Massimo Mazzucco on the Apollo Missions and Hasselblad Technology | Jerm Warfare

0:30I think it's probably the most brutal critique of the Apollo mission that I've ever seen. I would say it's very complete in that usually when so-called conspiracy theories like myself, when they make a film about the Moonhawks or the Kennedy assassination or the 9-11 or any of those, they usually put together all the things that appear to be wrong, but they don't include the answers from those who instead maintain that those things are not wrong. In other words, I always include also what the bunkers say, the bunkers, the opposite of myself, I am the conspiracy theorist in quote, that the bunkers, the one who defends the official version,

1:34the pronasa people in this case, I always include also their point of view and then I counterpoint whatever they say. So in this sense, it is more complete and leaves really no room, there's no wiggly room at that point for arguing any further at each of those points. I'm guessing you were around when the event happened. I wasn't born yet, but can you remember what you were doing at the time? You're going to be surprised. I was born on July 20, 1954. So on the night of, in Italy, it was night. On July, on the night of July 20, 1969, I was turning 15, not only that, but for the first time in my life, just as the astronauts were, I could see I was in a little beach side town in Italy. As I could see the little television set with all the people crowded around, I kissed a girl for the first time on that night. That event was like the universe sent me a message. The universe

2:39said, this is for you, Massimo, your birthday, your first kiss, the moon landing. It's all for you. I mean, I always connected that particular moment of my own personal life with that event. Unfortunately, what happened later, I became a professional photographer. And when I ended up seeing all the pictures that NASA put online of the Apollo missions with the eye of the professional photographer, things changed quite a lot. Tommy, a little bit about your background. I've been a fashion photographer for, I started off by pure chance with one of the most famous photographers in the world. His name was, he just passed away last year, Oliveira Toscani, is the guy who made the famous Beneton campaign, United Colors of Beneton all around the world. There's only one famous campaign. He's worked for like the top magazines in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I was lucky enough to become his assistant and so I learned the trade. Without knowing he was

3:40so famous, I just happened to meet him and he happened to like me and he just took me on as an assistant. I did that kind of coincidence that only after you realized they changed my life. Because I then became a professional photographer for about 25, 30 years. Then I moved to LA because to Los Angeles because I wanted to make films. I made a few films in my life feature films and then let's say the third part of my life starts after 2001, after 2011. After that I moved to information on the internet. I let go on the filmmaking side. I still write screenplays for people but basically I let go on the filmmaking side and I started making documentaries about the issues that I mentioned before. Like for example, the Kennedy assassination, the Robert Kennedy assassination, the true history of marijuana, the forbidden curious for cancer, anything that has to do with divisive issues or contradictory issues,

4:46I'm there to explore. So I am naturally attracted to wherever you see that that might be a big lie that the system has been telling us. And of course you have the Kennedy assassination that took out the 911 so-called terrorist attacks and the moon landing are the three major hoaxes that I think that we have had in the last 50 years or 60 years. What made you question the moon landing? As I said normally by my conspiracy theorist mentality would break me to analyze anything with suspicion but in this case it was the professional background. When NASA up until the year 2000 I was fully convinced that we went to the moon and there was no doubt about it even though I was already a so-called conspiracy theorist. But then when NASA put online all the 6,000 pictures of the Apollo missions and I could see them in detail.

5:49I could find in I was finding in those pictures exactly the same problems and the same mistakes that I would encounter when I as a photographer was trying to replicate for example a beach in a studio. As a photographer sometimes you are asked to go to the Maldives or to the Bahamas to do a bathing suit catalog. When the client has no money they ask you to do it in the studio. What you do in the studio is you get a huge sand box you know like 5 meters by 5 meters. You erect this transparent screen behind and then you project an image of the sea of the beach behind. So you have the sand, the beach and the sea and it looks everything looks very real. You just put a model in the middle, shine a big strong light on her and fake it like if you were in the Bahamas. To the regular eye you cannot see the difference. If I showed anybody who was not an expert photographer

6:50he would think that that picture was taken on the beach. For the professional there's a lot of problems that you can tell and that you cannot get rid of. Namely and mostly the fact is when you have the sand box the sand box at some point ends when you erect the screen for the projection. So you have this continuous line of sand that goes around your picture across your picture from left to right and there's no way to have a continuation of that sand into the beach that's really projected behind. So you can, there's this horizontal line. I started looking at the pictures of the Apollo missions and I noticed that 99% of those had the same problem with the sand. The sand and the foreground ends and then the background is far away. Normally it's even a little bit of a different color and there's no continuation between front and back and that's a real red flag. So I called, actually, when I saw those I called my mentor Olivier Rotoscani and I asked him,

