Apollo 1

Grissom, White and Chaffee

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 accident

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 aftermath

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?

Courtesy of Clues Forum

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.

49 thoughts on “Apollo 1

  1. So glad you (un)covered this story, Mark! I always had it in the back of my mind to look into it, but there are only 28 hours in a day…

    Good musings and ideas, I will add my cents on this plot:
    1 – 27/01 is of course “Holocaust remembrance day”, which is curious, as this plot is about a fire (“holocaustos”)
    2 – I disagree with you that unmanned probes are possible, I have elaborated on the Impossibility of Space Travel linked at my blog, material science doesn’t allow for metals to behave in the alleged conditions of Space. Plus the one force that stops us all; gravity. Even for those contemplating another force than gravity, that is irrelevant and mere speculation anyway; the boomerang effect counts here; NASA is following the gravity model, so if that model debunks their Space Travel they have lost either of them or both, but never won.
    3 – the story doesn’t read well I’d say. We, with our basic high school chemistry education, know already that a pressurized 100% oxygenated environment is a guaranteed death trap. The idea that an engineer (those aerospace engineers who call themselves astronauts do have decent educational backgrounds) agrees with stepping in such a trap, Christmas-style decorated with electric wires (even the microphones, etc.), is preposterous.
    4 – I very much agree with the lack of logic you spotted; if they knew space travel is impossible, and they did know that way before, I’d say somewhere in the Vernean mid-late 1800s, it doesn’t make sense to perform such a test, if it is not meant to portray it as real (HRDPAR, see Fakeologist).
    5 – indeed faked deaths are very easy and the ridiculous Challenger plot shows their lack of respect for our intelligence; a case of Trolling Right In Our Muffled Faces; TRIOMF. I also agree with JLB that the paper maché mock-up presented to us as the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) is a clear case of TRIOMF.
    6 – I don’t think Cluesforum was first with recognizing the Challenger survivors, but indeed they did a good job summarizing and tracking them.
    7 – as you rightly point out; the idea that the most difficult of all achievements of mankind would be a “100% success” (even counting Apollo 13, where “nobody died, nobody got hurt”, with their BS stay in the Lunar Module) is impossible. And the idea that within 4 months (Apollo 11 to 12) you can repeat such a feat perfectly and without problems has to mean we would be living on the Moon by now, the idea people had back in those days for the “magical” year 2000. If we can do it, we do it. If we can’t make it, we fake it.

    There are many “colonies” in South America, in Brazil, but also in Paraguay (Nueva Germania), Argentina (Dolfy H.’s alleged stays in Bariloche and Córdoba) and Chile (many Germans went there too) and in other places. Argentina alone has 200,000 Yiddish speakers…! Hawaii another option, the Caribbean is littered with (semi-)military bases and comfy resorts, etc.

    Talking about Brazil, some weeks ago I read about Fortlândia, named after Henry “how to create the happiest slave worker bees” Ford, who never has been there allegedly, where the Brazilians rightly opposed the conditions and rules (no football, HA!), which looks like a real experience, not a hoax, to me.

    But the main thing is that colonies like those are relatively easy to found in the vast landscape of the huge country.


      1. Ah another point I forgot to add; the notion that “they couldn’t keep such a thing secret, as too many people would have been involved” is sufficiently explained by you, but lately I started using another analogue for that;

        Drug trafficking. How many people are (secretly) involved in that business, one of the biggest in the world? And how many wives, mothers, husbands, children and other close friends and family know about the activities of the dealer (of various ranks)? Yet the stuff needs to be produced, transported, shipped, in- and exported and sold. If “they could never keep that secret” would apply, it would mean drug trafficking does not exist and I am happy to be among some hippies here who know better… 😉


        1. Good point … as noted by someone else, no US soldier has ever seen a poppy plant taken from a field in Afghanistan for processing. They are sent there to guard the fields, after all. A whole army of people who keep silent.


      2. In our Special FRAC 13 chat (6 hours!), Geris and me went over just the first 3 chapters of my 5 chapter research, with for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 today more than 50 points you have never heard before or considered.

        We cover Apollo 1 and “Gus” Grissom in the first hour.

        I look forward to your comments about the podcast.


  2. Great article Mark…I heard or read several years ago that these guys were going to “talk” and expose some of the fraud…don’t know where I read it or if it was a podcast. So many NASA lies so much BS and propaganda. They are probably living the good life in some nice country. Thanks Gaia for such a thoughtful, meaningful reply.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I doubt anyone will ever talk … these are military men, so they are bound to secrecy and kept to it by loss of pensions, health care, and that applies as well to wives. There is a code of secrecy in force too that I think is one of honor among Freemasons, never to speak outside of the lodges.


