Who would ever have imagined that Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Helms, Haig,
Nixon, Nixon's secretary, Stanley Kubrick's wife and the astro-nots
would get on camera and describe how the moon photos were faked,
especially when one of them is presently the USA Secretary of Defense?


That's beyond anyone's wildest imaginations and so all the more reason to do it
because then afterwards they can say, "as if". ~ Jackie Jura

To Orwell Today,


I read your article on orwelltoday.com, after seeing the Dark Side of the Moon documentary on Norwegian TV yesterday. Iíve been browsing your site for a hour or so and canít really grasp itís concepts. Anyhow, I canít really conclude on the documentary either... Was it all staged or what?

Itís no secret that the moon landing was never filmed live. Get real, it was the sixties, and they for sure didnít have the technology. But how much of the documentary was fiction and how much was real? Canít find much information about it and no news anywhere.

Well. You have a nice day.

Med vennlig hilsen,
Emil Rakoczy

Greetings Emil,

How fortuitous that your email arrived today - July 20th - the 35th anniversary of the Moon Hoax in 1969.

The concept behind the documentary DARK SIDE OF THE MOON is that the viewing audience will think the photos were faked but that the moon landing actually happened. To the puppet-masters that's the lesser of two evils now that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon photos were fakes. They couldn't come up with any scientific proof that the photos were real so they're conceding defeat in that area and saying, more or less, "But we did it for a good cause because we knew you'd want to see pictures and we didn't want to disappoint you". Yeah right. Just like Santa Claus came down the chimney and that's why the cookies and milk are gone.

I don't know how it was presented in Norway but in Canada DARK SIDE OF THE MOON was shown on a weekly program called THE PASSIONATE EYE. Before the documentary was shown it was introduced by the hostess (a Haitian-born, French-Canadian who was later appointed Governor General of Canada) who spun it the way the powers-that-be wanted. I've numbered the pertinent points and made comments on them at the end. Here's what she said before starting the documentary:

" Think back to the 1960s to the middle of the Cold War(1). How far was the American government(2) prepared to go to sell the public(3) on the space race, a race the Soviets were winning(4)? As the story goes President Nixon was afraid that even if(5) the Americans successfully put a man on the moon they might not be able to broadcast(6) the images of man's first walk on the lunar surface. How would they solve this incredible public relations dilemma(7)? We present DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and all the conspiracies(8) you could hope for(9) in one documentary. "

(1) In the Cold War the USA and the Soviet Union pretended to hate each other again so that each of their peoples would give them vast amounts of money to fight their imaginary war against each other

(2) They're putting the blame on the USA government when in fact they manipulate the politicians and bureaucrats like puppets on a string

(3) The phrase "to sell the public" is pretty self-explanatory. The tone assumes it's just a matter of salesmanship and the public will buy anything

(4) The Soviets weren't winning. The Sputnik they sent up was probably backed by the USA to get the competitive juices flowing back home. Like Orwell said, "they prop one another up like three sheaves of corn" when referring to the super-powers whose wars against each other are played out in the innocent countries of the Disputed Territories. In reality the USSR was lagging behind the USA in every imaginable area and was technologically incapable of fixing a tractor let alone sending a man to space. They were a backward nation of peasants (after Stalin and wars killed everyone else) who'd been collectivized into massive farms and factories which were so inefficient that the country had to import food and technology and the only people eating or living half-decently were the pigs (that's what Orwell called them)

(5) Notice the word "if"

(6) In other words they're saying they had the technology to build space vehicles capable of landing and leaving the moon but they didn't have the technology to build cameras to film it

(7) Hmmmm. How can we show the television audience pictures of astro-nots on the moon if there ARE no astro-nots on the moon?