7:51I said, Olivier, what do you think the first time you ever saw the Apollo pictures and he told me and I quote him literally, he told me he said had they given the job to me, have they given it to me, I would have done a much better job. This is the point of view of the professional photographer. Every professional photographer I've shown these, the lunar pictures too and you can see them on the film, they're interviewing the film. They all tell you this is not possible. We just sign like we are not on the moon. We are in a studio. That's what made me do the film. But you also spoke to a number of professional photographers who all come to the same thing. Yes, as I said, they're already interviewed in my film. There's five of them and they also have the same thing. This is not. This lighting is not possible unless you have extra lighting behind you, unless you have panel reflectors, all stuff that on the moon they did not have. On the moon, the pictures are supposed to be taken with only the sunlight as a source of light

8:56and nothing else and a reflection that you may have in the shadows has to be from a natural reflection from the ground. That kind of illumination in the shadow parts of the lamp, for example, is absolutely impossible unless you have extra lights next to you that shine light in the shadow area of the lamp. Then you can balance the front light and the back light. It's very technical. I try to explain it to the best of my possibility in the film, but there's absolutely no way that those pictures are taken just with the sun. There are additional lighting used, additional reflectors and that tells me that we are in a studio and not on the moon. If I'm correct, they apparently used Hasselblad. So Hasselblad themselves would have designed the cameras. Is there an official argument that they've made or NASA has made? Yeah, it is official. They used Hasselblad. It's not a secret. They asked Hasselblad to give them

9:56cameras. The only change though in the cameras was the magazine in the back was thicker than a regular magazine for film. A regular film takes 12 or 24 shots at the most. They made, they asked Kodak to make a thinner layer for the film and they made a very large magazine. So each magazine would actually carry 200 shots. So they wouldn't have to be changing magazines every time. But that's about the only, and the second change that they made, the modification to the camera, was that the trigger for you to shoot, which in a regular camera is a very little button that you press with your finger because they have gloves that are very, very cumbersome, they had a very big square thing that you would have to push or you wouldn't miss it. But for the rest, it's the regular Hasselblad, which I remember using when I was an assistant and then a photographer, and they used the same film. This is, you know, the interesting part. They used the same exact film that was the official, professional film in that period of time,

11:0260s and 70s, which was the actor-crime film, which I know inside out. I mean, I can see an actor-crime picture and tell you exactly what's wrong with it if it's possible to shoot that with or without lighting. I know that film, like the bread I eat every morning, the same, you know, I would shoot two, three hundred rolls a day of that film in my career. So I know exactly what it does. And obviously, also the photographers I've interviewed used the same film because they're all from my era and they all said, no, no, with this film, it's impossible to get what you get. It's like me, I don't know, to give you an example, imagine that somebody laps at, what's your, is your formula one famous restaurant in South Africa? Kailami. Kailami. Okay, let's say that the record for formula one in Kailami is one minute, seventeen seconds. And suddenly I show up with a little regular 500 feet and I tell you that I

12:04do the lap in 1.2. Okay, this is like, you would go, no, there's no way because I know formula one, what they do, I know they do one seventeen and you can tell me you can do maybe one twenty five but not one oh two. Okay, forget it. This is the distance for a professional from what you see on the pictures and what you should be getting. This is totally different. And not just that, the photographs that we see, they're beautiful, they're incredibly positioned and the lighting is perfect and everything is magnificent. The composition is one of the issues that the acid blood does not let you get away with for easily. The acid blood has what is called a reflex mirror, meaning when you shoot with the acid blood you have it on your chest, you look down and the picture is actually upside down. So you have to move right if you want to aim left, you have to move down if you want to aim, it's very difficult, it's very confusing. The astronauts could not look into this mirror

13:06into this viewer because of the helmet. So what they did is they just fixed the cameras to their chest and the pointing straight. So they actually have to move around with their chest in order to aim. I'm telling you, I would not have had a better aim during that by hand that they do have with the chest. I mean, one of the miracles, let's call it one of the miracles of the Apollo pictures is they're almost all perfectly framed, I mean perfectly, not too low, not too high, not too left, not too right. So that's one of the problems. But if you want to get, if you want to know one thing that tells me for sure, an absolute sure that those pictures are not taken in the moon, I can get into that if you want. You tell me. Okay. Yes, you need to know a little bit of background first. When I was an assistant, the problem is X-rays and radiation damage to the film. When I was an assistant, once we were on a trip, all the films that we have reshot in a week, they all go in a special suitcase when you come home, a special metal suitcase,

14:11and you're absolutely not supposed to put that suitcase through the X-rays of the airport because it ruins the film. We were in a hurry, the plane was leaving, everybody was screaming, I made the mistake of putting through the X-rays not only the camera case, but also the film case. I heard the screen from the photographer saying, you have crazy man, what are you doing? Obviously, all the work was practically ruined. They could probably save, they could probably use only one or two pictures out of each roll. The inner part of the roll, which had been hit less with X-rays from the machine, was still usable, but basically the whole job was thrown away. I was fired, it was a big, big scandal. This is the background that you need to know. That was for one or two seconds into an X-ray machine. Out in space, outside the atmosphere, outside the Van Allen belts, what you have is X-rays, of course, very strong, cosmic rays, alpha rays, gamma rays,

