Latest / UK Column Radio / Massimo Mazzucco on the Apollo Missions and Hasselblad Technology | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Massimo Mazzucco on the Apollo Missions and Hasselblad Technology | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. The 2017 film American Moon is
0:42
incredible, and I think it's probably the most brutal
0:48
critique of the Apollo mission that I've that I've ever seen.
0:54
Well. I would say it's very complete
0:56
in that usually when you when, when so-called conspiracy
1:03
theorists like myself, when they make a film about the Moonhawks
1:08
or the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 or any of those, they
1:12
usually put together all the, the things that appear to be
1:15
wrong, but they don't include the answers from those who
1:21
instead maintain that those things are not wrong.
1:24
You know, there was I, I always include also what did the
1:26
bunkers say? The bunkers, the opposite of
1:28
myself. I am the conspiracy theorist in
1:31
quote that the bunker is the one who defends the official
1:34
version, the pro NASA people in this case.
1:37
I always include also their point of view and then I
1:40
counterpoint whatever they say. So in this sense it is more
1:43
complete and leaves really no room.
1:46
There's no wiggling room at that point for arguing any further at
1:49
each of those points. I'm guessing you were around
1:53
when the event happened. I wasn't born yet, but can you
1:56
remember what you were doing at the time?
2:00
You're going to be surprised. I was born on July 20, 1954.
2:07
So on the night of in Italy, it was night on July.
2:11
On the night of July 20, 1969, I was turning 15.
2:16
Not only that, but for the first time in my life as just as the
2:20
astronauts where I could see I was in a little beach side beach
2:23
side town in Italy as I could see the little television set
2:27
with all the people crowded around.
2:29
I kissed a girl for the first time on that night.
2:32
So to me, that event was like the universe sent me a message
2:39
and the universe said, this is for you Massimo, your birthday,
2:42
your first kiss, the moon landing, it's all for you.
2:46
I mean, I always connected that particular moment of my own
2:49
personal life with that event. Unfortunately, what happened
2:53
later, I became a professional photographer and when I ended up
2:57
seeing this, all the pictures that NASA put online of of the
3:02
of the Apollo missions with the eye of the professional
3:05
photographer, things changed quite, quite a lot.
3:09
Tell me a little bit about your background.
3:12
I've been a fashion photographer for I started off by pure chance
3:17
with one of the most famous photographers in the world.
3:20
His name was. He just passed away last year.
3:23
Oliviero Toscani is the guy who made the the famous Benetton
3:27
campaign, United Colors of Benetton all around the world.
3:30
There's only one famous campaign he's worked for like the top
3:33
magazines in the in the Seventies, 80s and 90s.
3:36
I was lucky enough to become his assistant.
3:38
And so I learned the trade without knowing he was so
3:41
famous. I just happened to meet him and
3:43
he happened to like me and he just took me on as an assistant.
3:46
And you know what, that kind of coincidence that only after you
3:49
realized they changed my life because I then became a
3:52
professional photographer for about 2530 years.
3:58
Then I moved to LA because, to Los Angeles, because I wanted to
4:01
make films. I made a few films in my life,
4:03
feature films. And then let's say the third
4:07
part of my life starts after 2001, after 911.
4:12
After that, I, I, I moved to information on the Internet.
4:16
I let go on the on the filmmaking side.
4:19
I still write screenplays for people, but basically I, I let
4:22
go on the filmmaking side and I started making documentaries
4:26
about the issues that I mentioned before.
4:28
Like for example, the Kennedy assassination, the Robert
4:32
Kennedy assassination, the, the true history of marijuana, the
4:36
forbidden cures for cancer. Anything that has to do with
4:42
divisive issues or, or contradictory issues, I'm there
4:46
to explore. So I am naturally attracted to
4:50
wherever you see that that might be a big lie that the system has
4:54
been telling us. And of course you have the the
4:56
Kennedy assassination, the 2000, the 9/11, so-called terrorist
5:02
attacks and the moon landing are the three major hoaxes in that.
5:07
I think that they have we have had in the last 50 years or 60
5:11
years. What made you question the moon
5:14
landing? As I said, normally my my
5:19
conspiracy theorist mentality would bring me to to to analyse
5:24
anything with suspicion, but in this case it was the
5:26
professional background. When NASA up until the, the year
5:31
2000, I was fully convinced that we went to the moon and there
5:35
was no doubt about it, even though I was already a so-called
5:39
conspiracy theorist. But then when NASA put online
5:42
all the, all the 6000 pictures of the, the, the, the Apollo
5:46
missions and I could see them in detail, I could find, I was
5:52
finding in those pictures exactly the same problems and
5:56
the same mistakes that I would encounter when I as a
5:59
photographer was trying to replicate, for example, a beach
6:03
in a studio. As a photographer, sometimes
6:06
you're asked to go to, to the Maldives or to the Bahamas to do
6:10
a bathing suit catalog. When the client has no money,
6:13
they ask you to do it in the studio.
6:15
What you do in the studio is you get a huge sandbox, you know,
6:18
like 5 meters by 5 meters. You, you, you erect this
6:22
transparent screen behind and then you, you, you project an
6:26
image of the sea of the beach behind.
6:29
So you have the sand, the beach and the, and the sea and it
6:32
looks, everything looks very real.
6:33
You just put a model in the middle, shine a big strong light
6:39
on her and fake it like, like if you, you were in the Bahamas.
6:44
For to the regular eye, you cannot see the see the
6:47
difference. I mean, if I showed anybody
6:49
who's not an expert photographer, he would think
6:51
that that picture was taken on the beach for the professional.
6:55
There's a lot of problems that you can tell and that you cannot
6:59
get rid of. And namely, and mostly the fact
7:02
is when you have the sandbox, the sandbox at some point ends
7:06
when you erect the screen for the projection.
7:08
So you have this continuous line of sand that goes around your
7:12
pick across your picture from left to right.
7:14
And there's no way to have a continuation of that sand into
7:17
the beach that's really projected behind.
7:20
So you, you can, there's this horizontal line.
7:23
I started looking at the pictures of, of the Apollo
7:25
missions and I, I noticed that 99% of those had the same
7:29
problem with the sand. The sand in the foreground ends
7:32
and then the background is far away normally is even a little
7:36
bit of a different color. And it, there's no continuation
7:40
between front and, and, and, and, and back.
7:43
And that's, that's a real, that's a real red flag.
