This post concerns the January 27th, 1967 tragedy that ended the lives of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee. I emphasize at the beginning that I am not certain this was a fake event, only suspicious. If indeed the deaths were real, it will come off as disrespectful of the families and friends, so I hope passage of 51 years allows me the latitude to write what follows.
I start with the premise that no human has ever walked on the surface of the moon. It is too far away for ordinary rocket technology, burdened as it is with heavy metal contraptions and the need to provide an atmosphere, food and waste facilities for humans on the the long journey. Then there is the trip (to and from) through the Van Allen Belt. In later missions, as if by osmosis, moon buggies appear on the surface. For them to be there, something else had to go – rocket boosters? Toilets? Water?
The most common objection to moon landing research is that “someone would have talked.” In military operations, people do not talk. If they do, they face loss of pension and health care in retirement, and possible imprisonment. Everyone involved in the upper levels of a hoax of this magnitude must have a security clearance. Such clearances are accomplished with nondisclosure agreements. They must be bullet proof, as they are never violated. There is also the masonic angle, people holding secrets close to their hearts. I wish I knew more about Freemasons, but they are secretive, and I have never been invited to join. (My short stint in the Knights of Columbus does not count.)
Beneath all of that is compartmentalization. The people at the fashion house International Latex probably had no idea they were involved in a hoax when they provided space suits. This is also true for those who provided the Tang, protein bars, wiring, seats and helmets. If they were to talk, they would have nothing to say as they were not in on the gig.
Finally, there is the matter of a massive project like this, never done before, and getting it right the first time. I do household projects, little things like building a shed to house my snow thrower, remodeling a bathroom, building a staircase from scratch. I never get it right the first time. Yet we are told that Apollo 11 took off, made it to the moon, deployed the lunar lander, landed on the surface safely, took off again and reunited with the command module and made its way back home (passing each way through the Van Allen radiation belt) unharmed. Everything went according to plan.
Some speculate that Apollo 13, the mission that did have problems, was itself a hoax, just to demonstrate that things to occasionally go wrong, and that while not perfect, they are very good at improvising. (Opie, Ron Howard, who directed the movie of that name, was 16 when the mission was flown.)
This is all well-studied and documented elsewhere, and I am not going to recite the volumes of material now available to anyone of curious mind. But no, in my view, no human has ever walked on the surface of the moon or orbited around it or seen the dark side. Have they launched non-occupied vehicles to accomplish these purposes? Some say no. I suspect yes. Without having to house and feed humans, the mechanical requirements are far more achievable.
Last week I was reminded of the tragic deaths of Virgil I. “Gus” Grissom, Edward Higgins White II and Roger B. Chaffee. Someone had mentioned in a radio broadcast or podcast that the fire that killed them had lasted 27 seconds, catching my interest. I have not been able to find that repeated anywhere, but it did cause me to go to the usual source of the Lies Of Our Time, Wikipedia.
I have read Wiki’s account of the tragic January 27, 1967 fire. Are there enough clues there to say with relative certainty that the event was faked? No. But I am using the following twisted logic: If there was never any intent to go to the moon, then there was no real program to design a command module or a lunar lander or, or for that matter, rocketry capable of traveling that distance. All they needed was some rocket launches for the TV screen. So the details of the death of these three men, laden as they are with engineering and design jargon, are probably invented.
Shaky ground, I know, but why fake their deaths?
There are several possibilities. The one most often cited is Gus Grissom’s disenchantment with the machinery, hanging a lemon on the command module a mere five days before the fire, complaining that if they cannot communicate between buildings, that moon-to-earth would be even harder yet. This leads to the Grissom family, to this day, suspecting murder, a deliberate fire set to eliminate a troublemaker. This would make certain elements of NASA murderers. Again, if Grissom was in on the gig, he knew they were not going to the moon, and so would not be worried about the technical details.