15:16delta. I mean, you name it. They're all there. The rain of particles, they should be hitting that film. It's unbelievable. They did not go out with the camera for a moment and go back in. They stood out in the radioactive rain for eight hours consecutive, so that film should be completely obliterated by radiation. Or you would be able, at least, at the best case scenario, you would see positive little bit of a shade. No, as you said, they're perfect. They're studio perfect. If you look into the black part, look at your own image around your head is perfect black right now. In that black, if that was film and you were exposed to radiation, it was exposed to radiation, you would have all kinds of little blue and green dots all over the place. It would be very grainy. They're perfectly pitch black. That alone tells me that that film has never been

16:17outside the atmosphere. That alone, I don't need anything else because I know from personal experience what happens to film when you're exposed to X-rays. That alone, for me, if you need one argument only, that's the one for me. But let me play devil's advocate. Could it be argued that they specifically designed the film and the cameras for this purpose? You're not being able to devil's advocate because this option has been brought up, of course. The answer is no. Not only Ascibel will tell you they did not design anything to protect from radiation, but there is no way to protect from radiation. To protect a camera from radiation, you would have to have a like a three-inch thick piece of Pionbuk, as I said, lead. Sorry. You have to have a cover the camera with lead. When you go to get an X-rays and they cover you, the parts that are not to be X-rays, they cover you with this very heavy, that's lead. That's the kind of

17:21covering you would need around the camera to protect them even though partially from radiation. And still not for eight hours. I mean, when you go X-rays, that's it. It's one second, two seconds. And for that, they give you this much lead. So no, the answer is no. Not only it's impossible, but they didn't even try. It's an issue that they completely overlooked. No, but they didn't think that one day a photographer would say, excuse me, where's the damage from radiation? Oops, you know, too late. They used an extra chrome film, didn't they? And not only did it withstand, quote-unquote, the radiation, but it also withstood the temperature changes. Oh, that's another problem. That's another problem. Not only the film. The film, it's called brittle, when it's too cold, the film, the film support, which is a gelatin, should become like brittle,

18:22like glass. It breaks. If you shoot and then rewind, the film breaks if it's too cold. It happened to me on a regular Nikon camera, on a regular film, which is thicker than what they had, at, let's say, 10 degrees below zero. I'm talking Celsius, I don't know Fahrenheit, but Fahrenheit is 30. Do you have Fahrenheit? No, no, we don't work in Fahrenheit, yeah. Okay, okay. Then in Celsius, I was minus 10 and my film kept breaking. I could not shoot minus 10. On the moon, you have minus 100 in the shade. And you have plus 100 in the sun. That means when the camera moves to the sun, you have a 100 degrees centigrade here in the camera, we should melt the film. When you move into the shade, you drop from plus 100 to minus 100, you could not even look at that film without breaking it. Furthermore, the camera itself should stop working,

19:25because the hazard blood, especially the hazard blood, that such delicate mechanism, the super-size is so accurate, that the dilatation, how do you say, the dilation? When it expands. Yeah, it expands, would you call it? Yeah, dilation. Dilation, okay. When you go into the heat, all the little mechanisms should dilate enough that it stops. And again, it happened to me, and when I was in the cold, not only does the film break, but the camera does not move anymore, because the mechanics inside shrink and they don't touch anymore, they don't work anymore. So that's another argument. But that again is more debatable, because they can always say, and they have said, they try to say, oh, but we are in the void, in the absence of atmosphere, the heat doesn't transmit that fast, like it does on Earth,

20:25which is true, but it still does. It still does. And even though it's not by radiation, it's only by contact. But the film inside does touch the wheels of the camera and the wheels touch the camera. So if the camera is 100 degrees, after one or two minutes, the whole inside mechanics of the camera will also be 100 degrees. So that's really not a counter-argument either. In terms of the cropping of the photos, could it be argued that they took very large photos and then cropped down so that we have a beautifully composed image? No, because they show actually on, when they put them online, they show the actual scans with the entire film. It's a 70-millimeter film, which is used also for cinema for used to be used for cinema for big, big effects. Usually it's 35 millimeters, which is this high. This was 70 millimeters, this large. They also show you

21:25the perforation behind. So when they went to do the scans, not only do they show you the actual or framing, but you see all the perforation behind. So we know that there is no extra image there. Big part of the whole of the whole Polymission was the Van Allen Belt, which I forget the name now of the one astronaut in your film, who couldn't even remember if they went through it or not. That's really shocking. Alan Bean. Alan Bean was from Apollo 12. He was interviewed by Parti Braille, who is a very famous moonhawks. Yeah, he was on my show a few weeks ago. Oh, okay. Well, he interviewed me, pretend that of course to be all pro NASA and all pro, you know, celebrating the success. So the guy was very relaxed. And at some point, to Braille asks him, what was it going through the Van Allen Belt? And Alan Bean is like, I don't think we went as far high as to cross the Van Allen Belt. I don't remember.