  3. Mark, I love your writing and comments in general, but the Judith Resnick observation is truly absurd. She was my law professor in Los Angeles in 1982-83, (for Civil Procedure class) and I saw her every day in class, and she simply did not and does not bear a strong resemblance in any way to the astronaut aboard the Challenger. Even in the photo you display, their eyes alone are not even close. The law professor JR testified before Congress during the Robert Bork hearing, wrote a tremendously influential Harvard Law Review article that led to the use of the federal court “direct calendar” system in state courts (including California) and returned to Yale after her years long stint at USC. She is a true legal scholar and never stopped teaching for any extended period, dropped out of sight or took any leave of absence from USC (to my knowledge). She came from Yale Law with at least one other professor, stayed I believe for at least 5-6 years, and then returned. Physically, she seemed like a perfectly average person, and did not have the affect/appearance of someone who had military training (nor did I ever hear her discuss engineering or physics, the area of the astronaut’s expertise). Just my two cents, as an actual student of the actual professor, in Los Angeles, four years before the Challenger disaster.


    1. I used to have a post up here that did facial comparisons on not just Resnick, but five of the other six who supposedly died that day, and the alignment of facial features was uncanny, including Resnicks’s. But I took that post down because the work rightly belonged to Clues Forum, and I was just piggybacking. I know nothing about her personally, and accept your word that she was a law professor in LA, etc. To me this means this matter needs further inquiry, as something smells. I am not the one to do it as I am no longer objective. I suggest that Clues Forum might be a place where this matter is discussed further.


      1. I will point you to some discussion on the Resniks which appeared at Fakeologist.com.

        This did not go down well at Cluesforum
        What was NOT debunked was the parallel education [science and law] apparently going on at the same time, which would be beyond most people’s capabilities, even future astronauts’.


        A commenter on the following YouTube video also debunks the connection.

        Jorge Bonilla
        1 year ago
        ahaha. This woman is my professor and she is certainly not the dead astronaut. She was already well-established in academia and the legal field prior to the death of the astronaut; She even testified against Robert Bork in congress in ’85. You can also find pictures of her in her youth, where she looks nothing like the astronaut. She is quite short and has eastern european/polish features.

        IMO it’s just more misdirection trying to say these two Resniks are the same.

        The rest of your article, Mark, is spot-on. Since the majority, perhaps, of marriages/partnerships end unhappily, I’d posit that a very very large number of people wouldn’t mind going into witness protection programs to get away from their ex’s and children for good. Perhaps that’s one way of selecting them.


        1. Something is messed up here, Xile. I don’t know if it is at Clues Forum, but I am suspicious now that Resnick’s photo that they originally used was a paste up making her look like an astronaut. This woman below bears no resemblance to the Resnick that is seen in the Challenger crew, and the photo I used above.

          Challenger Resnik 3

          Challenger Resnik Comp

          How is that for a proving two people are the same – use the same person! The photo above is a fake.


        2. I just went to search for Astronaut Judith Resnick, wondering where the CF photo came from. Look at the assembly below:

          Challenger Crew

          They have used Judith Resnick, Yale Law Professor, alongside another woman who is not the same. I am completed puzzled. Is NASA fucking with us?


          1. Eh Mark, the astronaut photo of Judith Resnik is allegedly Judith Arlene Resnik (the astronot), not Judith Resnik the law professor:


            Taken from this original (?):

            They look a bit different in the eyes, but they may well be the same person. How hard is it to fake an education or career? I am not convinced of the “impossibility” these look-alikes and same-names are the same person.

            But taking them as 2 people, would it be the inside joke to select the others then? 5 astronots who “share features with their namesakes” as the “humor” by NASA?

            How were those astronauts selected; based on their similarity with real people? Are the identities stolen from their living counterparts?

            In other words; what is the alternative explanation for the similarities between the people and their names if they are not the same person?


          2. In the collage of seven photos above, start on the left and count clockwise. The first six are of Judith Resnick, the alleged dead astronaut. The seventh photo is of Judith Resnick, the law professor. In fact, I would bet that one is a Photoshop job, as the collar presents a perfect boundary for placing a head. At this point, just trust me with reservations, as I will show you tomorrow in a new post that these are two different people. The hard part is to answer the question … WTF?


          3. Crap, they can’t even bother using different “mock” photos after all this time. Reminds me of the Noah Pozner photo from Sandy Hook in Dec 2012 and same photo used again at the Peshawar School massacre in Pakistan in Dec 2014. A lot of that info has been “scrubbed” but I found these links and there is a video at one of them.



