There Really Are Conspiracies, But This Isn’t One of Them

IN THIS VIDEO, writer and director S.G. Collins of Postwar Media examines the theory that the Apollo Moon landings could have been faked in a studio — either by Stanley Kubrick or by anyone else. Collins looks at the theory from a different, seldom-discussed perspective: Being an expert in video and film technology, he examines the capabilities of even the best, cutting edge gear available in that field in the late 1960s — showing us that the alleged fraud was simply not possible.

Collins acknowledges that — as National Vanguard readers well know — the US government lies all the time. But it is not in our interest to concentrate on irrelevant or concocted conspiracies, whether put forward by earnest amateurs or by paid Cointelpro-type agents. These muddy the waters, take away our credibility, waste our time and energy, and lessen our chances of defeating the very real conspiracy to commit genocide against our race.

* * *

Source: Author and National Vanguard correspondents

Previous post

Reality Check

Next post

Excellent Resource: When Victims Rule


  1. Johnny Walker Read
    11 October, 2018 at 9:54 am — Reply

    “Being an expert in video and film technology, he examines the capabilities of even the best, cutting edge gear available in that field in the late 1960s — showing us that the alleged fraud was simply not possible.”
    Anyone with one functioning brain cell know’s NO man has ever set foot on the moon. Wake the hell up and quit accepting the blatant lies you are fed.

    • Marc
      12 October, 2018 at 11:59 am — Reply

      Yeah sure!… Guess you believe also that the Earth is flat, that Nuclear Weapons do not exist…and the Earth is just 5000 years old, and that Outer Space does not exist either!… LMAO!!

      • Johnny Walker Read
        12 October, 2018 at 1:43 pm — Reply

        No ass hat, I just haven’t lost my ability for critical thinking. Someday when you grow up, maybe you will come to realize Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Moon Landing’s are all fairy tales.

  2. Johnny Walker Read
    13 October, 2018 at 1:59 pm — Reply

    LOL, I find this more believable than the “Landing’s”.

  3. bigmegina
    14 October, 2018 at 8:50 pm — Reply

    as a so called expert,he never brings up the fact that are are no stars in any pics or that their is no blast crater under the luner lander,and the flag waving on the moon with no atmosphere,ect,ect.

  4. Jim
    15 October, 2018 at 12:12 am — Reply

    The Van Allen radiation belts.

  5. Axis Sally
    15 October, 2018 at 1:37 am — Reply

    The first things that come to mind viewing this video are: Why is this fellow fat? Why is he ugly? Why is his appearance sloppy? What is that silly knit cap hiding? Why the smarmy, arrogant demeanor? Who is S.G. Collins anyway? A visit to his website, may provide some clues. He claims to be a filmmaker producing short films and provides samples of his work, which prove to be of the “trendy,” “progessive,” ugly, counterculture genre. That’s the first clue. He also writes novels, and provides blurbs, e.g.,

    “Anne who lives — (fiction) As a young girl, she spent three years in hiding from the Nazis. As an old woman, she helps a young one escape from an abusive boyfriend, and must choose between safety and truth. In between, she leads a blazing, accidental, creative and controverisal (sic) life. A life that should have happened.”


    “Angel guts — (fiction) ‘Two girls in love, a Honda Civic, and America. What could go wrong?’”

    Are you starting to get the picture? Heh heh.

    Regardless of which side of the hoax controversy you prefer, Mr. Collins’ premise, that the U.S. did not possess video/cine technology at the time sufficient to produce synthetic moon video of the quality exhibited by NASA (which is abysmal) is utterly ridiculous. In the first place, he arbitrarily limits the equipment available to NASA in 1969 to the 30 fps NTSC television broadcast cameras, the custom-built 10 fps slow-scan camera used on the moon, and the disk-based football instant replay system which was the only thing that could record video at normal speed and play it back at reduced speed to suggest a one-sixth gravity effect. What makes this approach impossible, he says, is that the moon broadcast lasted 147 minutes, but the replay disk could only record a few seconds worth. So THERE you gullible goyim! And don’t even think of an over-cranked cine camera; why? Again, the continuous 147 minute barrier is insurmountable because cine cameras did not have sufficient film magazine capacity! Gotcha, conspiracy kooks! Ignoring the obvious workarounds to these supposed problems, there is another way utilizing equipment and technology already being used by NASA, as well as that which the television industry had been using many years up to that time: I refer to kinescope recording.