7:45
So I called, actually when I saw those, I called my mentor,
7:49
Olivier Rotoscani, and I asked him, I said, Olivier, what do
7:53
you think the first time you ever saw the the Apollo
7:56
pictures? And he told me, and I quote him
7:58
literally he told me, he said, had they given the job to me,
8:02
have they given it to me, I would have done a much better
8:05
job. This is the point of view of the
8:08
professional photographer. Every professional photographer.
8:12
I've shown these the the lunar pictures too, and you can see
8:16
them on the film. They're interviewed in the film.
8:18
They all tell you this is not possible with just the sunlight.
8:21
We are not on the moon, we are in a studio.
8:24
That's what made me do the film. But you also spoke to a number
8:30
of professional photographers, yes, who all completed the same
8:34
thing. Yes, as I said, they're all
8:37
interviewed in my film. There's five of them and they
8:39
all say the same thing. This is not this.
8:42
Lighting is not possible unless you have extra lighting behind
8:45
you, unless you have panel reflectors.
8:47
All stuff that on the moon they did not have on the moon.
8:51
The pictures are supposed to be taken with only the sunlight as
8:54
a source of light and nothing else.
8:57
Any reflection that you may have in in the shadows has to be from
9:01
a natural reflection from the ground and that kind of
9:05
illumination in the shadow parts of the land, for example, It's
9:09
absolutely impossible unless you have, unless you have extra
9:12
lights next to you that shine light in the shadow area of the
9:16
limb. Then you can balance the front
9:18
light and the backlight. I mean, it's very technical.
9:20
I try to explain it to the best of my possibility in the film,
9:24
but there's absolutely no way that those pictures are taken
9:27
just with the sun. There are additional lighting
9:31
used, original reflectors and that tells me that we are in a
9:34
studio and not on the moon. If I'm correct, they apparently
9:39
used Hassleblood, so Hassleblood themselves would have designed
9:43
the cameras. Is there an official argument
9:46
that they've made or NASA has made?
9:49
Yeah, it is official they used Acerbloods.
9:51
It's not a secret. They asked Acerblood to to give
9:56
them cameras. That the only change.
9:58
The only change though in the in the cameras was the magazine in
10:01
the back was thicker than a regular magazine for film.
10:05
A regular film takes 12 or 24 shots at the most.
10:10
They made, they ask Kodak to make a thinner layer for, for
10:15
the film and they made a very large magazine.
10:17
So each, each magazine would actually carry 200 shots.
10:21
So they wouldn't have to change and might be changing magazines
10:23
every time. But that's, that's about the
10:25
only. And the second change that they
10:27
made the modification to the camera was that the trigger for,
10:30
for you to shoot, which in the regular camera is a very little
10:33
button that you press with your finger because they had gloves
10:37
that are very, very cumbersome. They had a very big square thing
10:40
that you would have to push or you wouldn't miss it.
10:43
But for the rest, it's the regular Hasselblaze, which I
10:46
remember using when I was an assistant and then a
10:49
photographer and they used the same film.
10:52
This is, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the interesting
10:55
part, They use the same exact film that was the official
11:00
professional film in that period of time, 60s and 70s, which was
11:04
the Actochrome film, which I know inside out.
11:07
I mean, I can see an Actochrome picture and tell you exactly
11:10
what's wrong with it. If it's possible to shoot that
11:13
with or without lighting. I know that film like the bread
11:17
I eat every morning the same, you know?
11:19
Yeah, I I would shoot 2300 rolls a day of that film in my career.
11:23
So I know exactly what it does. And of obviously also the
11:28
photographers I've interviewed used the same film because
11:30
they're all from my, my, my era. And they all said no, no, with
11:35
this film, it's impossible to get what you get.
11:37
It's like me. I don't know.
11:38
To give you an example, imagine that somebody laps at what's It
11:44
is your Formula One famous race track in South Africa, Kalami
11:52
Kalami. OK, let's say that the record in
11:55
for Formula One in Kalami is one minute, 17 seconds.
11:59
And suddenly I show up with a little regular 500 Fiat and I
12:04
tell you that I do the lap in 1.2.
12:06
OK, this is like you. You would go no, there's no way
12:11
because I know Formula One what they do.
12:13
I know they do 117 and you can tell me you can do maybe 125 but
12:17
not one O 2. OK, forget it.
12:19
This is the distance for a professional from what you see
12:23
on on the pictures and what you should be getting.
12:26
This is totally different. And not just that, the
12:29
photographs that we see, they're beautiful.
12:32
They're incredibly positioned and the lighting is perfect and
12:36
everything is magnificent. The composition is one of the
12:41
issues that the acid blood does not let you get away with for
12:45
for for easily. The hassle blood has what is
12:48
called a reflex mirror. You meaning when you shoot with
12:51
the hassle blood, you have it on your chest.
12:53
You look down and the picture is actually upside down.
12:56
So you have to move right if you want to aim left.
12:59
You have to move down if you want to aim.
13:00
And it's very difficult. It's very confusing.
13:03
The astronauts could not look into this, this mirror into into
13:07
this viewer because of the helmet.
13:10
So what they did is they just fixed the cameras to their chest
13:13
and they're pointing straight. So they actually have to move
13:15
around with their chest in order to aim.
13:18
I'm telling you, I would not have had a better aim doing that
13:22
by hand that they do have with the chest.
13:25
I mean, it's one of the miracles, let's call it one of
13:28
the miracles of the of the Apollo pictures, since they're
13:32
almost all perfectly framed. I mean, perfectly.
13:36
Not too low, not too high, not too left, not to right.
13:38
OK, so that's one of the problems.
13:40
But if you want to get, if you want to know one thing that
13:45
tells me for sure and absolute sure that those pictures are not
13:49
taken in the moon, I can get into that if you want.
13:51
You tell me. OK, yes, you need to know a
13:55
little bit of background first. When I was an assistant, the
13:58
problem is X-rays and radiation damage to the film.
14:02
When I was an assistant once we were on a trip, all the films
14:05
that we have been shot in a week, they're all going a
14:07
special suitcase when you come home, a special metal suitcase.
14:11
And you're absolutely not supposed to put that suitcase
14:14
through the X-rays of the airport because it ruins the
14:17
film. We were in a hurry.
14:19
I the, the plane was leaving, everybody was screaming.