22:31This is when you know that the guy not only is lying about having been to the moon, having gone to the moon, but it's so relaxed that it actually lets out something that he should have never let out. But he could have just had memory loss because of age, surely. Well, that's the argument that they, but that's not a memory loss. When you say, I don't think we went far enough to cross them, it's not a memory loss. A memory loss would be, I don't really remember crossing them. I don't know what it was, but the assumption is you did cross them. Okay, you might not remember the experience, which is also weird because they were only like the third or fourth person in the humanity to cross them theoretically. So they would remember very well that moment because it's not time for you to just forget. But anyway, it's not a memory loss. And on the rest of the interview, it's very technical, very accurate, very sharp. So this argument also doesn't stand because it's really a slip of, you know, Freudian slip. He's relaxed. He just says,

23:33what is thinking in that moment without thinking, oh my god, am I just admitting that we never went to the moon? Yes, we are, sir. Thank you. What about the shadows? This is often spoken about the crazy shadows in the photographs. Okay, here's a one big, one big misunderstanding that needs to be clarified. Many moon hocks, or let's call them like that, or many conspiracy theories, show your pictures of the shadows converging in front of you and very strongly so, and they tell you see you can't have one shadow that goes from left to right and one from right to left. Obviously they have to be two sources of light. Therefore, we are not on the moon. That is the biggest mistake that we as conspiracy theorists or moon hocksers should never make. When you're looking at shadows vertically, meaning forward or backwards in front of the camera, perspective comes into place. It's like the rails of the train, the train rails, the rail track, the train tracks. If you

24:38stand in the middle of the train tracks, you will see them going like this, but they're absolutely parallel, in fact. And if you see them coming at you, you see them diverging, which is also an effect of perspective. If you move to the side and you see the tracks going from left to right, you will see that they're perfectly parallel. So, the mistake that people should not make is judge shadows from the front or from the back when the source is in the behind you, so the shadows go in front of you, or when the source is in front of you, so the shadows diverge in front of you. You should only judge pictures that have the sun on the side. In that case, you should see parallel shadows on the ground. And if you don't, like in the famous picture of a pole of 15, I think, when you have one shadow from the side going straight like this on the limb, and then closer to you, you have stones on the ground that make shadows go like this. That's when you know that you're looking at the sunlight. Because if you project backwards

25:43that direction, we'll take you to a place very close to the outside of your frame. That means the source has been placed next to the picture. It's not the sun. It's an artificial light. But only you should only judge shadows when the light source of light is sideways, most best of all 90 degrees. In that case, you should expect perfectly parallel shadows. But never judge shadows when they are vertically as good. I'm a little bit confused. Could you mind clarifying because the shadows are a lot shorter than railway tracks, for example, right? So, I can understand the perspective of railway tracks, because they go far into the distance. But shadows are not very far. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. The angle is the same. If you work to project, the shadow ends because the sun is the certain height. So, if you have a stone here, and the stone is projecting a shadow, obviously, because the sun is high, the shadow will end at some point. If you were theoretically to bring the sun to the zero level,

26:49your shadows theoretically would be infinite. So, the fact that it's shorter is only due to the height of the source of light. But that source is not next to you on the side, it's behind you. What you see is actual parallel shadows that appear to you to become virgin because of the lens and the perspective. And the example of the rail tracks, even if you cut the rail, if you don't look at the rail tracks all the way to the end, even in the first 10 meters of train tracks, you will see that they're converging. So, the distance doesn't really matter. It's the angle that matters. Okay, all right. So, then basically, the photographs with the shadows is not one that we should be worrying about. I don't want to name names, but there are many even famous conspiracy theorists who claim that because of those shadows converged, therefore, there are two sources of light that is absolutely not true. The source of light, whether they did those pictures in a studio or on the moon, it's always a single light. And you can tell very easily because if you

27:54had a double source, you would have also have a double shadow on each of the stones. And there's never a double shadow. If you were to see one stone with a double shadow, one going this, one going this way, on the same object, then you know for sure that they use two different sources. But it's never the case. The shadow is only single. And that tells you there's only one source of light. As a photographer, Masimo, tell me a bit about the stars. Should you see stars in the background or not? That's another big mistake that is made. You know, you see no stars? Well, that's because we're in a studio. No, you see no stars because you shouldn't see them anyway, whether you are on Earth or on the moon by the setting that you have on the camera, the exposure settings are set for something that's lit by the sun, the lamp, the other astronaut, the ground, they're lit theoretically by the sun. So you set your settings on the camera, you close the