    NASA avers that it recorded all the moon video and telemetry using the Ampex quadruplex video tape recording system which was the industry standard system for delayed broadcasting. It could record one hour of 525 line NTSC standard video on a 4,800 ft. reel of tape. It also recorded cue and control tracks on the edge of the tape which could be used to start a second machine when the first was about to run out of tape. The simplest procedure would be to film the moon set action using a 16 mm silent cine camera. Since lip-sync sound was not necessary, a variable speed motor set to 20 fps could be used. Apollo skeptics, such as David Percy (a filmmaker himself) have estimated the slow-motion ratio used to produce the one-sixth G effect to be about 2:1. Thus kinescope playback at 10 fps would synchronize perfectly with the slow scan system for the public broadcast. While the total video length may have been 147 minutes, there certainly was not 147 minutes of continuous on-screen action. Thus the action could have been scripted to allow the actors to wander off-screen periodically to allow for the camera being stopped, the magazines changed, and the action resumed. The edited film would then be dubbed to the Ampex tape to allow for continuous playback. NASA (suspiciously) solved the slow-scan to NTSC conversion problem by providing a large slow-scan monitor and inviting the broadcast networks to focus their cameras on it, which had the effect of further degrading the broadcast image quality. The rest of Collins’ claims in his video consist merely of bald statements lacking evidence or logic, and may be dismissed out of hand.

    So much for Mr. Collins. The Apollo Program, however, presents an interesting problem. The imagery, regardless of what the nitpickers say, is of marvelous quality and very believable. The problem is, we have only a single source, NASA itself, for information about every aspect of the moon landings. Third party auditing was not possible. To mount eight moon missions just eight years out of the blocks was a tremendously complicated, expensive, and RISKY undertaking. A single component failure would have had catastrophic consequences, both in terms of loss of life and loss of national prestige. It might have been deemed cheaper and safer to merely continue the Surveyor Program for data and imagery; while filming the “live” moonwalk sequences on a film set. Who would know? They could be charged-off to “training simulation videos.”

    Another thing: in 1927 Charles Lindbergh first flew nonstop from New York to Paris. His feat was quickly duplicated by others, including Amelia Earhart. Fifty years later the Concorde initiated regular nonstop commercial flights over the same route at supersonic speeds. It has been nearly fifty years since Apollo 8 circumnavigated the moon. Why do we not have regularly scheduled commercial flights to the moon? Oh, and just about when one is finally ready to throw-up his hands and accept the Apollo narrative as received, NASA goes and shoots itself in the foot by doing something stupid such as “accidentally” erasing the Apollo Ampex tapes, can you imagine?

    I agree that while the Apollo “hoax” problem is a tempting subject for conjecture, we Aryans have other, more important fish to fry, and should not be wasting time on it. However, such vicious, insulting Enemy propaganda videos as this one should not be appearing on National Vanguard, in my opinion.

    • 15 October, 2018 at 3:07 am — Reply

      I hold no brief for Collins, and whatever personal problems he might have are unknown to me. But, as a broadcast engineer, I find his technical argument persuasive. I don’t regard this short film as vicious or insulting or advancing the cause of the enemy. It’s helpful if it keeps good White folks from becoming sidetracked in time-wasting, credibility-harming conspiracy drama.

      As for the technical workarounds you discuss: A film recording, transferred to video via kinescope, with zero film artifacts — in 1969? A freeze frame that didn’t instantly jump out at you as unnatural, with some of its video noise frozen too? In ’69? I don’t find those scenarios believable.

      Another thing that makes me think that the Apollo operation was not a hoax is the extreme difficulty of fooling the hundreds of engineers and technicians involved. Consider the communications crew alone. Unlike the public, they could not have been fooled by fake gear (the production of which would also have involved additional thousands of people, most of them private contractors, sworn to secrecy). They had real transmitters, receivers, and antennas. They knew where the antennas had to be aimed, a rather intricate process that involved continuous re-aiming, so they couldn’t have been aimed at a fake target — unless they had a whole series of invisible, silent helicopters secretly moving to and fro all over the world with variable delay lines (not invented yet) aboard to properly simulate the speed-of-light delays involved, which were constantly varying throughout the flight (to say nothing about how the same conversation could be emanating simultaneously from all the fake transmitters on board the invisible helicopters). They knew when they would acquire and lose signals at different ground stations and on the Moon. They knew what the signal strengths would be for the powers and distances involved, and could detect any fakery immediately.

      And remember: Not only the voice transmissions, but also the non-stop video stream, would have to have come through this complex reception pipeline, continuously monitored by the expert communications crew.

      The likelihood of those communications not actually coming from the Moon is pretty damned close to your chance of winning the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket.