            The population at large falls for the propaganda every time.


  4. Really good article! A little too much numerology though! Just kidding!

    January 27, 1967? Often it is worth noting that in the “Old Roman Calendar”, January was/is the 11th month. For anyone who might think that there is “only one calendar” in use, simply look at when a “fiscal year” starts and ends!

    There seems to be much made of “The Peerage” from some alternative media sources. There is no doubt that many of the “players” of today are connected to The Peerage. It is insinuated by certain personalities like MM, that The Peerage is predominantly PROTESTANT or JEWISH or BOTH but never a connection to CATHOLIC or JESUIT?

    It should be remembered that The British Isles were ruled by ROME, The POPE and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE through the CATHOLIC Faith supposedly until 1533, when HENRY VIII was refused a divorce by the POPE and subsequently broke ties with CATHOLICISM and married ANN BOLEYN over the objections of THE POPE, with the PUBLIC MARRIAGE CEREMONY on 25 January 1533 after already having a secret marriage performed 14 November 1532.

    Ann Boleyn had previously planned to marry her cousin James Butler in 1522, but those marriage plans were broken off, then was engaged to HENRY PERCY but that potential marriage was rejected by the Father of HENRY PERCY, also named HENRY (ALGERNON) PERCY and (CATHOLIC) CARDINAL THOMAS WOLSEY in January 1524.

    It needs to be remembered that THE CHURCH of ENGLAND was a CATHOLIC INSTITUTION that HENRY VIII took control of circa 1533. All of the “Rights and Rituals” remained virtually unchanged.

    On 7 September 1533, Ann Boleyn is said to have given BIRTH to ELIZABETH I, the future QUEEN. Then on 19 May 1536, Ann Boleyn is said to have been beheaded for High Treason. It is worth noting that the first wife of HENRY VIII, Catherine Howard was also beheaded.

    The Mother of Ann Boleyn was ELIZABETH HOWARD, Grandmother and namesake of the future QUEEN ELIZABETH I.

    All of this intrigue is of course simply BUSINESS. ENGLAND became the INDUSTRIAL CENTER of the WORLD and so much POWER attracts the highest levels of PSYCHOPATHS. That is why when the NEW WORLD was COLONISED, so many of these “MEN” came to The Americas to make their FORTUNES.c

    Very often, a boy is plucked from an orphanage and trained for the role he will play in life, so that he has no Family to ever go back to, or to reveal secrets to. These “boys” become the “front men” for the power behind the throne(s).

    ORRIN HENRY INGRAM was the most recognised LUMBERMAN in WISCONSIN and along with his business partners DONALD KENNEDY and ALEXANDER M. DOLE, built a fortune for himself and “others”. His Paternal Grandfather, DAVID INGRAM immigrated from LEEDS ENGLAND IN 1780.

    Orrin Henry Ingram was born in 1830 at Westfield Massachusetts but grew up at Saratoga New York at least until he was “orphaned” at the age of (11). He got his start in the Lumber Business at age 17 when he went to work for Harris & Bronson Lumber Company in New York City in 1847.

    In addition to all of his accomplishments in TIMBER and LUMBER (raping Northern Wisconsin Forests down to the last tree), he was also the PRESIDENT of not one but two BANKS in Eau Claire Wisconsin. When he died in 1918, he was only worth about $1,000,000, which seems curious considering he was THE MAN in Northern Wisconsin for about 50 years!

    One of my G-G-Grandfathers worked for INGRAM and/or his associates and was killed, along with 6 other men, during a log jam accident in the spring of 1897. These 7 men are buried in a Mass Grave, with no Headstone at the Chippewa Falls Cemetery. The cemetery curators do not even know for sure exactly where these men are buried as there is a large tract of “Green Grass” where multiple unmarked graves are established, though the names of the deceased are in The Book!

    The burials in events like this were handled by the Lumber Companies and very often if the body was found too far down river, the man would simply be buried on the banks of the river because the men (still living) had to “get back to work”.

    DEMOCRATS want to KILL you if you think original thoughts.
    REPUBLICANS want to KILL you if you interfere with BUSINESS.

    BOTH PARTIES want to KILL you if your original thoughts interfere with BUSINESS.

    Can anyone explain why it is that the JESUITS and DEVOUT CATHOLICS always seem to get a FREE PASS in “most” CONSPIRACY CIRCLES and in “most” ALTERNATIVE MEDIA AUDIO, VIDEO and LITERARY POSTINGS? It is worth noting that there is a vast difference in ideology and lifestyle between the “Masses” and the “Heirarchy” within the CATHOLIC CHURCH and also the PROTESTANT CHURCHES.