14:21
I made the mistake of putting through the, through the X-rays
14:25
not only the the camera case, but also the film case.
14:28
I heard the scream from the photographer say you F crazy
14:31
man, what are you doing? Obviously all the all the work
14:35
was practically ruined. They could probably save they
14:40
they could probably use only one or two pictures out of each
14:44
role. The the inner part of the role,
14:46
which had been hit less with X-rays from the machine was
14:50
still usable. But basically the whole job was
14:53
was thrown away. I was fired.
14:54
It was a big, big scandal. This is the background that you
14:57
need to know. That was for one or two seconds
15:01
into an X-ray machine, out in space, out of outside the
15:05
atmosphere, outside the Van Nalen belts.
15:08
What you have is AX rays, of course, very strong cosmic rays,
15:15
alpha rays, gamma rays, delta, I mean EV, you name it, they're
15:19
all there. The rain of particles that
15:23
should be hitting that film, it's unbelievable.
15:28
And they did not go out with the camera for a moment and go back
15:32
in. They stood out in the rain, in
15:35
the radioactive rain for 8 hours consecutive.
15:38
So that film should be completely obliterated by
15:42
radiation or you would be able to, at least at the best case
15:46
scenario, you would see possibly a little bit of a shade.
15:49
No, as you said, they're perfect.
15:51
They're studio perfect. If you look into the black part,
15:54
like, you know, look at your own image around your head is
15:58
perfect black right now. OK, in that black, If you were,
16:02
if if that was filming, you were exposed to radiation, it was
16:05
exposed to radiation, you would have all kinds of little blue
16:08
and green dots all over the place.
16:10
It would be very grainy. They're perfectly pitch black.
16:13
That alone tells me that that film has never been outside the
16:18
atmosphere. That alone I don't need anything
16:20
else because I know from personal experience what happens
16:23
to film when you're exposed to X-rays.
16:25
So that alone, for me, it's if. If you need one argument only,
16:30
that's the one for me. But let me play devil's
16:33
advocate. Could it be argued that they
16:35
specifically designed the film and the cameras for this
16:39
purpose? You you're not being a devil
16:41
devil's advocate because this this option has been brought up.
16:46
Of course the answer is no. Not only Acebel will tell you
16:49
they did not design anything to protect from radiation, but
16:54
there is no way to protect from radiation.
16:57
To protect a camera from radiation you would have to have
17:00
a like a three inch thick piece of pyombo come and see the lead.
17:08
Sorry, you have to have a cover the camera with lead with when
17:11
you go to get an X-rays and they put on your on your they they
17:14
they cover you the parts that tend not to be X-rayed, they
17:17
cover you with this very heavy that's lead.
17:20
That's the kind of cover you would need around the camera to
17:23
protect them, even though partially from radiation and
17:27
still not for 8 hours. I mean, when you go X-rays,
17:32
that's it. It's one second, two seconds.
17:34
And for that they give you this much lead.
17:37
So no, the answer is no. Not only it's impossible, but
17:40
they didn't, they didn't even try.
17:42
It's, it's a, it's an issue that they completely overlooked.
17:47
No, but they didn't think that one day a photographer would
17:49
say, excuse me, where's the damage from radiation?
17:52
Oops, you know, too late. They used an an extra Chrome
17:57
film, didn't they? And not only did it withstand
18:01
quote UN quote the radiation, but it also withstood the
18:04
temperature changes. Oh, that's another problem.
18:08
That's another problem. I can not only the film, the
18:10
film would would it's called brittle when when it's too cold,
18:16
the film the the the film support, which is a gelatin
18:21
should become like brittle like like like glass.
18:23
It breaks if you if you shoot and then rewind the film breaks
18:28
if it's too cold. It happened to me on a regular
18:31
Nikon camera on a regular film which is thicker than what they
18:34
had at let's say 10° below 0. I'm talking Celsius.
18:40
I don't know Fahrenheit, but Fahrenheit is 30.
18:43
Do you have Fahrenheit? No, no, we we don't work in
18:46
Fahrenheit. Yeah.
18:47
OK, OK, then in Celsius I was -10 and my film kept breaking.
18:52
I could not shoot -10 on the moon.
18:56
You have -100 in the shade and you have +100 in the sun.
19:03
That means when the camera moves to the sun, you have a 100°
19:08
centigrades hid in the camera, which should melt the film.
19:12
When you move into the shade, you drop from plus 100 to -100
19:17
You could not even look at that film without breaking it.
19:21
Furthermore, the camera itself should stop working because the
19:25
the hazard blood, especially the hazard blood, there's such a
19:28
delicate mechanism that's so precise and so accurate that the
19:33
dilatation. How do you say?
19:36
The dilation. Dilation.
19:40
When it expands. Yeah, it expands.
19:43
What do you call it? Yeah, dilation.
19:46
Dilation, OK, when you go into the heat, all the little
19:50
mechanisms should dilate enough that it stops.
19:53
And again, it happened to me and when I was in the cold, not only
19:56
does the film break, but the camera does not move anymore
19:59
because the mechanics inside shrink and, and, and they don't
20:03
touch anymore. They don't.
20:04
They don't work anymore, so. That's another argument that,
20:08
but that again is more debatable because they can always say and
20:13
they have said, they try to say, oh, but we are in the, in the,
20:17
in the void. In the absence of atmosphere.
20:20
The, the, the heat doesn't, doesn't transmit that fast like
20:24
it does on Earth, which is true, but it still does.
20:27
It still does. And even though it's just, it's
20:30
not by radiation, it's only by contact.
20:33
But the film inside does touch the reels of the camera and the
20:38
wheels and the and the wheels touch the camera.
20:40
So if the camera is 100°, after one or two minutes, the whole
20:45
inside mechanics of the camera will also be 100°.
20:49
So that's really not a counter argument either.
20:53
In terms of the cropping of the photos, could it be argued that
20:57
they took very large photos and then cropped down so that we
21:01
have a a beautifully composed image?
21:05
No, because they show actually on when we put them online they
21:08
show the actual scans with the entire film is a 70mm film which
21:13
is used also for cinema for used to be used for cinema for big
21:18
big effects. Usually it's 35mm which is this
21:21
high. This was 70mm.