28:55iris and you have a shutter time that's good for to correctly expose the film for that kind of image. It's called exposing for the light. The stars in the distance are so much fainter and so much weaker that if you wanted to see them, you would have to completely open up the aperture. You have to slow down the shutter time so much that there is no possibility for you to see to at the same time the shadows and the astronaut. So it is absolutely correct that you don't see any stars in the pictures, whether we are on the moon or on in a studio. That's one mistake that they'll not make. And unfortunately, it's another argument, a wrong argument that has been used a lot to prove that the pictures are fake. That is not the right argument to use. But I mean, even if we remove the Hasselblad and the photos, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing is a hoax. I mean, there's a whole pile of stuff that you cover in your film. For example, the Apollo 15

29:56and the audio delays. That is also a very telling thing because theoretically, if you were communicating between the earth and the moon, you would expect a delay in the answer that you get from the moon. If I ask you, how are you, Germ? Before you can say I'm fine, thank you. 2.6 seconds, I think, they have to go by before you can hear you back because it takes my signal. My voice to reach you, 1.3 seconds, and assuming you respond immediately, I would take another 1 second, 0.3 to come back. So 2.6 is the minimum time that you must have between any question and any answer, any direct answer coming from the moon. In 304 instances, I found that the answer comes almost immediately, 0.8 seconds, 1.2. That means that A, that communication did not happen between the earth and the moon,

30:58and B, the astronaut forgot to wait 2 seconds before he answered. I mean, I would assume that if you do this in the studio, I would tell the astronauts 150 times guys, whatever we tell you in the radio, count 3 before you answer because we need that delay. And they do. In 99% of the cases, you have the actual time delay. But in a few cases, they don't. And those few cases cannot be explained, but with a mistake on part of the astronaut. And somebody not realizing when they're recording that actually that little thing is missing because when you hear a conversation, it sounds very normal. How are you, Duke? Peep, I'm fine, thank you. Can you move over to the rock on your left? Peep. Yes, I can. What do you see? I see it all red. Oops, if I got to wait 2 seconds, you know. So that maybe, maybe escape you when you're doing it and you're not going to redo it anyway,

31:59so you hope nobody catches on it. Well, I spent probably 2 full weeks just listening to each and all of the conversations, radio conversations back and forth. And I found those 3 instances which nobody can explain. This is their problem. The original tapes, the original recordings were all put out for sale. They were commercialized by NASA through a company called Spacecraft Films, which made the official DVDs of all the missions, not only Apollo, but Mercury Project, the Gemini Project. I mean, I bought them all. I bought like, I remember spending like $1,000 DVDs all at once to buy the entire collection from NASA, including all the Apollo missions. In those official DVDs, the delays are missing. So there's no point now in correcting any recording you may have on a server somewhere when the DVDs have been distributed and the mistakes are in them. What do you think JFK knew? He died too early to know. He died in

33:0663. He made a speech in 61. We would go to the moon and return a man safely back to Earth between the end before the end of the decade. That was 1966. 1961. I am convinced that up until 1966, so he was already dead for two years. At NASA, they were actually convinced that they could make it. The problems began in 1965, 1966. And especially in January 1967, when the Apollo one capsule caught fire on the ground during a test, it killed it burned alive. Actually, three astronauts in them, Chris, Chaffee, and White. And after that, the whole program became a big problem because you only have two years left to go to the moon. So to make it before the end of the decade, like Kennedy said, but they had to redesign completely the command module. And that itself took a year. So

34:10you can't add a year to an already extremely tight schedule and still make it. I believe that at that point, after that problem, they said, guys, we're going to make it. What do we do? And because they already had, by then, an entire system of simulation. You could simulate the entire trip, except for the take-off. By the entire trip, let's say the Transluner voyage to the moon, the going around, the landing, they had studios to rehearse the movements and everything. And coming back, they all had it, they could fix, they could exercise, I'm sorry, they could train their own astronauts on a simulation. Somebody must have said, you know, guys, instead of just admitting to the world that we're not going to make it, which is going to make us look very bad, let's use the simulations, which are so well done, and nobody will know the difference. And they went for that, they took the chance, and it worked. That's my opinion.

