes it even further than Kaysing did, adding much new research to the argument.

Although I agree that we never went to the Moon, I have always found it curious that a Rocketdyne employee would blow the cover of the project, and that FoxNews would later give his argument legs. After watching American Moon twice, I think I have finally solved that problem. What I think we have here is a rather advanced example of controlling the opposition. All these people know that the American public already knows the Moon landings were faked. So they can only hope to control the response.

Here is the key quote that clued me in:

The reason I believe that NASA and the government faked the Moon landing was basically that it was technically impossible to do it, and they simply had to come up with some sort of alternative that the public would believe.

That is Bill Kaysing himself, at minute 24:00. The same quote is used in the FoxNews film as well. But that is misdirection, since that isn't why NASA faked the Moon landing. They want you to think that is why they faked it, because that is far less damning than the truth: they faked the entire Apollo program in order to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from the treasury, and therefore from you and your parents and grandparents.

As usual, they billed you for things they never delivered and never intended to deliver. The Apollo program was not a failure. Even as a fake, it was a grand success, since it did exactly what it intended to do from the start. That was to suck massive sums from the treasury, using a complicit Congress to do so. This was simply another gigantic conjob upon the American taxpayer.

Even Dave McGowan gets it wrong, in Wagging the Moondoggie. He argues the Apollo fake was meant to keep your eyes off Vietnam. I have seen the counter-argument as well: Vietnam was to keep your eyes off the Apollo con. But they are both wrong again, probably on purpose. BOTH Apollo and Vietnam were suck-from-the-treasury projects, by which hundreds of billions of dollars were stolen from taxpayers for. . . absolutely nothing. The Vietnam War was just as fake as Apollo, but no one seems to see that to this day. And admitting the Apollo fake tends to keep your mind off Vietnam. The Apollo hoax stories, including McGowan's, tend to sell Vietnam as real.

But we don't need to go there in this paper. If we stick to the Apollo conjob, we can see that the point of all these films and exposés is misdirection. You never come out the end of any of them with the proper levels of anger. Somehow, they spit you out at the end just as complacent as you were going in. This is because the authors and narrators never stress the steal at the heart of it, and they never express the magnitude of the crime. They don't connect it to anything else, show the pattern, reveal the criminals, or suggest a solution. The entire history is sold to you as some sort of grand mistake or miscalculation, one you have at last seen through. But it never dawns on you that there is anything you could do about it, or must do lest it continue to happen again and again, to your and your children. They don't point out that the con continues on a daily basis, and that it isn't just your grandparents who were fooled by this.

They are even now stealing more billions from you to pretend to send people to the Moon again. See the Artemis Program, which is already being funded with your federal tax dollars, allegedly to land people on the Moon by 2024. Its projected cost is $35 billion, but of course that will skyrocket over the next few years, and I predict NASA will go 1000% over-budget at least. They have already requested another 1.6 billion for 2020, and we are only two months in. Remember, Apollo cost around $160 billion in today's dollars. Do you really think the fake will be cheaper the second time around?

Of course this entire program will have to be faked, since we don't have the technology to go to the Moon. You should know that, since the Artemis Program is a continuation of the private Artemis Project from 1994. It was going to land people on the Moon by 2002, but of course did not. Wikipedia admits none of this happened because:

low-cost access to space (possibly involving single-stage-to-orbit or two-stage-to-orbit vehicles) had yet to be developed.

That's right, and it has still not been developed. High-cost access has also not been developed, and is not close to being developed. The Artemis Project was a con on its investors, and so is the Artemis Program. Except that this time you are the investor being conned.

Also remember how much you have been billed for the Mars programs, which are also fake. Wikipedia conspicuously fails to tell us how much those cost, but the Curiosity lander alone cost around $3 billion, not including mission costs.

Amazingly, we have confirmation of my thesis straight from American Moon, though it is buried. See minute 7:20, where we are supposed to be hearing an "actual recording" of a conversation between Kennedy and head-of-project Webb. Kennedy winds up the fake conversation by saying

But this looks like a hell of a lot of dough to go to the moon when you can learn most of what you want scientifcally through instruments.