      Could it be that some mission pictures were altered or faked by the government? Sure, I consider that likely taking into account the fear of letting the Soviets know too much about the technology involved. But faking the entire mission? — that’s right up there with “orgone energy” and the “flat Earth” as far as I am concerned.

    • Johnny Walker Read
      15 October, 2018 at 8:23 am — Reply

      “I agree that while the Apollo “hoax” problem is a tempting subject for conjecture, we Aryans have other, more important fish to fry, and should not be wasting time on it.”
      I must disagree with this statement, because if a government is capable of pulling off such a lie on an unsuspecting public it is of vital importance it be exposed. A government that lies to the people breaks faith with the people, violates the contract between the government and the people under which the people consent to be governed. A government that lies to the people delegitimizes itself.

  6. Johnny Walker Read
    15 October, 2018 at 8:41 am — Reply

    ““Being an expert in video and film technology, he examines the capabilities of even the best, cutting edge gear available in that field in the late 1960s — showing us that the alleged fraud was simply not possible.”
    Actually, it is the other way around. This was why any and all photography on the moon was impossible with the equipment and technology of the 60’s. Plus all of NASA’s ORIGINAL film and telemetry data has been lost. The greatest technological feat in the history of man and all the real proof was “misplaced” by NASA. ROLMFAO.

  7. cc
    15 October, 2018 at 9:01 am — Reply

    Wait up! I want to have fun too.

    The Druid dressed in robe complete with hood carried in his hand a wand made from the wood of a Holly tree. Ol’ Wizard. Hence we have Hollywood with its tricks and magic.

    Southern Fried TRICK PHOTOGRAPHY. Note the flat earth. How many trillions would the Federals expend to remove this:

  8. Joachim Peiper
    15 October, 2018 at 9:33 am — Reply

    Judging by some of the respondents here, are we then to assume that rocket scientist and former Schutzstaffel major Wernher von Braun was in on the hoax too? Or was he a figment of the US government as well?

  9. Franklin Ryckaert
    15 October, 2018 at 10:24 am — Reply

    As a non-technical person I can only ask : in the 1960s technology was far enough evolved to fly to the moon and back but not far enough to fake it in the studio ? Which is more difficult ? And why with our present technology, which is far more evolved than that of the 1960s, have we never gone back to the moon ? If I remember correctly, NASA has inadvertently admitted that it still has not yet solved the problem of flying through the deadly Van Allen Belt.
    The reason why some people refuse to accept the possibility that the moon landings were faked is that they see them as a supreme achievement of the White man’s “Faustian Spirit”. David Duke for example is of that mind set. But we’ll have to accept the possibility that we were cheated by an institution (the US government) that cheats all the time.

    • 15 October, 2018 at 1:41 pm — Reply

      As a technical person, I can give you some analogies:

      Which would be more difficult, climbing Mt. Washington, or faking a detailed documentary livestream that purports to show that you did climb Mt. Washington involving 1,000-plus technicians, hundreds of engineers, hundreds of scientists, and innumerable contractors, many of whom would be eyewitnesses to much of the climb — and inviting journalists and writers worldwide to watch and write about it? Both would be difficult, granted, but the fake — which, if you based your career in a competitive field and reputation on it, would be subject to intense scrutiny — would be, I think, considerably more difficult. No one doubts that the Apollo missions were under intense scrutiny by foreign intelligence services, and the US government of the 1960s was honeycombed with Soviet-friendly moles. Yet no foreign power expressed doubts, as far as I am aware. And some fraction of that large team would have to have been in on the conspiracy. It’s inconceivable to me that none of them would talk, especially when a juicy book deal and hero status might be the result. (Climbing Mt. Washington is risky, of course — you might even die, as some Apollo astronauts died too.)

      Which would be more difficult, assembling a team of experts and having that team build an automobile from scratch, or conspiring with some small percentage of the team and then faking the entire process in the very presence of the team of experts you had assembled — even convincing the team itself that they had actually built the car when they hadn’t?

      William Pierce, who had some background in physics, propulsion, et cetera, had no doubt that the Apollo missions were real. Dr. Pierce had a critical intelligence that I deeply respect.

      As an aside, some readers might find it interesting to note that someone I’ve met was pictured in Collins’ video — German rocket pioneer Hermann Oberth, who was present when Dr. Pierce spoke at the groundbreaking ceremony of the Cosmotheist church building in 1986.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        15 October, 2018 at 3:05 pm — Reply

        Conspiracies involving a mass of people already happened in history. D-Day and the construction of the Atom bomb come to mind. Those were conspiracies to keep the project secret, not to fake it, but still mass conspiracies they were. In a fake conspiracy the lower ranks of the project need only partial information and can be cheated easily. The higher ranks are bribed and threatened to cooperate.