21:24
This this large. They also show you the
21:26
perforation behind. So when they went to do the
21:29
scans, not only do they show you the actual or framing, but you
21:33
see all the perforation behind. So we know that there is no
21:36
extra image there. Big part of the whole of the
21:40
whole Apollo mission was the Van Allen belt, which I forget the
21:44
name now of the one astronaut in your film who couldn't even
21:47
remember if they went through it or not.
21:50
That's really shocking. Alan Bean from Apollo 12.
21:56
He was interviewed by Barty Braille, who is a very famous
22:01
Moon Moon Hawks. Yeah, he was on my show a few
22:05
weeks ago. Oh, OK, Well.
22:08
He interviewed him. He pretended, of course, to be
22:10
all pro NASA and all pro, you know, celebrating the the
22:13
successor. The guy was very relaxed.
22:16
And at some point Sibrel asks him, what was it going through
22:20
the vanillin belts. And Alan Bean is like, I don't
22:25
think we went as as far high as to cross the vanillin belts.
22:28
I don't remember. This is when you know that the
22:33
guy not only is lying about having been to the moon, having
22:37
gone to the moon, but he's so relaxed that it actually lets
22:40
out something that he should have never let out.
22:43
But he. Could he could have just had
22:45
memory loss because of age? Surely.
22:47
Well, that's the argument that they, they, they.
22:50
But that's not a memory loss. When you say I don't think we
22:53
went far enough to cross them, it's not a memory loss.
22:56
A memory loss would be, I don't really remember crossing them.
22:59
I I don't know how it was, but the assumption is you did cross
23:03
them. OK.
23:04
I mean, you might not remember the experience, which is also
23:07
weird because they were only like the third or fourth or
23:10
fifth person in the humanity to cross them theoretically.
23:14
So they would remember very well that moment because it's not
23:17
something you just forget. But anyway, he does.
23:19
It's not a memory loss. And on the rest of the
23:21
interview, he's very technical, very accurate, very sharp.
23:25
So this argument also doesn't stand because it's really a a
23:30
slip of, you know, Frondian's lip.
23:31
He's relaxed. He just says what he's taking in
23:34
that moment without thinking. Oh my God, am I just admitting
23:37
that we never went to the moon? Yes, we are, Sir.
23:39
Thank you. What about the shadows?
23:43
This is often spoken about the the crazy shadows in the
23:47
photographs. OK, here is a one big one big
23:52
misunderstanding that needs to be clarified.
23:55
Many moon hoax or let's call them like that, or many
23:59
conspiracy theories show you pictures of the shadows
24:03
converging in front of you and and very strongly so.
24:07
And they tell you see, you can't have one shadow that goes from
24:10
left to right and one from right to left.
24:12
Obviously there have to be two sources of light.
24:15
Therefore we are not on the moon.
24:17
That is the biggest mistake that we as conspiracy theorists or
24:21
moon hoaxes should never make. When you're looking at shadows
24:25
vertically, meaning forward or backwards in front of the
24:28
camera, perspective comes into place.
24:32
It's like the the rails of of the train, the train rails, the
24:35
rail track, the, the, the train tracks.
24:38
If you, if you stand in the middle of the train tracks, you
24:40
will see them going like this, but they're absolutely parallel
24:43
in fact. And if you see them coming at
24:46
you, you see them diverging, which is also an effective
24:51
perspective. If you move to the side and you
24:55
see the tracks going from left to right, you will see that
24:58
they're perfectly parallel. So the mistake that people
25:02
should not make is judge shadows when they are from the front or
25:06
from the back. When the source is in the behind
25:08
you, so the shadows go in front of you.
25:10
Or when the source is in front of you so the shadows diverge in
25:14
front of you. You should only judge pictures
25:17
that have the sun on the side. In that case, you should see
25:21
parallel shadows on the ground. And if you don't, like in the
25:25
famous picture of Apollo 15, I think when you have one shadow
25:29
from the side going straight like this on the limb, and then
25:33
closer to you, you have stones on the ground that make shadows
25:36
go like this. That's when you know that you're
25:39
looking at the light, at the sunlight, because if you project
25:42
backwards, that direction will take you to a place very close
25:46
to the outside of your frame. That means the source has been
25:50
placed next to the to the picture.
25:53
It's not the sun, it's an artificial light.
25:55
But only you should only judge shadows when the light source of
25:59
light is sideways, most best of all 90°.
26:03
In that case you should expect perfectly parallel shadows, but
26:08
never judge shadows when they are vertically as as good.
26:13
I'm a little bit confused, could you mind?
26:15
Terrifying because the the the the shadows are a lot shorter
26:19
than railway tracks, for example, right?
26:21
So I can understand the perspective of railway tracks
26:23
because they go far into the distance, but shadows are not
26:26
very far. It doesn't make it doesn't
26:29
matter. The angle is the same.
26:30
If you were to project, the shadow ends because the sun is
26:34
at a certain height. So if you have a stone here, and
26:38
the stone is projecting a shadow, obviously because the
26:41
sun is high, the shadow will end at some point.
26:45
If you were theoretically to bring the sun to the zero level,
26:49
your shadow theoretically would be infinite.
26:52
So the fact that it's shorter is only due to the height of the
26:55
source of light. But that source is not next to
26:59
you on the side, it's behind you.
27:02
What you see is actually parallel shadows that appear to
27:06
you to be converging because of the lens and the perspective and
27:10
the example of of the of the rail tracks.
27:12
Even if you cut the, if you don't look at the rail tracks
27:15
all the way to the end, even in the 1st 10 meters of race of
27:19
train tracks, you will see that they're converging.
27:22
So the the distance doesn't really matter, it's the angle
27:25
that matters. OK.
27:27
All right. So then basically the
27:28
photographs with the shadows is not one that we should be
27:31
worrying about. I don't want to name names, but
27:35
there are many, even famous conspiracy theorists who claim
27:40
that because of those shadows converged, therefore there are
27:43
two sources of light. That is absolutely not true.
27:46
The source of light, whether they don't dig those pictures in
27:49
the studio or on the moon, it's always a single light.
27:52
And you can tell very easily because if you had a double
27:54
source, you would have also have a double shadow on each of the
27:58
stones. And there's never a double
28:00
shadow. If you were to see a one stone
28:03
with a double shadow. 1 going this way, One going this way on
28:06
the same object, then you know for sure that they use two
28:09
different sources. But it's never the case.
28:12
The shadow is only single, and that tells you there's only one
28:15
source of light. As a photographer, Massimo, tell
28:20
me a bit about the stars. Should you see stars in the
28:24
background or not? That's another big mistake that
28:28
is made. You know, you see no stars.