(8) They show the scientific work done by the researchers who have uncovered the blatant flaws in NASA's moon photos because the genie is out of the bottle and they can't put it back

(9) Yes, who would ever have imagined that Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Helms, Haig, Nixon, Nixon's secretary, Stanley Kubrick's wife and the astro-nots would get on camera and describe how the moon photos were faked, especially when one of them is presently the USA Secretary of Defense? That's beyond anyone's wildest imaginations and so all the more reason to do it because then afterwards they can say, "as if"

Now here's the closing comments which were made by the hostess after the film ended, with my comments numbered as before:

" As you may have guessed by now(1) tonight's documentary is actually a spoof, a mockumentary(2). The film makers wanted to show how easily images and interviews can be manipulated(3) to deceive any audience. But it is not all fiction. DARK SIDE OF THE MOON mixes both facts and rumours(4) that surround the first(5) moon landing, reminding us to always question the media's messenger(6). "

(1) They're flattering your intelligence so that you'll nod your head in agreement when they make the statement they want you to believe

(2) They think they're really clever with the funny new word they've invented, ie "mockumentary". ha, ha is everybody laughing now? They're hoping you'll think absolutely everything you saw was just nothing but a big bad "spoof" and that you didn't really see a genie come out of a bottle

(3) But because you have seen the genie they re-inforce that it exists but suggest that it probably isn't really the shape you think you saw

(4) By saying "rumours" instead of "indisputable scientific proof" they're hoping you'll lump the truth in with the obviously outrageous stuff like the Pentagon sending a bigger army than they sent to the first Gulf War in search of an assisstant director who they wanted to assassinate, along with all the other technical people involved in staging the moon-landing pictures. But even this extreme scenario has truth at its core. No doubt they DID murder people involved in staging the phony moon photos, like in their movie CAPRICORN ONE, and in the JFK assassination where dozens of people who witnessed the shooters in the Grassy Knoll "met untimely deaths" in the years following 1963. As the narrator of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON says: "The CIA asked the Pentagon to show a little more discretion and use a method which had been tried and tested in Latin America and Asia 'dressing up murders to look like accidents'."

(5) Notice how they use the word "first" moon landing which implies that there were other moon landings and that only the first moon landing had "facts and rumours surrounding it"

(6) In other words, "Don't believe the documentaries the conspiracy theorists did because they were fooling you in theirs just like we've been fooling you in ours" or as Orwell said, "persuading you to deny the reality of your own senses"

Another probable reason (besides damage control) that the powers-that-be chose to show DARK SIDE OF THE MOON is that they love to grovel in their own self-made glory. In the Ministry of Truth the Party makes movies that expose its past, present and future black ops (evil operations) under the guise of fiction. They communicate with each other through symbolism and get away with doing things in broad daylight all the time knowing that only a small minority of people recognize their code.

Forty years after the powers-that-be blew JFK's brains out in Dealey Plaza the majority of people accept the government's lie that it was done by a magic bullet, just as in spite of the fact that the moon photos are proven fakes they still believe men went to the moon.

I hope this helps answer your question about what is fiction and what is real in the DARK SIDE OF THE MOON "mockumentary" and that after reading the pertinent passages of Orwell you'll have a greater understanding of "1984" and its concepts.

All the best,
~ Jackie Jura



Apollo Anniversary July 20, 1969: Moon Landing "Inspired World" (the Party line status quo). National Geographic, Jul 20, 2004

Dark Side of the Moon (documentary featuring Kissinger-Rumsfield-Haig-Helms). CBC Passionate Eye, Nov 17, 2003
How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon...



* Capricorn One (1978 movie)
Classic conspiracy tale about the first manned mission to Mars. All appears to be going well until the astronauts are pulled off the ship just before launch by shadowy government types and whisked off to a film studio in the desert. It transpires that the space vehicle has a major defect which NASA just daren't admit. At the studio, over a course of months, the astronauts are forced to act out the journey and the landing to trick the world into believing they have made the trip. Meanwhile, a Journalist (played by Gould) is getting suspicious and every clue he uncovers seems to result in an attempt on his life! The astronauts are just about to splashdown when a further twist to the tale occurs, leaving them with no choice but to try and escape...


28.Reality Control and 6.Super-States and PIGS AT THE TROUGH and RUSSIA 1917 TO 1939 and 16.Ministry of Truth and 17.Falsification of Past and 9.Keeping Masses Down


Jackie Jura
~ an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events ~

email: orwelltoday@gmail.com
website: www.orwelltoday.com