    RELIGIONS/GOVERNMENTS are exempt from TAXATION. Every Religion is a CORPORATION and every CORPORATION is a Religion. Every GOVERNMENT is both a RELIGION and a CORPORATION.

    NASA is part of the CREATION of “The Jesus Character” or those who “sacrifice everything” for ‘you”.

    PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, MUSIC, MOVIES, POLITICS, etc. are also about CREATION of JESUS CHARACTERS to WORSHIP and as a small bit of proof, here is a pic from the “CRASH SITE” of SRV, a crash which is alleged to have happened about 1 am August 27, 1990.

    It is said/written that the PI-LOT of the HELL-I-COP-TOR, took off from THE VALLEY (of the KINGS?) in a HEAVY FOG (lies and intrigues), BANKED ($) HARD LEFT (POLITICALLY) and hit THE “SKI” MOUNTAIN (BERG) at FULL SPEED just 0.6 miles from takeoff?

    BTW a “PILOT” is a PI LOT and ‘Pi”regards the area of a CIRCLE and a tract of land is called a LOT and a distant view of a planet in 2-dimensional space is a “Pi Lot”

    It is worth noting that THE JESUITS have been MASTERS of CREATING DRAMA’S for many CENTURIES, but it is good to have a “FRONT MAN” to take the CREDIT while the MASSES pay the DEBT!


  5. Mark M., I am also not questioning your experience with law professor Judith Resnik, but there simply are too many red flags in this story.

    1 – We all have doppelgänger, that is a fact of life. But, those we have do not bear the same first AND last name. For that to happen we have an astronomically small chance (pun intended).
    2 – As this case is a question of AND; AND person A AND person B AND person C, etc., the chances that 5 astronots of the Challenger all bear the same or very similar names (first and last) is impossibly low; the already astronomically small chances need to be multiplied for that to happen. Even more knowing they are not called “John Smith” or “Angela Taylor”, but have way less common names. I am not the first one to notice this, see this forum in Spanish, where the Cluesforum findings are discussed (and rejected by believers in the Challenger plot).
    3 – According to the story, which aligns with your experience, Judith Resnik taught in California from 1980 to 1997. Fair enough. Note however that she is a Yale (Skull & Bones, anyone?) professor, located in FFS New Haven, Connecticut (Sandy Hoax, anyone?), that she allegedly drafted a chapter of a book published in 1967 (when she was “young”) and graduated from college in 1972 and NYU in 1975. Then we have a problem. If Judith Resnik = Judith Arlene Resnik (the astronot), she would have been born in 1949, so was 23 when graduating from college, 26 from university and just 19 (!?) when she “drafted a chapter for an influential book”. The 23 and 26 seem quite late for college and uni respectively, but if she was younger (so born after 1949, not being the same Resnik), the statement about the book gets even crazier. Which writer lets a minor draft a chapter for a mainstream book?? So the year 1949 for both Judith Resniks looks quite possible, boosting the astronomically small chance even higher!
    4 – The father of Judith Arlene Resnik was a 32 degree Mason and moved to Encinidas [sic! it is Encinitas, north of San Diego], California in 1987, just 1-1+ year after the alleged “Challenger disaster”. Numerology lovers, he allegedly died on 3/3. The California link may be coincidence, the climate, whopping 400+ percent increase in immigration between 1980 and 1990, and size of California speak in that favor, but it also may be a red flag. Not the first one in this story…
    5 – You say the Judith Resnik you know did not show physical knowledge. Ok, I imagine that is true for someone teaching and writing about law and social “sciences”. But, studies of natural/physical laws and human/social laws may be less separate than at first glance. See the Max Planck institute of Law in Luxembourg, where Judith Resnik has a page as an external scientific fellow… Ol’ Max was if I recall well not so much known for his legal formulations, was he…?
    6 – Following from this, consider the following; those astronots presented to us do not necessarily need to be physicists or engineers. As we know, they didn’t really go to space, so why would they need any of those disciplines? Look at the clowns today who claim they are on board the ISS but hardly convince us of having any scientific (absurd claims and admitting we cannot go to the Moon) or engineering (playing with water in an electrical environment) knowledge.