35:11You mentioned the rocket now. What do you think happened on the day? Oh, my conviction is that they actually do take-off, they get in the module, they do take-off normally, they're going to orbit, but then instead of shooting off to the moon and staying in orbit for seven days, they grow their beard a little bit, and they just come back when it's time to come back, and they go, oh, we went to the moon. So all the parts that we don't see, they didn't do. We see the shooting of the rocket, they're going into orbit, that part we see, and we see them coming back with the parachutes and everything. But what they did in those seven days, we don't see in live television, unless they send a recording or pre-recorded scenes that was actually done in the studio, and they tell us it wasn't the moon, which is what I think it happened. Another really funny aspect of the moon landing is the actual lunar module. I mean, it looks like a tin can. It is tin can. Believe me, it's, I mean, with all the money they spend,

36:21it's not so much, it has to be light by design, because it has to be very light, okay? But the details, and they're so badly made. I mean, you have this couch tape everywhere, attaching little pieces of aluminum foil. It's like the thing you're using the kitchen to cook, and it's all attached by, you know, it seems like in the last minutes somebody says, oh, there's a piece missing there, just to stick a piece there, and make it look like. Those lambs looked good for 40 years, because all you could see was pictures printed like in live magazine, in time magazine, in National Geographic, but there were prints, the lamb was pretty small, the detail you couldn't see, but once the NASA put online, the high definition cameras, and you can zoom in, you can see every little detail of that lamb. That's when you, you can't be that sloppy. You can't be that sloppy.

37:21I mean, the couch tape everywhere, attaching things, all the rest, you feel like they're going to be falling apart. It's really terrible to look at. It's sad. What they did probably, they thought, why is that? They're not going to be able to see it. Back in the 60s, they didn't know that we were going to have, I definition, internet distribution of these pictures. They had no idea. All they knew is that a few selected crumbs would be sent to magazines that would reproduce them, and you couldn't really see anything. If you look at the old cover of live magazine, we landed on the morning, you see the lamb in the back. It's a little thing like that. You can't see any details. All the details that we discovered by analyzing the high definition pictures, they're not visible in the original distributions that they made for magazines. The lunar module would have required all sorts of heating because it would have been cold. What about food, toiletry functions? How does it actually land and how does it actually take off? Well, theoretically, it has one engine for take off and one

38:26engine for landing. The module is divided into two parts. It has one engine riding basically inside the lamb itself. The astronauts actually sit on the departure engine and then there's the part with the legs that has another motor, another engine that is the landing part. Theoretically, it makes sense. In practical ways, I imagine it's very difficult for an object to take off vertically with only one rocket in the middle. You have to balance that thing because if it only goes off a little bit, it flips and you're dead. The two astronauts are actually standing inside. I don't know what kind of sensitivity you need to have to drive that thing up straight without even tilting it a little bit because then you flip over and it's the end of the mission and it's the end of your life. So it has been said, it's like putting an egg on top of a pencil. You take a pencil and you try to

39:33balance an egg. Okay, that's the level of difficulty. But theoretically, that can be done. So it's not, I've not used it as an argument against the missions because theoretically they're good, they're good. So you have to believe that. But Massimo, we know that they win because there's the American flag flying on the moon. Okay, this is another fake wrong argument. Again, you have to be very careful because the debate has become so sophisticated that you need to know exactly. When you see a dock at the banking documentary, like a popular mechanics or one of those guys that says, oh, the conspiracy theorist tells you that the flag is moving but it's really moving because the astronaut is moving and then they show you the parts when the flag moves and the astronaut is touching the stick. So obviously that movement can be due to the fact that the astronaut is moving the flag. There are three instances, however, in which the flag moves, which I found two of them,

40:35I found one somebody else had found before me, in which the flag moves without anybody even being near the flag. In one case, even the two astronauts are already inside the LEM, getting ready for the departure, the flag is outside and suddenly with nothing happening in the shots for 10 minutes, suddenly you see this flag going like this and then out of the frame again, three times in the span of two minutes. What caused that movement? Which is first because the bunkers will tell you know it's actually they're testing the rockets. So the air has been expulsed, moves the flag. No, because the flag comes into frame. I mean, I'm looking at your frames. I hope it is right. Into frame first stays and then goes out again, then into frame first. So what brings it into frame first? We don't know. There has to be some kind of current. Another instance is when an astronaut passes

41:38by near the flag, but at least one and a half meters away from it and after he's passed, the flag moves a little bit. Nobody touched that flag. And the third instance is a Polo 16 when they do the famous jump and one guy jumps and the other one shoots him jumping. And the flag is on the side when they switch positions and still and again, they're very far away from the flag itself. The flag goes like that and moves when they go by. In this three cases, the regional explanation alas, there's air on the set. And again, the photographs were perfect. Oh, all of them. Even the guy jumping is perfectly framed. I mean, I'm telling you, as a photographer, as an has a blood photographer, I would have a hard time making that perfect composition with the view finder, let alone without, but gay, you know, you can always say they've been very lucky for 6,000 times out of 6,000, which is the number of pictures taken on the moon.