28:30
Well, that's because we're in a studio.
28:32
No, you see no stars because you shouldn't see them anyway,
28:36
whether you are on Earth or on the moon by the, the setting
28:40
that you have on the camera, the exposure settings are, are set
28:46
for something that's lit by the sun, the lamb, the other
28:50
astronauts, the ground. They're lit theoretically by the
28:52
sun. So you set your settings on the
28:54
camera, you close the iris and, and, and you, and you have a
28:57
shutter time that's good for to, to, to correctly expose the film
29:01
for that kind of image. It's called exposing for the
29:04
light the the the stars in the distance are so much fainter and
29:10
so much weaker that if you wanted to see them, you would
29:14
have to completely open up the the aperture.
29:16
You could you have to slow down the shutter time so much that
29:20
there is no possibility for you to see to at the same time the
29:23
shadows and the astronaut. So it is absolutely correct that
29:27
you don't see any stars in the pictures whether we are on the
29:31
moon or on in the studio. That's one mistake they did not
29:36
make. And unfortunately it's another
29:37
argument, wrong argument that has been used a lot to prove
29:41
that the pictures are fake. That is not the right argument
29:43
to use. But I mean, even if we remove
29:47
the hustle blood and the photos, that doesn't necessarily mean
29:50
that the whole thing's a hoax. I mean, there's a whole pile of
29:52
stuff that you cover in your form.
29:54
For example the Apollo 15 and the audio delays.
29:58
That is also very telling thing because theoretically, if you
30:02
were communicating between the Earth and the moon, you would
30:04
expect a delay in the answer that you got from the moon.
30:08
If I ask you how are you germ before you can say I'm fine,
30:14
thank you. 2.6 second. I think they have to go go by
30:21
before I can hear you back because it takes my signal, my
30:24
voice to reach you 1.3 seconds. And assuming you respond
30:28
immediately, I would hear it would take another one second
30:33
point 3 to come back. So 2.6 is the minimum time that
30:38
you must have between any question and any answer, any
30:41
direct answer coming from the moon.
30:43
In three or four instances, I found that the that the answer
30:48
comes almost immediately, 0.8 seconds 1.2.
30:53
That means that a that communication did not happen
30:57
between the Earth and the moon and B the astronaut forgot to
31:00
wait 2 seconds before he answered.
31:02
I mean, I would assume that if you do this in the studio, I
31:07
would tell the astronauts 150 times, guys, whatever we tell
31:10
you on the radio, count 3 before you answer because we need that
31:14
delay and they they, they do. At 99% of the cases, you have
31:21
the actual time delay, but in a few cases they don't.
31:25
And those few cases cannot be explained.
31:28
But with a mistake on part of the astronaut and somebody not
31:31
realizing that when they're recording that actually that
31:35
that little thing is missing because when you hear a
31:37
conversation, it, it sounds very normal.
31:40
How are you, Duke Beep. I'm fine, thank you.
31:45
Can you move over to the rock on your left Beep?
31:48
Yes, I can. What do you see?
31:50
I see it all red. Oops, you forgot to wait 2
31:53
seconds. You know, so that maybe maybe
31:56
escape you when when you're doing it and you're not going to
31:58
redo it anyway, so you hope nobody catches on it.
32:01
Well, I spent probably 2 full weeks just listening to each and
32:06
all of the conversations, radio conversations back and forth.
32:10
And I found those 3 instances which nobody can explain their
32:13
this is their problem. The original tapes, the original
32:17
recordings were all put out for sale.
32:19
They were commercialized by NASA through a company called
32:22
Spacecraft Films, which made of the official DVDs of all the,
32:27
all the missions, not only Apollo, but Mercury project, the
32:32
Gemini project. I mean, I, I bought them all.
32:34
I bought like I remember spending like $1000 of DVDs all
32:38
at once to buy the entire collection from NASA, including
32:41
all the Apollo missions in those official DVDs.
32:47
The the the delays are missing, so there's no point now in
32:50
correcting any recording you might have on a server somewhere
32:53
when the DVDs have been distributed and the mistakes are
32:56
in them. What do you think JFK knew?
33:03
He died too early to know. He died in 63.
33:07
He made his speech in 61. We would go to the moon and
33:10
return a man safely back to Earth between the end before the
33:13
end of the decade. That was 19601961.
33:17
I am convinced that up until 19. Sorry, in 1966, so he was
33:24
already dead for two years. At NASA, they were actually
33:28
convinced that they could make it.
33:31
The problems began in 196566 and especially in January 1767, when
33:38
the Apollo 1 capsule caught fire on the ground.
33:43
And during a test it killed, it burned alive actually, 3
33:47
astronauts in them, Grissom, Chaffee and White.
33:51
And after that, the whole program became a big problem
33:56
because you only have two years left to go to the moon.
33:59
So to make it before the end of the decade, like Kennedy said,
34:02
but they had to redesign completely the, the, the, the,
34:06
the, the command module and that itself took a year.
34:09
So you can't add a year to an already extremely tight schedule
34:14
and still make it. I believe that at that point,
34:18
after that problem, they said, guys, we're not going to make
34:20
it. What do we do?
34:21
And because they already had by then an entire system of
34:27
simulation, you could simulate the entire trip except for the
34:31
take off. Then by the entire trip, this,
34:33
let's say this runs lunar voyage to the moon.
34:37
The, the, the going around, the lending, the, they had studios
34:42
to rehearse the movements and everything and coming back, they
34:46
all had it. They could fake, they could
34:49
exercise, they could, I'm sorry, they could train their own
34:51
astronauts on a simulation. Somebody must have said, you
34:55
know, guys, instead of just admitting to the world that
34:58
we're not going to make it, which is going to make us look
34:59
very bad, let's use the simulations which are so well
35:03
done and nobody will know the difference.
35:06
And they went for that. They took the chance and it
35:08
worked. That's my opinion.
35:11
You mentioned the rocket, now what do you think happened on
35:14
the day? Oh, my conviction is that they
35:18
actually do take off. They get in the, in the, in the,
35:20
in the, in the module. They do take off.