Why do I say that is fake? Because the voice is not Kennedy's voice. Not even close. Did they think we wouldn't notice that this guy has no Boston accent? So they have dubbed Kennedy's part of this conversation in later. Why? Because someone is telling you what I am telling you. This mission wasn't about American pride or a space race or anything else. It was about spending money from the treasury. So some rogue part of US Intelligence later released this fake conversation to make that point. But Mazzucco doesn't stress that part of it, nor does he point out the voice isn't Kennedy's.

At minute 26:00, Mazzucco shows a composite of the top people who have promoted the Moon Hoax argument, and it includes Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, Dave McGowan, David Percy, Jarrah White, Mary Bennett, James Collier, Aron Ranen, James Fetzer, Ronnie Stronge, and Rick Shaddock. That list makes me very uncomfortable as well, since most of those people throw up huge red flags. Note the names Percy and Bennett for a start. Big peerage names. Fetzer I have previously outed. McGowan misdirected mightily on the Manson murders. So, again, we seem to have a lot of people attempting to control the response here. They don't seem to care if you think the Moon landings were fake, but they don't want to stress the criminal element of it. They don't want you to realize the crime is massive, ongoing, and preventable. They don't want you coming to the realization the magnitude of this conjob, added to all the other current conjobs, demands an immediate revolution tomorrow morning.

At minute 29:00 Mazzucco introduces the Moon Hoax debunkers as "people who are absolutely convinced we went to the Moon." But again, this is misstating the case, probably on purpose. Mazzucco goes on to prove beyond any doubt that all of these people are paid liars. There is no possibility they actually believe what they are saying, and that includes MythBusters, Phil Plait, Jim Oberg, Paulo Attivissimo, Jay Windley, and all the rest. So why not just say so? Mazzucco might say he is trying to avoid a lawsuit, but in the US you can't be successfully sued for calling liars liars. See Bill O'Reilly's lawsuit against Al Franken, which not only failed but led to a big payout for Al Franken.

You will say it is because it isn't Mazzucco's style. He figures he can make his point better with calm and reasoned argument, not with calling people liars. But that is just my point. By pretending that these debunkers are earnest but mistaken people, Mazzucco controls your anger and thereby your response. He wants you to believe they aren't lying straight to your face to protect the incredible crimes of their associates and families, they are just disagreeing with you on a question of fact. This is a go-to gambit in most modern debate: frame the debate from both sides as a matter of opinion, rather than one of fantastic levels of criminality.

We see this in almost every subject, for example the question of fluoride. That is always framed as, at worst, a heated debate or a matter of opinion, when it isn't. It is a matter of a heinous crime against humanity perpetrated by one side. Purposely poisoning the public water supply is not a matter of opinion and shouldn't even be up for debate. Any sane judge would decide the question peremptorily in a matter of seconds, and the question would be settled for evermore. Instead, we see both sides of the debate controlled by Monsanto and other evil entities, who also hire their own opposition, as predefined losers. These losers come in and make squishy appeals, instead of stating the case in the terms in which it begs to be stated.

In the next section, around minute 30:00, we are told the Russians wouldn't have blown the cover of the Apollo program due to detente, by which the US and the USSR were working together beginning with the Nixon administration. However, this is again misdirection, since the US and USSR were always working together. The entire Cold War was faked, including the Russian Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, and all the rest. The US and USSR were pretend enemies in that period for the usual reason: to steal money from both treasuries.

You should already know this, since Mazzucco admits that during the 70s and 80s the US and USSR were linking their space programs in Low Earth Orbit. There are many other examples of US and USSR cooperation in these decades, which should seem strange given that Reagan was at the same time calling the Soviets the Evil Empire and asking for a trillion for the Star Wars program to counter their alleged aggression.

Remind yourself that the Russians and Americans were allies up to the end of WWII. And then remind yourself that there was no stated reason for their sudden dislike of eachother beginning in the late 40s. Other than that the CIA willed it to be so. The gay Nazis actors were all on the beaches in Brazil, so we needed a new enemy to justify “defense” budgets. You can't justify trillion-dollar defense budgets without enemies, can you?