42:40The simulation, as you said earlier, was so good that even people who worked for NASA themselves couldn't tell the difference. Exactly. One argument that is made usually, how can you think that 400,000 people were involved in a project and some of them would have talked. And certainly, you know, you can't keep 400,000 people quiet on the secrets of this size. Of course, you can't. That is correct, but nobody says that all 400,000 people had to be aware of the scam. All it takes was the astronauts themselves. Of course, the big echelons up on top of NASA. And the crews that made the films, but we're talking about 50, 60, 70 people at most. And it's not difficult to keep a secret with those people. When you see those images of the NASA Operation Center at

43:42Cape, I don't remember what was it called in Houston, they're actually looking on the monitor and they see the receive the first images of the first walk on the moon and everybody cheers and everybody lights their cigars and they go, hey, you know, high five and all that. Those people, the NASA employees are the first ones to be duped. They believe that they're looking at their own astronauts on the moon. When, in fact, they're receiving a feed from somewhere of a pre-recorded scene. So, you understand? They are the first victims of the hoax. They're not conspirators of them. Only very few people need to know. The rest, it's victims. It was Buzz Aldrin, who on a late-match show a few years ago, corrected the show host by saying, no, no, no, you didn't see us land. You saw simulation.

44:45Well, that is true. No, that is correct. You don't see the landing. Never. What you do see on television is a simulation. That's a given because nobody's there to film you while you landing. The only images of the landing are those taken from inside the module, the command module. The lamps are, you know, the command module. No, the lamp, again, sorry, the lamp. Inside the lamp, and you can see, in POV, you can see approaching the moon, but that's only after they come back and they develop the film and they show it that they can show you what the landing was like as they were doing it. But in lifetime, yes, we always see a simulation, but that's not a big surprise. There was no one on the moon waiting for them to arrive with pointing the camera at the sky. So obviously, that is a simulation. On a geopolitical level, why would they have

45:46pushed this? And why would the Soviets have said nothing? Why would they push it? It seems pretty clear to me. It's a matter of gaining the upper hand in a race to space in which Americans have always been behind from the beginning. The Russians were the first ones to have a satellite in orbit, the first one to put a man in orbit, the first one to do everything. The reason is actually historical and goes back to the end of World War II. When World War II ended, Russia and the United States both won and Germany lost. What they did is that the Americans took from Germany the rocket scientists that were working for Hitler, from Brown, the leader of them, and they took them to America. It's called Operation Paperclip. The Russians didn't take any scientists. They took the rockets themselves to Russia, to study them. Because at the time, at the end of the war, Germany had the

46:48best rockets, the only rockets in the world that could go fly and hit everywhere. So the advantage the Russians had is that they already had the technology in their hands. All they need to do is develop it, copy it, and do it. And that's why they were ahead in the race to space. In America, the team of scientists, they had to put up a whole entire NASA from the roots. And by the time they were ready, they were always behind. The reason why the Americans wanted to, through the challenge, to go to the mornings was actually to make even that offset that they had all the time. So they wanted to actually get ahead of Russia and show the world that we are the best. Why didn't Russians the Soviets? Why didn't the Soviets denounce the hoax? There are at least two good reasons. One is everybody saw the moon landing live on television. Can you imagine if the Russians, the Soviets, the guys who just lost the race to the moon came up and said, oh, it's all fake. They would

47:53make fun of them. So they would call them sound losers. Oh yeah, sure. You didn't see television like we did. You cannot lose a race and then claim that they faked it. But there's a much more important reason than that. Already during the Apollo missions, Russians and Soviet astronauts and scientists were exchanging projects and information for what would become in 1975, the joint mission in space, the Apollo Soyuz mission. They were exchanging technologies and not only were they at the scientific level connected, but also behind the curtains to speak behind behind the curtains, the Americans were helping the Russians by purchasing their wheat. There was a lot of economic help going from America to Russia in that moment. Had the Russians called the hoax, they would have lost all the technology, all the projects

48:54together with America. Not only would have lost faith because nobody would have believed them, but they would have lost all the connections, all the technology and all the economic deals that they were getting behind closed doors that nobody knew about, but now we know about them. So there was absolutely no convenience for them to call it in any case. Did you see recently Vladimir Putin said that they wanted to send astronauts to the moon to exactly where the U.S. apparently landed so that they could see for themselves if they really did land? That's a very nice provocation. That's a very nice provocation. You want to see a priori? We want to see a robot, not a human, of course. Think of this. In 2015, I think, or 12 or 15, Google launched a competition called the X-Price.

49:57And that would give, I don't know how many million dollars, to the first private company that would send an automated machine, a robot, to the moon, run for at least 500 meters, show the landing sites and send back the pictures, the live pictures of the actual landing sites that the Apollo missions left behind. Because what happened? NASA claimed an offline zone for two kilometers across each of the landing sites, with the justification that is for the preservation of the historical website. Nobody can even get close to that. That's how terrified they were that somebody would go and look. But I don't think they will, because again, all the space agencies across the different nations, Japan, China, India, Russia, and the states, they're all connected. We think we're made to think that they're enemies and they're fighting for to win the race.