    Note this idea is not contradicting what I said before about Gus Grissom; again here the boomerang effect is in full swing; using the claim by NASA that Grissom was an engineer/scientist (a trained astronaut) he would never agree to board a 100% oxygenated environment. But, as Mark showed, he may well have been just another actor in a long series of staged events. If he was an actor, he didn’t need any of that knowledge. But again, NASA loses either way or both here; if Grissom was an actor and didn’t know physics or chemistry, he could board the death trap, but then NASA lied about his credentials. And if he wasn’t an actor, yet someone trained in physics, engineering and chemistry, he wouldn’t board at all.

    The same can be true for Judith (Arlene) Resnik, who may well have been a fulltime law professor who just played a short role as an astronot. “No extended leave” is perfectly possible, for some shots in a studio in summer breaks, evenings and weekends.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Here is what threw me for a loop: According to Wiki (I know, source of all lies), … “Judith Arlene Resnik was an American electrical engineer, software engineer, biomedical engineer, pilot and NASA astronaut, who died when the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed …” Nowhere does it mention law, though I have not read the entire article. It was not on my agenda for today. Carpentry was/is.


      1. While you’re doing some carpentry, You might want to build a “WOODEN SPACE SHIP” for, “You know who”…He’s going to blast-off,after seeing all that NUMEROLOGY you left up in “space” back there…Get the boosters ready.


        1. My numerology was just in passing with the understanding that it cannot stand alone as proof or evidence of anything, and further that I don’t preteend to understand the significance of the numbers themselves. They just keep popping up, again and again. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the population is outside this mileau, and will never see anything that we see, so that use of the numbers is obviouly meant for insiders. So it has that significance to me, and nothing more. If they are sitting around a fire at night on peyote and dreaming shit up, fine. If they have a secret temple where 33 space aliens are directing their activities, fine. To me, they are just signalling.


          1. Mark, I understand when “you” explain “your use”, for Numerology….But numbers in the wrong hands, can cause Galileo Galilei to roll over in his grave in outer-space.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Ah! You tryin’ to insult me there Tiger Man? Pay attention, you might learn sum thin!

          The number (11). THEY use it all the time butt what does it mean? Well let me “spell” it out for yoo!

          ELEVEN. Now the simple Gematria of this word using the learned “Sacred Order of the Alp-Habet” is as follows:

          ELEVEN = 5+12+5+22+5+14 = 63 = 9
          PENIS = 16+5+14+9+19 = 63 = 9

          Yoo see, Tiger Man, the number (11) is simply code-4 “Penis” and since this/shit WORLD is ruled by HOMOSEXUAL MEN, where doo yoo suppose THEY want to stick that PENIS?

          Well if yoo guest URANUS, the 7th HEAVEN, yoo wood bee core-wrecked.

          Butt what about HEAVEN that sow many want to “get into”?

          HEAVEN = 8+5+1+22+5+14 = 55 = ANUS

          That’s Rite Kindergarteners, HEAVEN is a coded way of saying ANUS, butt surely all the “learned folk” here already knew that Rite?

          Butt HELL, this/shit/hits much deeper than that because the/el AST NAME (AST NAME = 55 = ANUS) of a variety of characters tells what BUSINESS that FAMILY is IN, so the name TRUMP means the FAMILY is in the BUSINESS of T RUMP, t-rump (CROSS RUMP) as PART(55) of his “BACKPACKING” training at FORD-HAM UNIVERSITY. (FORD means “to CROSS”, FORD the RIVER of CURRENT SEE?)

          Butt what about “THE CROSS” an age-old symbol of CHRISTIANITY? Well CROSS = 3+9+15+19+19 = 55 = ANUS. Oh, yoo may have noticed that the value of the R was reduced from 18 to 9 for this/shit word yes?

          Well, THEY (The Hierarchy Enslaving Yoo), are a bit assmartyr than yoo and THEY INCORPORATE what is known as a Hybrid Gematria, that combines Simple English Gematria and English Reduction Gematria.

          Surely yoo geniuses noticed that yoo have to buy everything with MONEY which is MOON EYE and if a MOON is a “Bare Ass”, what on EARTH could the EYE of the MOON be? Owe the answer eludes me butt maybe yoo smartassses can ride into Jerusalem on the ass with an answer.

          One last tidbit Tiger Man. The word SIGNATURE, when rearranged, is TIGER ANUS and the word PRESIDENT rearranged is PENIS TERD, witches explains Y he s(h)its in the OVAL OFFICE/ORIFICE.

          Just so yoo know, YOO = 25+15+15 = 55 = ANUS, so STOP being such an ASSHOLE and play nice in the sandbox!

          Mark, feel free to ban me at any time cause I will type the truth no matter what any of ya’ll tri- 2 doo to insult me!