        Again after the so-called moon landings no astronauts have ever flown into the deadly Van Allen Belt. That problem has never been solved.

        If it couldn’t happen, then it didn’t happen.

        • A Nonymous
          16 October, 2018 at 8:44 am — Reply

          What about the “Holocaust” industry? Countless people are involved in an industry perpetuating the myth that Hitler is responsible for the death of 6,000,000 people. Sure, the majority of those people probably believe the “Holocaust” myth themselves… which is precisely how such a big hoax can persist after so many decades.

          I do have a technical background, and I also fail to grasp how it was possible with the primitive technology of the 1960s to reach the moon, when we have an astronaut like Don Pettit acknowledging that it’s not possible to go the moon (anymore) with modern day technology. This simply doesn’t add up. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. See “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” for some other arguments supporting the notion that the landings were hoaxed that I personally find compelling.

          Yes, it’s hard to explain why the Soviets didn’t expose the moon landings as a hoax if they were indeed a hoax. But the lack of whistle-blowers is far from sufficient for me to ignore all the evidence pointing towards the moon landing being a hoax.

  10. Ghost of Wernher von Braun
    15 October, 2018 at 1:20 pm — Reply

    “As a non-technical person I can only ask : in the 1960s technology was far enough evolved to fly to the moon and back but not far enough to fake it in the studio?”

    In the statement above, you cannot have it both ways. If “1960s technology was far enough evolved to fly to the moon” then that’s a de facto admission on your part that there wasn’t any need to “fake it”. After all, why fake a moon landing if we had the ability to travel there for real?

    On the other hand, if rocket technology was not advanced enough in the 1960’s, was studio technology? Again, the best TV outer space special effects available (in the 1960’s) was that produced by Star Trek and, in motion pictures, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    In regard to the latter, which cost almost 50 times more than a single episode of the original Star Trek, 2001: A Space Odyssey was impressive for its time, and still is. But your argument that a Hollywood studio should have been able to “fake” a moon landing (and thus probably did) doesn’t support what the alleged “faked” moon landing videos actually look like.

    After all, when compared to Kubrick’s movie, with its crystal clear vistas of the moon, breathtaking lunar bases, and more, the “faked” moon landing videos look pretty cheap by comparison, dull, and rather boring. So if Hollywood (and Kubrick) were behind making “faked” moon landings for NASA and the American public, then why aren’t they as stunning and technically competent (at least) as the actual fake lunar vistas Kubrick and crew created? Shouldn’t they be? I would think so, but they’re not.

    Instead, they’re what we might very well expect from an agency highly competent in rocket science but not so much in Hollywood-style slickness. In short, the reality that chronicled the real lunar landing wasn’t as technically-impressive as Kubrick’s fake lunar landing in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which, ironically, lends support that it actually happened rather than the other way around.

    As to why America never returned to the Moon: for one thing, after half a dozen manned missions there, NASA said, “Been there, done that.” In short, the “magic” was gone. We’d set out to beat the Russians (mainly for propaganda purposes) and once accomplished, the luster had faded. Besides, there was nothing more to learn that a couple of baskets of moon rocks couldn’t tell us. We certainly weren’t ready to establish a permanent base there, so….

    You get the picture.

    Ultimately, America, with the genius of Adolf Hitler’s top scientist Wernher von Braun, had used his brilliance to put a white man on the Moon. Thus, the Apollo 11 project and its success was a “proof of concept” demonstration as much as anything else. But with hungry, violent negroes screeching to be fed all across America, money that might’ve gone toward building a lunar base went to them instead.

    Some may wonder whether this was a good trade-off.

    Well, fifty years later we have Kanye West, don’t we….?

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      15 October, 2018 at 3:13 pm — Reply

      “…So if Hollywood (and Kubrick) were behind making “faked” moon landings for NASA and the American public, then why aren’t they as stunning and technically competent (at least) as the actual fake lunar vistas Kubrick and crew created..? “

      There is 32 years of technical film development between 1969 and 2001.

    • Sethmoto101
      15 October, 2018 at 7:35 pm — Reply

      Without the cost of demanding, violent negroes and latinos imposed by the jewish media, law and academia lording over public opinion and the political process, we’d have Mars bases by now. We’d have the means to properly address climate change and ocean pollution. Maybe a great innovator like Paul Allen would’ve had a cure for his lymphoma since more university research dollars could go toward medical investigation instead of the feelgood agenda items like unearthing the negroid origins of ancient Egypt and similar nonsense.