35:23
Normally they're going to orbit, but then instead of shooting off
35:27
to the moon and staying away, they stay in orbit for seven
35:30
days. They grow their beard a little
35:32
bit and they just come back when it's time to come back and they
35:36
go, oh, we went to the moon. So all the parts that we don't
35:39
see, they didn't do. We see the shooting of the
35:43
rocket, they're going into orbit.
35:44
That part we see, and we see them coming back with the
35:47
parachutes and everything. But what they did in those seven
35:50
days we don't see in in in live television unless they send a
35:55
recording of prerecorded scenes that was actually done in the
35:59
studio and they tell us it wasn't the moon, which is what I
36:01
think had happened. Another really funny aspect of
36:04
the moon landing is the actual lunar module.
36:07
I mean, it looks like a tin can. It is tin can, believe me.
36:15
It's, it's, I mean, with all the money they spent, it's not so
36:21
much it has to be light by design because it has to be very
36:25
light, OK, but the, the details and they're so badly made.
36:31
I mean, you have this Scotch tape everywhere attaching little
36:34
pieces of aluminum foil. It's like the thing you use in
36:38
the kitchen to, to, to cook. And it's all attached by, by,
36:42
by, you know, it seems like in the last minute somebody says,
36:44
oh, there's a piece missing there.
36:45
Just to stick a piece there and make it look like those limbs
36:51
looked good for 40 years because all you could see was pictures
36:57
printed like in Life magazine, in Time magazine, in any
37:00
National Geographic. But there were prints.
37:03
The lamb was pretty small. The detail you couldn't see.
37:07
But once the NASA, NASA put online the high definition
37:11
cameras and you can zoom in, you can see every little detail of
37:15
that lamb. That's when you, you are, you
37:18
can't be that sloppy. You can't be that slop.
37:21
I mean Scotch tape everywhere attaching things just otherwise
37:25
you feel like they're going to be falling apart.
37:26
It's really terrible to look at. It's sad.
37:29
What they did probably is they, they thought, well, it's never
37:31
going to be. You're not going to be able to
37:33
see it. Back in the 60s, they didn't
37:35
know that we were going to have high definition Internet
37:40
distribution of these pictures. They had no idea.
37:43
All they knew is that a few selected chromes would be sent
37:48
to magazines that would reproduce them, and you couldn't
37:50
really see anything. If you look at that old cover of
37:54
Life magazine, we landed on the moon and you see the lamb in the
37:56
back. It's a little thing like that.
37:58
You can't see any details. All the details that we
38:01
discovered by analyzing the high definition pictures, they're not
38:04
visible in the original distributions that they made for
38:07
magazines. The lunar module would have
38:09
required all sorts of heating because it would have been cold.
38:14
What about food, toiletry functions?
38:17
How does it actually land and how does it actually take off?
38:22
Well, theoretically it has one engine for take off and 1 engine
38:26
for landing. This The module is divided in
38:29
two parts. It has one engine writing
38:32
basically inside the lamp itself, the astronauts actually
38:35
sit on the departure engine. And then there's the part with
38:39
the legs that has another motor, another engine.
38:42
That is the landing part. Theoretically, it makes sense in
38:47
practical. In practical ways, it's, I
38:50
think, I imagine it's very difficult for an an object to
38:55
take off vertically with only one rocket in the middle.
39:00
I mean, you have to balance that thing because if it only goes
39:03
off a little bit, it flips and you're dead and the two
39:07
astronauts are actually standing inside.
39:11
So I don't know what kind of sensitivity you need to have to
39:14
drive that thing up straight without even tilting it a little
39:17
bit, because then you flip over and and it's the end of the
39:23
mission and it's the end of your life.
39:25
So it has been said it it's like putting an egg on on top of a of
39:31
a pencil. You take a pencil and you try to
39:33
balance an egg. OK, that's the level of
39:35
difficulty. But theoretically that can be
39:38
done. So it's not, I've not used it as
39:41
an argument against the, the the missions because theoretically
39:46
he they're good, they're good. So you have to believe that.
39:50
But Massimo, we know that they went because there's the
39:53
American flag flying on the moon.
39:56
And this is another fake, wrong argument.
40:00
Again, you have to be very careful because the the debate
40:02
has become so sophisticated that you need to know exactly.
40:08
When you see a a a debunking documentary like a Popular
40:11
Mechanics or one of those guys that says the conspiracy
40:15
theorist tells, tells you that the flag is moving, but it's
40:18
really moving because the astronaut is moving.
40:20
And then they show you the parts where the flag moves and the
40:23
astronaut is touching the the stick.
40:25
So obviously that movement can be due to the fact that the
40:28
astronaut is moving the flag. There are three instances,
40:32
however, in which the flag moves, which I found two of
40:35
them. I found one somebody else had
40:37
found before me in which the flag moves without anybody even
40:42
being near the flag. In one case, even the two
40:47
astronauts are already inside the lamb right getting ready for
40:52
departure. The flag is outside and suddenly
40:55
with nothing happening in in the in the shots for 10 minutes,
40:59
suddenly you see this flag going like this and then out of the
41:04
frame again three times in in in the span of two minutes.
41:10
What caused that movement? Which is first because the the
41:14
bunkers will tell you no, it's actually they're testing the
41:16
Rockets. So the air has been exposed.
41:19
Move the flag. No, because the flag comes into
41:22
frame. I mean, I'm looking at your
41:23
frame. So I hope it is right into frame
41:25
first stays and then goes out again, then into frame first.
41:30
So what brings it into frame first?
41:33
We don't know. There has to be some kind of
41:35
current and other instances when an astronaut passes by near the
41:38
flag, but at least 1 1/2 meters away from it, and after he's
41:43
passed, the flag moves a little bit.
41:47
Nobody touched that flag. And the third instance is Apollo
41:50
16, when they do the famous jump and when one guy jumps and the
41:53
other one shoots him jumping and the flag is on the side when
41:57
they switch positions and still and again they're very far away
42:01
from the flag itself. The flag goes like that and
42:03
moves when they when they go by. In these three cases, there is
42:06
no explanation unless there's air on the set.
42:10
And again, the photographs were perfect.
42:15
Oh, all of them. Even Even the guy jumping is
42:18
perfectly framed. I mean, I'm telling you as a
42:20
photographer, as an Hasselblad photographer, I would have a
42:25
hard time making that perfect composition with the view
42:29
Finder, let alone without. But gay, you know, you can
42:34
always say they've been very lucky for 6000 times out of
42:37
6000, which is the number of pictures taken on the moon.