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Listen here Wang, I don’t know where you want to stick that 4- inch thing…or whatever planet around Uranus you’re looking to land it on, or in ~ ~ ~But the last time, I Toured around the world with Dave Mason….He said, “You Shouldn’t Have Took More Than You Gave”.


          2. WANG-DUNG, No “ASS- FAULT” of your own…You’re probably not to blame for your own stupidity. Your views are just a bit narrow up your gematria.


          3. HEY DONG, You called me, “TIGER MAN”. I like that. I am rather a TIGER MAN, aren’t I ? I think I’ll change my attack to “TIGER MAN”


  6. More career “coincidences”:

    Christa A. McAuliffe (Sharon Christa McAuliffe (born Sharon Christa Corrigan)) – teaching history, law and economics at Concord High School in New Hampshire when she was selected as the primary candidate for NASA’s teacher in space project in 1985.

    Sharon A. McAuliffe – Adjunct Professor – Syracuse University College of Law

    Maybe a coincidence, maybe not. But notice Christa McAuliffe was not a trained astronaut (~aero-engineer, physics, chemistry, beta-background), she was a history, LAW and economics teacher FFS?! So far for “only physicists, engineers, military trained people/looks go into space”…

    And the astronot is called “Christa A. McAuliffe”, but where does the A. come from and where did Sharon go?
    The law professor is called Sharon A. McAuliffe…

    Francis Richard “Dick” Scobee – of course a coincidence, this extremely common last name could never be the same person as Richard “Cows in Trees” Scobee, right?

    Cows In Trees has joined the Noble Communications family! Visit cows.noble.net to learn more.

    As our name implies, we’re a new and unique concept in branding and advertising – one that’s built around unleashing your brand’s full potential.

    No really, what’s up with ‘Cows In Trees’? Our name comes from an old Southern expression about the weather, “When this one blows over, there’s gonna be some cows in trees.”

    Dickie Scobee, as much originally a “northerner” (Washington) as Ricky Scobee (Chicago), however…:

    Scobee enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1957, where he served as a reciprocating engine mechanic at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. While off duty, he attended San Antonio College, and eventually received a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Arizona in 1965.

    Quite common to pick up slang/expressions during your studies…

    Michael John Smith (here the names are almost jokingly common; the most common first names and the most common last name together)

    Smith was born April 30, 1945 [Born on the same day that Dolfy H. allegedly committed suicide!], in Beaufort, North Carolina. He graduated from East Carteret High School in 1963, and went on to receive a Bachelor of Science degree in Naval Science from the United States Naval Academy in 1967. He subsequently attended the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, from which he graduated with a Master of Science degree in Aeronautical Engineering in 1968.

    Michael J. Smith – Professor Emeritus – Primary Affiliation: Industrial and Systems Engineering

    Professor Smith has conducted studies on the applications of ergonomics and indsutrial [SIC!] psychology for improving working conditions.He was formerly a research program director at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).He is interested in studying the effects of advanced technology, organizational design, working conditions and community development on stress, safety, productivity and performance.He has undertaken projects dealing with redesigning working conditions and community conditions that reduce employee stress, improve health status, reduce injuries and increase positive attitude.

    How serious is a profile page at a known university website with such a typo? And even though he is “emeritus professor” the text still is in the present tense. No spaces after the periods. And yet, from one type of engineer to another type of engineer decades later shouldn’t be too much of a stretch. Probably the stretch is bigger assuming this is a complete coincidence about Michael J. and Michael J. Smith…

    But mere coincidences all over I guess.


  7. The “odd one out”, Gregory Bruce Jarvis, is also interesting to look at (I suspect that “sole US President not related to the others”, Martin Van Buren also to be related, it’s too ‘mythical’ not to):

    the remains of all seven astronauts from the Challenger disaster were discovered in the crew decks on the ocean floor. Jarvis’ body was discovered in the lower mid-deck along with McNair and McAuliffe. During salvage operations to raise the crew deck from the ocean floor, his body escaped from the wreckage, floated to the surface, and disappeared back into the sea.


    On April 15, 1986, on the last scheduled attempt to recover wreckage, it was rediscovered [2.5 months later!!] and returned to shore. Jarvis was cremated and his ashes scattered in the Pacific Ocean.

    41, not married? Oh he was, but “Hermosa Beach engineer”? The guy was from Detroit, Michigan… No proper burial in his hometown…?

    They met in college. He was the engineering student who could make friends with anyone; she was the history student who fell right away for his spirit and smile.

    He called her late one night during a school break to ask if she would marry him. She told him to call back in the morning, and he did.