  11. bigmegina
    15 October, 2018 at 8:27 pm — Reply

    another simple truth is us and Russia were locked in a space race.russia put first satellite and man into goes to the moon a bunch of times and Russia never follows to plant their flag next to us flag,why?because Russia knew you could not go to the moon,thats why they never went.this is called critical thinking,which most white americans have lost.

  12. A Nonymous
    16 October, 2018 at 8:31 am — Reply

    “I’d go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again.”
    — Don Pettit, NASA Astronaut

    Ever since I saw Bart Sibrel’s “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon”, I lean towards not believing any moon landings took place, as I find his arguments pretty convincing.

    Even before I saw that documentary, it always struck me as odd that we don’t seem to have the technology to go to the moon today (anymore), whereas it seemed possible on the first try during the 1960’s, even though their technology was pretty primitive by modern day standards.

    Still, I can’t explain why neither the Russians nor any of the NASA insiders nor anyone else who must have known about it have managed to successfully expose the moon landing as a hoax during the following decades. There should be more than a handful of people out there with access to unambiguous evidence that could convince even the greatest skeptic. So I’m inclined to say I’m undecided on this issue.

    Then again, the “Holocaust” has been successfully debunked decades ago, yet it’s still considered an unchallenged fact by the vast majority of people out there. So maybe there have been many whistle-blowers who did provide unambiguous evidence that successfully debunks the moon landing as a hoax. Maybe, just like in the case of the “Holocaust”, our collective memory has just forgotten about them because the media ignored them…

  13. Johnny Walker Read
    16 October, 2018 at 10:19 am — Reply

    Why the Soviet Union conceded
    While Soviet experts were sorting out this hoax, it had become a part of the social psyche. So any rebuttal could only be achieved by referring to photographs and the TV coverage of the Apollo landing sites. The top Soviet leadership was faced with a dilemma – to go to considerable effort to gather evidence and then publicly prove the illusory nature of the Apollo Space Project, or to keep silent by agreeing to the US geopolitical exchange.

    In the first case, the parties were facing a military conflict, at least a strike on the Soviet space infrastructure. Under no circumstances could the US allow the truth to come out, as in this case instead of triumph, the country would run into ontological catastrophe: their chosen role as the prime purveyors of truth, goodness, and justice, in the eyes of its citizens and the self-appointed policeman of the world in the eyes of everyone else, America would become the generator of a ubiquitous lie without the moral right to geopolitical leadership.

    As the global lie is exposed in the eyes of its citizens the elite loses the right to exercise their power: any communication with the public could be interpreted as an attempt to deceive, which would mean paralysis of governance. In terms of financial, rather than administrative dictatorship this stance could result in deep social disorder or even disintegration of the country.

    In the second case, it is prudent not to engage in an exposé; the Soviet Union gets peace and access to useful financial resources and western technologies. The situation created by the US did not allow for partial solutions – either peace, friendship and chewing gum – or war. Facing a difficult decision the Soviet leaders, at first glance, acted wisely and humanely.

  14. cc
    16 October, 2018 at 11:19 am — Reply

    HOAX: Phony commie scare (Cold War) as an excuse to build up the ‘military industrial complex’ and train White children to be 14th amendment police state citizens. Ironically those kids grew up to be the last White revolutionaries in North America. They went outside and everything!

    Duck and Cover campaign: Let’s tell the kids that the Russians are going to drop an atomic bomb on their elementary school. They can Crawl in Silence under the desk.

    The body bags weren’t coming home fast enough so the Federals shot to death unarmed students at Kent State (mean ol’ duck and cover kids/Boomers) for having the audacity to demonstrate against the expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia.–~C

  15. Jeremiah Johnson, Jr.
    1 March, 2019 at 3:23 am — Reply

    Someone asked why there are no stars visible in the photos that the astronauts took while on the moon. That’s because of exposure time. The object in focus was close to the astronaut/photographer: that is, his fellow astronaut or the lunar descent module or the flag. The exposure time was fast and therefore the stars in the background were not visible in the photos. A longer exposure time would have been needed to capture the stars in the background. If it had been faked, stars would be visible in the background if they were part of a backdrop or FX studio such as the background stars on Star Trek or 2001. Ironically, visible stars would have proven that the photos were faked. This is just one reason I believe the landings were real.

Leave a reply

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

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.