50:59They're really exchanging technology and knowledge at all times. And you don't want to break that. And who knows if the Russians, the Soviets also have some skeleton in the closet that they want to hide and the Americans know about. So, you know, it's like, okay, I won't call new and you won't call on me. We just keep going. And all the space agencies of all the nations I mentioned, they're all happy to receive big fundings from the wrong governments, which fundings would immediately end if anybody called you on the other for for fakery. So maybe India is faking her own trips to the moon and they're encouraging that money for other purposes, possibly military. So black operation, black ops. So nobody has interest in calling the other one. It's a lie that it's convenient for everybody to keep as a lie. Except now, except now that Artemis is having so

52:00many troubles going back to the moon, then people still say, wait a minute, how is this possible? 60 years ago, 55 years ago, they would go and come back six times in three years with not a problem. They would just shoot, go, collect, come back like you go to the local market. And now they can't even get this thing off the ramp. So now people are starting to doubt because of the difficulties that are experiencing today of going for real. That means that most likely they could not have gone 55 years ago. Do you think they can go? I'm not, no, I think there's a huge problem with the radiation. You cannot really put men outside the Van Allen belts, neither through nor outside the Van Allen belts. The radiation is too much, they don't have means to protect humans from radiation. Radiation, cosmic flares, solar flares, I mean, it's a suicide. Sending anybody out there with the amount of radiation and only the micro, they call it microcosmic particles. They're actually

53:08particles that travel in space. They travel, they travel at 2,000 kilometers a second. They can pierce through any object. Not only use coal, the entire capsule, they can go through, through use coal and out the other side of the capsule. At 2,000 kilometers a second, you cannot stop those particles. What do you do? And I think this is a problem that we're far from solving yet. So what do you make of Elon's mission to Mars? Can I say it in one word? Paul? Yes, it. Pure, simple. What do you make of Elon Musk? I don't like to repeat myself, but... You know, you only know, I don't say you only know the tree from that far, the apple falls.

54:12Yes. If you say those things, you can only be one thing. But do you think that they can send robots or probes to the moon? Yes. Absolutely. No problem. And they have. They even have before. This is the funny part, the robots you can send, because they don't have to suffer radiation. They don't have problems with radiation. Actually, they sent a series of, I think they were called explorer 1 and 2 and 3. I don't remember the exact names, but before the Apollo missions, they surveyed the landing sites, of course, and they had imagery. And they used that imagery to do the simulator, to be used in the simulator. Let's say that the Apollo landing site, the landing site of Apollo 15, for example, the one with that big kind of canyon that goes across. It's very, very... Everybody remembers that big canyon, okay? That's called the Hadley Real. Let's go. They had images of that area from before the

55:16Apollo missions, and they were so accurate that if you see the fake landing in the simulator, it's practically identical to what you see from the window of the lamb in the theoretically real, allegedly real landing of Apollo 15. I mean, they're so similar that either they're... Oh, unfortunately, this is my mother. Remind me the simulator. I'll be back as soon as I can, okay? Okay, if you look at the images from the simulation that are made from the original images retrieved by the robots. And the actual images from inside the lamb of the alleged real landing, they're practically identical, which means either they were so good in simulating the fake ground to fake it so perfectly that it corresponds in every little hole

56:18what you see for real, or they use the actual simulation to do the landing. So they already had images and that's because they were sending probes to the moon even before the Apollo missions. Okay, Massimo. I know that we are out of time. There is so much to talk about. This is a topic that we could spend hours, days, weeks on your film, American Moon, which came out in 2017, is incredible. Okay, let me give you a suggestion. If you want, you can ask your audience to send you questions for me. And when we do another round, maybe you can read those questions to me, because I know that when I do this kind of interviews, they always tell me, oh, but you have no counterpart. So it's really not fair because you're only saying your version. So if you want, you can invite questions for me. And we do another round in a few weeks or so. And we can answer those questions as well. How's that? I would love to do that. But for now, where can they go to find your work? Oh, the film. It's on YouTube. It's on YouTube. The Italian version is also for sale

57:23in a little USB that is about not for English. I have the English version, but it's only on YouTube. So you need to search American Moon Massimo, but you will not find it on YouTube. Surprise, surprise. I suggest you use Google or Bing. That will take you to the film. The film is actually on YouTube, but the search for some reason will not bring it up. So Massimo Mazzucco, my phone name and American Moon English version, if it doesn't come up in the search in YouTube, use Google or Bing as a search engine and you will find it. Massimo Mazzucco, thank you for joining me in the trenches.