In the next section, Mazzucco tells us that 400,000 NASA employees failed to talk for 40 years because they were compartmentalized. Meaning, they didn't know and never figured it out. I don't buy that. I think the answer is behind door number three, as usual. The correct answer is that Modern people are liars and pussies, and it is fantastically easy to find 400,000 of them in the US. We have a population of over 300 million, and of that total, far more than 400,000 are capable of lying straight to your face on any given subject. They have no regard for the truth or for honor, so they will sell out for a very low sum. Most of them will lie for free, since it gives them a thrill. Mazzucco says the question was framed wrong, and he is right. . . but he continues to frame it wrong. Both he and the debunkers feign surprise that 400,000 liars could be found. The debunkers say it isn't possible on the face of it, which is absurd; and Mazzucco counters that they didn't need to lie since they were so ignorant. But I start with a different assumption, based both on my experience with real people over 50 years and on my internet research over the past 20. That is, I am surprised not when people lie, but when they don't. The number of scrupulously honest people as a percentage is not that high, and among NASA employees is probably minimal. The higher up the hierarchy they are, the lower that percentage is, due to the fact that you don't rise in this society by being honest or having scruples. You rise by doing what you are told and keeping your mouth shut. You know that as well as I do, so I don't know why I have to say it.

All Modern arguments about everything, pro and con, proceed on this basic dishonesty. And in this case I don't mean dishonesty regarding specific facts, I mean a fundamental dishonesty people have regarding themselves. They are fooled by the lines of the debate above only because they can't admit to themselves that people are liars, and that a meaningful percentage of people are pathological liars. Meaning, those running this world are not only liars, they are addicted to lying and lie even when the truth sounds better. Their entire lives are wound up in fantastic lies, and depend on huge webs of these lies. But for some reason your average reader can't admit that, and prefers the fiction that people are basically honest. So he falls for the idea that it would be impossible to hire 400,000 liars. He even falls for the idea that it would be impossible to hire a few hundred people to stage a mass murder event. While the sad truth is, a person with enough money could hire most of the 300 million Americans to lie about any given fact. And, in fact, it has been done. Is being done. Most Americans are caught up in the American lie because they have been paid to do so. They have been given a job and a car and a house and other perks to keep them quiet: to keep them from stating simply and directly the truths they know. This is how the revolution is squelched. Most people accept the tribute with the understanding they will keep quiet and not make trouble.

As proof of this, go to minute 35:00 in the film, where Mazzucco tells us the employees at Grumman were building the lunar module in their factories in Long Island. He implies that because they were independent, they didn't know the whole project was a fake. But Mazzucco later shows you the lunar lander was held together with scotch tape. So do you really believe these people couldn't figure out they were part of a fake? They were so ignorant they thought scotch tape would survive a Moon landing? No, they knew exactly what was going on, and they have kept quiet from sheer embarrassment more than anything. Or, the upper levels kept quiet because they profited fantastically from the con, and the lower levels kept quiet because if they had made a peep they would have been fired and blackballed. So they are all liars and/or pussies one way or the other.

Plus, we must assume that some few of these people did quit and did talk, paying the consequences. But do you think their stories were published by the New York Times? Of course not. Their stories were squelched by the controlled media, and the only stories that were allowed to proceed were these controlled opposition stories we have encountered. So when the debunkers claim no one has talked, they are lying again. There are a few honest people who do talk, but the debunkers always overlook them. The debunkers even overlook Kaysing, for Pete's sake. They say that no one talked, but Kaysing was an employee who talked.