42:41
The simulation, as you said earlier, was so good that even
42:47
people who worked for NASA themselves couldn't tell the
42:49
difference. Exactly 1 argument that is made
42:53
usually is how can you think that 400,000 people were
42:57
involved in a project and some of them would have talked and
43:02
certainly you know, you can't keep 400,000 people quiet on the
43:05
secrets of this size. Of course you can't, that is
43:09
correct. But nobody says that all 400,000
43:12
people had to be aware of the scam.
43:15
All it takes was the astronauts themselves.
43:18
Of course, the the big echelons up, up on top of of NASA and the
43:24
crews that made the films, but we're talking about 50-60,
43:28
seventy people at most. And it's not difficult to keep a
43:32
secret with those people. The when you see those images
43:37
of, of the, the, the NASA operation center at at Cape, I
43:43
don't remember what was it called in Houston.
43:45
They, they're actually looking on the monitor and they see,
43:50
they receive the first images of the first walk on the moon and
43:54
everybody cheers and everybody lights their cigars and they go,
43:58
hey, you know, they go high 5 and all that.
44:01
Those people, the NASA employees, are the first ones to
44:04
be duped. They believe that they're
44:09
looking at their own astronauts on the moon when in fact they're
44:12
receiving a feed from somewhere of a prerecorded scene.
44:17
So you understand? So they are the first victims of
44:22
the hoax. They're not conspirators.
44:24
All of them. Only very few people need to
44:27
know. The rest it's victims.
44:30
It was Buzz Aldrin who, on a late night show a few years ago,
44:36
corrected the the show host by saying no, no, no, you didn't
44:40
see us land, you saw simulation. Well, that is true.
44:46
No, that is correct. You don't see the landing.
44:49
Never. What you do see on television is
44:51
a simulation. That's a given because nobody's
44:54
there to film you while you're landing.
44:57
The only images of the landing are those taken from inside the
45:01
module. The, the, the command module.
45:03
The lamps are, you know, the command module.
45:08
No, the lamp again, sorry. The lamp inside the lamp and you
45:11
can see in POV, you can see approaching the moon, but that's
45:15
only after they come back and they developed the film and
45:20
they, they, they show it that you can, they can show you what
45:23
the landing was like as they were doing it.
45:25
But at in, in lifetime, yes, we all were seeing a simulation,
45:30
but that's not a, that's not a big surprise.
45:34
There was no one on the moon waiting for them to arrive.
45:36
We're pointing the camera at the sky.
45:38
So obviously that is a simulation.
45:41
On a geopolitical level, why? Why would they have pushed this
45:47
and why would the Soviets have said nothing?
45:52
Why would they push it? It seems pretty clear to me it's
45:56
a matter of gaining the upper hand in a race to space in which
46:01
Americans have always been behind from the beginning.
46:05
The Russians were the first ones to have a satellite in orbit,
46:08
the first one to put a man in orbit, the first one to do
46:11
everything. The reason is actually
46:13
historical and goes back to the end of World War 2.
46:18
The when World War 2 ended, Russia and the United States
46:22
both won and Germany lost. What they did is that the
46:26
Americans took from Germany the rocket scientists that were
46:31
working for, for Hitler von Braun, the leader of them, and
46:35
they took them to America. It's called Operation Paper
46:37
Clip. The Russians didn't take any
46:40
scientists. They took the Rockets themselves
46:43
to Russia to study them because at the time, at the end of the
46:47
war, Germany had the best rockets, the only rockets in the
46:50
world that could go fly and hit everywhere.
46:53
So the advantage the Russians had is that they already had the
46:56
technology in their hands. All they need to do is develop
47:00
it, copy it and do it. And that's why they were ahead
47:03
in the race to space in America. The team of scientists, they had
47:06
to put up a whole entire NASA from from the roots to end by
47:12
the time they were ready, they were always behind.
47:15
The reason why the Americans wanted to through the challenge
47:18
to go to the mornings was actually to make even that that
47:22
that offset that they had all the time.
47:26
So they wanted to actually get ahead of Russia and show the
47:29
world that we are the best. Why didn't Russians, the
47:33
Soviets, Why didn't the Soviets denounce the hoax?
47:37
There are at least two good reasons.
47:39
One is everybody saw the moon landing live on television.
47:44
Can you imagine if the Russians, the the, the, the Soviets, the
47:46
guys who just lost the race to the moon, came up and said, oh,
47:50
it's all fake. They would make fun of them.
47:54
So they would call themselves losers.
47:56
Oh, yeah, sure. You didn't see television like
47:58
we did, that you cannot lose a race and then claim that they
48:02
faked it. No, but there's a much more
48:06
important reason than that. Already during the Apollo
48:10
missions, Russians and Soviet astronauts and scientists were
48:16
exchanging projects and information for what would
48:20
become, in 1975, the joint mission in space, the Apollo
48:24
Soyuz mission. They were exchanging
48:26
technologies and not only were they at the scientific level
48:30
connected, but also behind the the curtains to speak behind,
48:35
behind the curtains, the Americans were helping the
48:39
Russians by purchasing their their wheat.
48:42
There. There there was a lot of
48:44
economic help going from America to Russia.
48:47
In that moment, had the Russians called the hoax, they would have
48:52
lost all the technology, all the projects together with America.
48:55
Not only would have lost face because nobody would have
48:57
believed them, but they would have lost all the connections,
49:00
all the technology and all the economic deals that they were
49:03
getting behind closed doors that nobody knew about.
49:08
But now we know about them. So there was absolutely no
49:11
convenience for them to call it in any case.
49:16
Did you see recently Vladimir Putin said that they wanted to
49:21
send astronauts to the moon, to exactly where the US apparently
49:26
landed, so that they could see for themselves if they really
49:29
did land? That's a very nice provocation.
49:35
That's a very nice provocation that that you, you he wants to
49:38
see a probably wants to see, wants to send a a robot, not,
49:43
not a human. Of course.
49:45
Think of this, in 2015 I think, or 12 or 15, Google launched a a
49:54
competition called the X Prize and that would give, I don't
49:58
know how many, $1,000,000 to the first private company that would
50:02
send an automated machine, a little robot to the moon, run
50:08
for at least 500 meters, show the landing sites and send back
50:13
the pictures, the live pictures of the actual landing sites that
50:16
the Apollo missions left behind. Guess what happened, NASA
50:20
claimed a no fly zone for 2 kilometers across each of the
50:27
landing sites with the, with the justification that is for the
50:31
preservation of the historical website.