To me these clues read more like deliberate foreshadowing. We also have astronaut Walter Schirra the previous December, on entering and exiting the same module saying “There’s nothing wrong with this ship that I can point to, but it just makes me uncomfortable. Something about it just doesn’t ring right.” Looking backwards at any event leads to subjective reasoning, as it is easy to pinpoint what went wrong after it has gone wrong. To me, it is more likely that Grissom’s stunts and complaints were staged, and that Schirra’s words were wisdom after the fact, or at least attributed to him after the fact.
I guess I am circling the issue here. Were Grissom, White and Chaffee killed that day? I doubt it. There are several things that make me suspicious that the event was staged.
1. The behavior of the Grissom family, accusing NASA of murder. As with the JFK assassination, such rumors are allowed to thrive … as misdirection. If there were real suspicion of murder, it would be either hushed or not publicized, and the Grissom family would be in danger, which it is not. The fact that they are allowed a high profile makes it suspicious.
2. Wikipedia footnotes are littered with spook numbers. In thirteen pages of text, I highlighted 75 footnotes, dates and other numbers that could be interpreted as use of numbers to signal a fake event. The number “11” alone is used nine times as a footnote. (Silly me, but I wonder if they chose the name “Apollo” due to the presence of two letter “l’s” forming an “11.” In those days typewriters did not have a number 1 key, and instead, the letter “l” (el) key served a dual function. As I say, silly me, but also note that the fake landing was done by Apollo 11, just as on 911 the twin towers themselves were a symbolic 11. Sometimes clues are hidden in plain view.)
I emphasize here, however, that numbers used in this manner could indeed be coincidental, misinterpreted, and by themselves prove nothing.
3. The tragic and premature deaths of popular public figures, in this case, astronauts who are near godlike in their presentation to us, is a form of trauma-based mind control. We are hammered with it constantly, and a previous incident, the JFK assassination, stands as a granddaddy of TBMC. JFK’s 1961 words that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade were surely planned and scripted knowing that he would be a martyr. His fake death would make him a primary driver behind the moon hoax. So the addition of three lesser gods to the roll call of the dead could well have been additional fuel to keep the public in the game.
4. The deliberate staging of such an accident could have been done to reinforce the idea I mentioned above, that things do indeed go wrong. We are told that after this accident 623 engineering changes were made to make the command module safer. This gives the impression that NASA and North American Aviation were on the job, and that the new model of the module would indeed be capable of a moon journey (even as it would never leave low earth orbit, if even that).
The test that day was labeled a “plugs-out-test” to determine that the module would operate correctly without its umbilical cords. There was no rocket fuel present, so the test was considered safe. The atmosphere inside the module was pure oxygen. Grissom noted a foul odor in his spacesuit which he said smelled like “sour buttermilk.” Out of respect, if he did die that day, I forego fart jokes. (His microphone was said to be stuck open, which tends to reinforce the idea that he was really in the module, and was probably deliberate, as outsiders need an inside view.) At 6:31:04:07 Grissom said “Hey!” “Fire!” About seven seconds later came the badly garbled exclamations that there was indeed a fire, and then lights out.
Death for the three was said to be mercifully quick, cardiac arrest caused by carbon monoxide, so that the burns their bodies endured were not felt. It was said to have been caused by a spark, or an electric arc, near an ethylene glycol water cooling line that had been prone to leaks. Since they were in a pure oxygen environment (done to avoid the “bends” often afflicting deep-sea divers), the result was an instantaneous fire that no one could survive. Further, when others ran to help, they found that the pressure difference between inside and outside of the module made the escape hatch difficult and time-consuming to open. However, cardiac arrest meant that the three were already dead. Nothing could have saved them.
Thus the official story. Indeed, it reads well, I admit.
The event happened on January 27, 1967.
901 days later, July 16, 1969, would come the fake moon landing. It seems improbable, if not impossible, given such a massive failure of the first attempt to put the machinery in space (623 design flaws?), that all problems could have been resolved. This is evidence that the Apollo 1 tragedy might indeed have been unplanned, and real. However, if it was known in 1961 (the JFK scripted remark) that the moon landings would be faked, it was also known in 1967. Therefore, I tend to suspect that this event was fake and staged. I am not always right, of course, and so if I am wrong, I apologize for the fart joke above. (I have often wondered where JFK was on 7/16/69 – watching the event on TV? Laughing?)