Now we are up to minute 39:00, and the bozos at MythBusters make their first appearance. Adam Savage holds up a little plastic orange reflector and says, "What's this?" He says it is a retro-reflector. But most of us would simply call it a reflector. It is a reflector for a fence post or a bicycle, like you put between your spokes. Do you think they just took a big plastic bicycle reflector and threw it on the surface of the Moon? These guys really make my stomach turn, and it is because the show is such an insult to anyone with basic intelligence. They treat their audience like a cast of idiots. Since Mazzucco pretty much proves that point, I won't beat it to death, but he doesn't mention something even more important. I can get you in most quickly by reminding you of Adam Savage's full name: Adam Whitney Savage. His father is Whitney Lee Savage and his mother is Karen Haagensen, both from prominent and famous families. Although the name Whitney is in the given name position with his father, all three names are surnames—as is common with these people. Geni scrubs his maternal side, but we do get the names Slack (Slecht)*, Samuels, Wills, Chamberlain, Austin, Grant, Rogers, Gale, Seager, Abbott, Key, van der Water, and Ritter on his paternal side. This links us to actor John Ritter, among many other people, including all US Presidents. Geni also scrubs the Whitney line, but this leads us to. . . the Vanderbilts. Savage links to the Vanderbilts further back as well, through the van der Waters. Another scrubbing in Adam Savage's genealogy is on the name Knight, which they list as Kight and then stop altogether. But since she also links us to the Newtons, Carsons, Jeffersons, and Franklins, we can walk around this wall. Dorothy Payne Whitney married an Elmhirst, son of a Knight, in 1925. This also links us to the Swifts.

Which leads us to the 275 Savages of the peerage, who re-entered it in around 1615 by marrying the Manners, Earls of Rutland, and becoming one of the first baronets. We just saw the Manners in my last paper. Funny how that often happens. I say re-entered, because the le Savages had been in the peerage back to the time of William the Conqueror. They actually came over from Normandy with him. The second baronet jumped up to Viscount and married a Darcy, daughter of the Earl Rivers. His son became the Earl Rivers when that line died out. He married a Parker whose mother was a Stanley of the Lords Monteagle. The 4th Earl Rivers had only daughters, but his daughter married a Nassau, Earl of Rochford. The Savages also connected themselves to the Barons Langdale in those years, which connected them to the Rhodes/Rodes. The Langdales soon married the Vavasours. The Savages also connected themselves to the Howards, Earls of Berkshire, the O'Briens, Earls of Thomond, and the Breretons, Barons of Leighlin. This connected them to the Gorings, Willoughbys, Cecils and Nevilles.

But most interesting to our current quest is John Savage listed in the peerage, b. 1853. . . from Morgan County, Ohio. This links us to our Adam Savage, since his Savage line at Geni goes straight back to Jackson County, Ohio, in those years. Jackson and Morgan counties are both in the southeast part of the state. In fact, Adam's ancestor Adam Savage died in Meigs Country, OH, in 1849. His siblings were Asahel, Dorcas, and Lovinia. His niece was named Zilpha. Getting the picture? John Savage of the peerage had a son named George who married a Davis, linking us to Campbells and Condons. Savage's daughter then married a Hardesty, son of a Parrish.

OK, what about Jamie Hyneman, the other talking head on Mythbusters? Well, his parents are scrubbed on his Wiki page and everywhere else, never a good sign. He has degrees in literature and Russian linguistics at Indiana University, meaning he was probably tapped for Intelligence. Maybe that's why he wears the beret. A green one would be too obvious, but a black one hides the baldness just as well. He ran a diving charter business in the Caribbean for several years early on, which points in the same direction. Agents often get early assignments in low-level smuggling. He worked on The Matrix, where his fellow techie was. . . Adam Savage. His middle name is Franklin, possibly tying him to Adam Savage by blood. That is just what we would expect here: secret cousins. The first thing I would ask Jamie: what is your mother's maiden name?

Please go to Updates to read the entire essay.
________


Looks like some entity not yet currently identified already has the jump start in space with a $21 trillion advantage while we stared at black and white images of some guy in a complicated-looking space suit "leave the the first foot print on the moon" and called it a "giant leap." That giant leap cost each and every one of us $65,000 or more per person. Look up. Maybe you will see some of that expensive hardware hovering over your house some night.

$21 Trillion dollars is missing from the US government. That is $65,000 per person - as much as the national debt!