50:33
Nobody can even get close to that.
50:35
That's how terrified they were that somebody would go and look.
50:39
But I don't think they will because again, all the, the,
50:42
the, all the space agencies across the different nations,
50:47
Japan, China, India, Russia and the states, they're all
50:51
connected. We think we're, we're, we're
50:55
made to think that they're enemies and they're fighting
50:57
for, to win in the race. They're really exchanging
51:01
technology and knowledge at all times.
51:04
And they don't want to break, break that.
51:07
And who knows if if the Russians also the Soviets also have some
51:12
skeleton in the closet that they want to hide and the Americans
51:15
know about. So, you know, it's like, OK, I
51:18
won't call on you and you won't call on me.
51:20
We just keep going. And all the space agencies of
51:23
all the nations I mentioned, they're all happy to receive big
51:26
fundings from their own governments, which fundings
51:31
would immediately end if anybody called the on the other for, for
51:34
fakery. So maybe India is faking her own
51:38
trips to the moon and they're they're ingurgitating that money
51:43
for other purposes, possibly military.
51:45
So black operation, Black Ops. So nobody has interest in
51:50
calling the other one. It's a lie that is convenient
51:52
for everybody to keep as a lie. Except now.
51:58
Except now that Artemis is having so many troubles going
52:03
back to the moon, then people still say, wait a minute, how is
52:06
this possible? 60 years ago, 55 years ago, they
52:09
would go and come back six times in three years with not a
52:12
problem. They would just shoot, go,
52:14
collect, come back like you go to the to the local market.
52:17
And now they can't even get this thing off the off the ramp.
52:20
So now people are starting to doubt because of the
52:23
difficulties that they are experiencing today of going for
52:26
real. That means that most likely they
52:30
could not have gone 55 years ago.
52:33
Do you think they can go? I'm not no, I think I think
52:38
there's a huge problem with the radiation.
52:41
You cannot really put men outside the vanillin belts,
52:44
neither through nor outside the vanillin belts.
52:46
The radiation is too much. They don't have means to protect
52:50
humans from radiation, radiation, cosmic flares, solar
52:55
flares. I mean, it's a suicide sending
52:58
anybody out there with the, the amount of radiation and only the
53:02
only the micro they they call it microcosmic particles, the
53:08
actual particles that travel in space, they travel, they travel
53:11
at 2000 kilometers a second. They can Pierce through any
53:17
object, not only use skull the the entire capsule, they can go
53:21
through through your skull and out the other side of the
53:25
capsule at 2000 kilometers a second.
53:28
You cannot stop those particles whatever you do, and I think
53:32
this is a problem that we're far from solving it.
53:36
So what do you make of Elon's mission to Mars?
53:41
Can I say it in one word? Bullshit.
53:47
Pure simple. What do you make of Elon Musk I.
53:58
Don't like to repeat myself but. You know you, you only know.
54:07
How do they say you only know the the the tree from that far
54:11
the apple folds? Yes, if you say those things,
54:15
you can only be one thing. But do you think that they can
54:19
send robots or probes to the moon?
54:23
Absolutely no problem. And they have.
54:25
They even have before. This is the funny part.
54:28
The the robots you can send because they don't have to
54:30
suffer radiation. They don't have problems with
54:32
radiation. Actually they sent a series of I
54:37
think they were called Explorer 1 and two and three.
54:39
I don't remember the exact names.
54:41
But before the Apollo missions, they surveyed the the landing
54:47
sites, of course, and they had imagery and they used that
54:52
imagery to to do the the simulator to, to be used in the
54:58
simulator. Let's say that the Apollo
55:00
landing site, the landing site of Apollo 15, for example, the
55:03
one with the that big kind of Canyon that goes across.
55:06
OK, it's very, very, everybody remembers that big Canyon.
55:09
OK, that's called Hadley Reel. Let's go.
55:13
They had images of that area from before the Apollo missions,
55:18
and they were so accurate that if you see the fake landing in
55:21
the simulator is practically identical to what you see from
55:27
the window of the lamb in the theoretically real, allegedly
55:31
real landing of Apollo 15. I mean, they're so similar that
55:36
either they're. Oh, unfortunately, this is my
55:40
mother. Remind me the the simulator.
55:44
I'll be back as soon as I can. OK.
55:50
OK. If you look at the images from
55:52
the simulation that are made from from the original images
55:57
retrieved by the by the robots and the actual images from
56:01
inside the lamb of the alleged real landing, they're
56:06
practically identical. Which means either they were so
56:09
good in simulating the fake ground to fake it so perfectly
56:15
that it corresponds in every little hole what you see for
56:18
real, or they use the actual simulation to do the landing so
56:23
they already had the images and that that's because they were
56:26
sending probes to the moon even before the Apollo missions.
56:31
OK, Massimo, I know that we are out of time.
56:35
There is so much to talk about. This is a topic that we could
56:38
spend hours, days, weeks on. Your film American Moon, which
56:43
came out in 2017, is incredible. OK, let me ask, let me give you
56:46
a suggestion. If you want, you can ask your
56:49
audience to send you questions for me.
56:52
And when we do another round, maybe you can read those
56:55
questions to me because I know that when I do this kind of
56:58
interviews, they always tell me, oh, but you have no counterpart.
57:00
So it's really not fair because you're only saying your version.
57:03
So if you want, you can invite questions for me and we do
57:07
another round in a few weeks or so and we can answer those
57:10
questions as well. How's that?
57:12
I would love to do that, but for now, where can they go to find
57:15
your work? Or the film.
57:18
It's on YouTube. It's on YouTube.
57:21
The Italian version is also for sale in a little USB that I said
57:25
but not for for English. I have the English version but
57:28
it's only on YouTube so you'll need to search American Moon
57:31
Masimo Mazzuko. You will not find it on YouTube
57:34
surprise surprise. I suggest you use Google or Bing
57:39
that will take you to the film. The film is actually on YouTube
57:41
but the search for some reason will not bring it up.
57:45
So Massimo Mazzuko, my full name and American Moon English
57:49
version. If it doesn't come up in the
57:51
search in YouTube, use Google or Bing as a search engine and you
57:55
will find it. Massimo Mazuku, thank you for
57:58
joining me in the trenches.