We are told that after the accident, work still went forward as planned on Saturn rocketry and the lunar module. There were congressional hearings, and we are told that President Lyndon Johnson, citing the JFK legacy, used his power to push the program forward despite the loss. North American Aviation, initially a scapegoat, came out unscathed. Apollo 4, not the next in line but renamed in the wake (and also allowing the 1969 landing to be #11) was launched in November of 1967, a mere 286 days after the Apollo 1 disaster. In engineering terms, given the size and lofty objectives of this program, that is remarkable and quick recovery.
Thereafter, it was one success (with minor problems quickly solved) after another until Apollo 13. They made a movie about that.
What happens to the walking dead?
There are many staged fake deaths in our world, and going far back in history as well. It has long puzzled me what happens to them when a death is faked. Clues Forum did some remarkable research that turned up six of the seven supposedly dead astronauts from the 1986 Challenger disaster. Three merely changed their first names and went back to their regular lives. Judith Resnick is still Judith Resnick, teaching at Yale Law.
We have done research here indicating that certain rock stars and young actors after faking their deaths reappeared with new names and in new roles. This list would include Bill O’Reilly, Thom Hartman, Alex Jones, Amy Goodman, and others. Others simply disappear forever – still alive, whereabouts unknowns … Jerry Garcia, John Denver, Prince, Michael Jackson.
So it is possible that Grissom, White and Chaffee merely took on new identities and carried on with their lives. I find this possible but unlikely due to their high profiles and the number of people involved in the Apollo program who were true believers, and who would be shocked out of silence if they were discovered to be alive.
Anyone who watches television drama knows about the Witness Protection Program. I suspect it is widely misunderstood (if it even exists), that is, it could be that certain criminals who testify against their former associates might indeed find new lives and never be found. But I think the program, if real, has other uses.
For instance, I know that no one died in the Columbine massacre of April 20, 1999, and yet thirteen were reported dead. One I know to be a ghost, Isaiah Schoels, a black, and yet another a possibility, Kyle Valesquez, mentally challenged. But the rest appear to be real people with real addresses (I looked them up on old phone directories). Where did they go? For the students (one was a 47 year-old teacher), I think it an easy matter to give them new lives, new addresses. And for them, a program like Witness Protection would be useful. After all, they were probably brought in to participate as actors in the fake event.
The same is true of all of our fake mass shootings – there is, littered among the fake victims, a few real people whose deaths are faked and who have to be relocated. I have read speculation that the funds raised for the “Victims” families are used for this purpose, along with payments to the actors.
For Grissom, White and Chaffee, it would not be so easy, Grissom especially, who was made out to be a folk hero. If indeed they were not aboard that rocket that day, they might have been reassigned to another country, or perhaps sent to a province in Brazil that is said to have an American/European style of life. (Tyrone, our writer, knows its name. I can never think of it.)
This much I know – once a high-profile person is said to be dead (or in jail), the public loses its memory. He could walk down the sidewalk in front of our houses and we would not recognize him. If indeed assigned new identities and left in this country, it is possible that these three lived out their lives in peace and quiet.
My guess, however, is Brazil. However, if they really died that day, eternal rest unto them. I wish I were certain about this matter, but I have lingering doubts that in real life, real FUBAR’s happen.
Final note: I did some work with genealogy on the three. Grissom and Ed White provided no surprises, records going back only a few generations. Interesting however, and probably coincidental, that two generations back for Gus we find John Wesley Grissom, and two generations back for his wife Cecile we find John Wesley King.
Roger Chaffee was another story – I was able to trace his paternal line back seventeen generations to 1438, and yes, the name Chafee (Chafe) (de Chafecomb) is in the ThePeerage.com. Other names popped up during that search, including Bigglestone, Shorte, Bliss, Toogood, Carpenter, Paine, Lyon, Reed and Seabring. I do not know what all of this means. Other people do this better.