    First paragraph; typical emotion-empty hoaxing speech. Second; what a romantic!?

    More empty staged event talk, so well-known from alllll the “baby hoaxes” that followed this event:

    “He had a twinkle in his eye that said how much he enjoyed life,” Marcia said. “He had the best smile. He had so much energy and zest for everything he did; he had so much enthusiasm it was contagious.”

    “Energy”, “smile”, “contagious”, it’s like reading the messages of “families” and “friends” after Sandy Hook/Boston/Aurora/Pulse/Florida/etc. etc. Do those spooks really have no creativity whatsoever?

    Marcia Jarvis:

    The widow of Payload Specialist Gregory Jarvis, a Hughes Aircraft Engineer, Marcia continues to serve as a Founding Director for Challenger Center.

    Originally from Long Island, New York, Marcia has lived in Pagosa Springs, Colorado since 2001.

    Makes sense to throw the ashes in an ocean nor you nor your wife is from…

    Find a Grave is linked at his Wiki page, but when clicking on the cemetery there is no “famous person memorial” for him there, poor Greg/Bruce!


    1. Yep, we stumbled into a spook nest. Much work to do, maybe no answers. Where I am curious is the role of Clues Forum in what appears to be a double switch … the deliberate inclusion of a Yale professor alongside what is probably a model hired to play her part. They look enough alike to fool passersby, but they are two different people. It is going to get interesting. When I first looked at the CF stuff on this matter a few years ago, they used the Yale Professor’s photo. They have since switched it out so that we are now looking at two different people. the Yale professor’s astronaut photo looks like Photoshop work. She is a red herring but allowed her name to be used.

      I have long not trusted CF or Simon Shack, for unclear reasons, just a feeling. I think he is a very clever plant, sent to trap people too clever to believe in jets flying through steel buildings.


      1. We started with Apollo 1 and now went to the Challenger plot and towards Simon Hytten and his forum, so it might be a bit off-topic, but I can see why you are suspicious of him and -at least for me- his buddy hoi.polloi.

        Still, I don’t think they are “shills”, they are safeguarding their environment and “don’t step too much out of their line”, so in essence they are much less different from the mainstreamers/believers than they want to admit, but I don’t see them as dangerous or so. Disappointing, yes, but not malicious.

        Think about the word “misdirection”, used by xfiles above here. In order to have “mis”direction, we first need to establish/agree upon/get clear what is the “proper” direction. Can we even know that? What are the benchmarks, criteria to establish that? That is not to say there are no clear “misdirectors” around; the Alex Jones/Judy Wood crowd…

        The Challenger plot does not rely on those people being those other people, luckily, the plot is ridiculous enough. Same for the Apollo 1 one, or other Space Travel plots; physics, chemistry. continuity, logic…

        Hence my focus on the Boomerang effect; using their own arguments/models against their own claims. Are other models possible? Yes, I think they are (MM proposed an Electric Universe), but those are irrelevant when assessing the stories they put out there, as they themselves rely on their own models, so should be held accountable to those.

        Today I looked into another character who deserves a new thread, if I find time I will write something about him.

        Continuity, proper science, logic and the boomerang are our biggest weapons to debunk the (validity of the) stories imho.

        Funny you use the 9/11 example, because exactly there it proves that proper science, logic and continuity alone (not going into the who and why) is enough to debunk that story.


        1. OK Gaia, the ‘misdirection’ I have been fighting for quite some time is the easily thrown around word ‘sim’ to deflect from the reality that victims, or more techinically ‘fictims’ are real people who had previous lives and obviously didn’t die in all these sloppy staged events. You just have to do a lot of digging. Are ‘sims’ ever used to pad out an event ‘death toll’ ? I have no idea, it’s difficult to prove a negative.
          However Zero research on real people, zero results – voila they’re a sim.


          1. I agree some people go way too far in believing there are only sims (up to idiots at Cluesforum claiming Obama, Snowden and Zuckerberg are completely CGI’d, not real human actors, as they obviously are). And indeed that smells of laziness. But isn’t the other end of the spectrum just as “extreme”? Claiming there are no sims whatsoever?

            If you look at the events with a lot of victims/fictims, like Titanic, H Mystery, 9/11, etc. the power is in the big numbers; it is not hard to fill up lists with just names of people who don’t exist (vicsims). It’s fill material on top of the few actors brought in the spotlight. People will automagically assume because they see some real people, that all the others are real too.

            It is ironic, because wasn’t it you questioning me after my very first audio at Fakeologist, exactly a year ago now? About the Facebook friend of my wife who was a witness (not victim) of the Bataclan theater staged event. You said there was never a concert, I think there was and they mix actors with real innocent bystanders. As an example the Las Vegas event where they did exactly that, very well exposed in a YT video linked before.

            The other acquaintance that was real at least is this woman, who allegedly died at MH17. My best friend, who doesn’t lie to me, knew her. She was not a friend or so, but she was a real person. What happened to her and her boyfriend, no idea, but obviously they were not killed in that ridiculous and physically impossible staged event. Relocated somewhere in the US, where she was living anyway, is possible. New name, new identity and a bag of money for participating in a staged event is not hard to pull off. Malaysia Airlines had some experience already that year. And the prime minister of the country was a proven huge fraudster anyway.


          2. @Gaia
            Who is ” Claiming there are no sims whatsoever?” Not I. Like I said above, I have no idea and no evidence that any alleged victim’s name was only that, a name. I also have no idea whether the Bataclan and its copycat drill in Manchester were open access productions with an audience of useful idiots who were quickly ejected before the real fun started or they were closed events with a limited audience, if any. If these events were advertised, it would be easy to say all the tickets had been sold to a curious concert goer,anxious to see Aria Grande or the Eagles of Death Metal. One does become suspicious when copies of tickets are circulated to the MSM as if to prove the concerts were real. As you have described them, usefully, they are black box hoaxes, not my favourite sort of hoax. I prefer a little more street action, not just people hanging out of upstairs windows above non-existent doorways in the dark.


  8. it’s not that complicated if you accept that TPTB want us to fall into this Resnik vs.Resnik hoax. They faked the Chalenger hoax and scripted everything in advance. They simply used a face and name similar to a real professor as a fake astronaut. The fake “astronaut” was simply an actress made up to look a little like the real Judith Resnik. Why do you think, the professor did not change her name? It was two different persons. The “astronaut” Resnik now looks different and has a different name and we will never find her. They wanted us to find this fake connection and get confused. As for me the fact, that two persons with the same name look even a little bit similar is proof enough that at least one of them is a sim. Just follow the track. Who was the first one to find out about Resnik vs. Resnik? Who is Darrel Foss? Or was it some flatearthers? It is NASA itself, who is feeding us with that crap.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Spot on, B.Műller, the PTB did indeed want us to find this fake connection and get us confused and witnessing the wild breeze as with every other false flag/hoax.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. i think the Gematria should be included at POM. Some may not like it but it is a vital clue in the way that TPTB think. To ignore it seems like not looking at the evidence in front of one’s face and purposely drawing the wrong conclusions. Gematria may drive some crazy, but to another contributor it may spark a new research methodology, remind them of a link that may prove helpful in getting to the bottom of a hoax, or provide insight to some past action and its lasting impact on us all. I would prefer that Gematria stays and the comedic stylings of Triggerman are added to the do not go there list.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thanks for the comment. The problem I have with it is that there’s no rigor. You can take those numbers and do anything with them. I stick to three, 8, 11 and 33. And only as signaling devices. 555 did turn up in the John Denver matter, but that was pretty blatant use on his part.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It is even more than that, it is wizardry. And a major problem is the English-centrism, especially by people who have no clue about other languages. Most of the world does not have English as a first language and thus re-arranging and cherry picking some words and numbers into English is completely arbitrary. It is bullshit and good on you Mark you don’t want it here.

        Do you know what “bullshit” is in Swahili gematria? 666, there you go.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. LeRoy Gordon Cooper, Jr. –33rd Degree Scottish Rite Master Mason, Member of Carbondale Lodge 82 in Carbondale, Colorado. Keep the masonic angle on board as well. Most of the crews on these rockets are high rank. Same goes for military men of rank. James Cameron? Yes that Ho;;ywood boy was sworn in to top dog rank on a most special evening.


  11. The number 3 & multiples of three should be noted. 13 is a given. In the KABBALAH (Ho::ywood stars abound this cult of late) there is TEN steps. Some initiates are given an option (chosen ones) once the reach 9. They are allowed to skip 10, and reach 11. Thus become their own ‘god’. 9-11. The upper elite masonic are also allowed to become their own ‘god’. Inducing near death trauma artificially?


    1. All I ask is that you stay away from all of this “numbers are occult” stuff and stick to basics. They are signalling, nothing else, or if they have secret handshakes, who cares? Got it?


  12. Michael Ludwig, I will use this thread to comment on the satellite issue you have.

    For now I wanted to make the point that one of the lessons of “Apollo”, but space narratives in general is that it is designed not to make sense.

    Lesson for the Coronacaust.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s