Expert texpert, choking smoker …

… don’t you think the joker laughs at you? (John Lennon’s songwriting ghosts)

“I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.” (Richard Feynman)

7/4/2021 – We are in Yellowstone National Park with our two grandsons, having a very good time. We did not know what to expect, where we would be. In the past we would stay at Pebble Creek Campground, maybe eight miles into the park from the Silvergate entrance. All of the 27 sites were FCFS, that is, first come, first serve. We would look over the board and see what sites were coming available, and arrive at 5:00 AM the following morning to be first in line.

Last year we expected the same and made the arduous trip from Colorado, only to find that the campground was closed for the season before it ever opened, the day before it was scheduled to open. Covid, you see, the obvious objective to make people as miserable as possible. We had nowhere to go and ended up in overpriced motels, finally camping at Island Lake high atop the Beartooth Mountains. It’s a beautiful spot,  but our grandson wanted bears and wolves, which we find only in YNP. We got it done, but spent a lot of time traveling back and forth.

This year the Park Service threw all of Pebble Creek camp sites (save a couple) into the national reservation system, and though we tried, the entire place was booked for the entire year in five minutes, back in May. We decided to take a chance, and along with two gk’s headed to Bozeman, MT to rent a camper (at age 71 I was tired of sleeping on the ground), not knowing where we would end up. We stopped in Pebble Creek on our way to Cooke City, and discovered that due to an early departure one of the two FCFS sites was available the following day. I suggested we might claim it if we arrived at 5:00 AM, and the campground host suggested … possibly not. So we rolled out of bed at 3:00 AM, and became first in line at 3:40. Sure enough, around 5:00 AM three other cars rolled in. At 7:30 the camp host came out and awarded us the spot, FCFS. Four hours of waiting it took. Worth it.

Yellowstone has changed … more RVs, more pressure, especially this year when people could not plan trips abroad. But in other ways, it remains the same.

My first trip to Yellowstone was at age four or five, with my birth family. I have only sketchy memories, of course, of my dad and brothers in lawn chairs fishing on the round shore of Yellowstone Lake. We stayed in a tiny cabin, probably at Fishing Bridge, and I remember one evening walking and holding  someone’s hand, probably a brother or Dad, and then, inexplicably, later holding hands with a complete stranger.

Years later I asked Mom about that night, and she remembered it very well. We had rounded a corner and I came face-to-face with a (probably a black) bear, and ran away. There was an effort to find me, I do not know how big. I don’t know if I ran ten feet or a half mile. The man whose hand I held had found me and delivered me to my family. I do not remember a bear. After all, I did not know what a bear was. I blacked it out of my mind.

That was the mid-1950s. I’ve been coming here all my life, some years more than others. I’ve hiked and skied the place, one hiking trip well over sixty miles around Yellowstone Lake in 1997. Living in Billings, MT and then Bozeman, this place was always my back yard. In 1988 over two million of the park’s acres burned in an amazing fire, leaving me devastated. But then, gradually, Yellowstone recovered. Those acres that were so burned that they could not recover are now meadows, an important part of the ecosystem. For the rest, you would never know there was a fire.

Here’s what I am getting at in my windy way: This place has not changed in my lifetime! People complain about the heat in July … it’s always been like that. The normal daytime ambient air temperature is in the seventies, but direct sunlight at high altitudes heats the skin. The poor schmucks down in the caldera, forced to show their kids the features like the geysers, giant waterfalls and Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone will feel more heat, not because it is hotter, but because they are standing on cement and asphalt. The surfaces absorb heat, quite a different phenomenon than AGW. 

Beyond temperature, the forests are as I remember them, tall and healthy subalpine or Douglas fir, and lodgepole pine down in the caldera. A lake I hiked to as a kid, Trout Lake, has not changed in any manner, cutthroat trout still migrating upstream at the inlet in June. At a visitor center in Gardiner they have placed, side-by-side, photos taken during the Washburn Expedition in 1870 and the exact same photo today. There has been little, if any change in over 150 years! 

What’s up? It is a simple matter of turning off your news and using your newspaper for fire starter. My senses tell me that this place is not affected by any “Climate Change.” But the park newspaper given to us when we entered says otherwise. Here’s what they tell us to expect in a piece called “Signs of Change: IN THE FUTURE we can expect loss of alpine habitat, more and more intense fires, pine beetle infestations, loss of wetlands, fewer grizzly bears,and invasive non-native plants.

Weasel Words

IN THE FUTURE, and just trust us because we’re scientists. In the meantime, during my life, the place has gotten greener, and snowfall is unchanged, always variable. World wide, we are having less acreage lost due to forest fires. Yellowstone grizzlies are more numerous, their range expanding, in large part due to reintroduction of wolves. They create more carrion.

Prior to wolves the place was overpopulated by elk, trashing meadows and stream beds. (In Rocky Mountain National Park, where there are no wolves, I have seen chain link fences on stream beds to protect them from elk.) They have their place, but in Yellowstone there were just too many. In the 1960s park rangers would mercy-kill the starving beasts, and in the 80s and 90s, special hunts were allowed, shooting galleries with hunters only a short distance from their trucks. There are now fewer (and very alert) elk, and they migrate to the high country earlier, leaving greener meadows and healthier streams.

The whole of Climate Change is a psyop, and one that worked on me until I read a large collection of Climategate emails. I was passively absorbing news and “science” and internalizing it. That is the norm. I was buying in. I remember around 2010  watching a movie from the 1970s, Rancho Deluxe, because it was filmed in Paradise Valley near Livingston, Montana. I found it depressing, as the mountains were snow packed, and I did not imagine that happened anymore.

See how it works? Power of suggestion. If I had stuck my head outside my car window, I would have seen that the magnificent mountains around Paradise Valley are unchanged, some years having a lot of snow, some years less, just like always. People who complain about July heat here in the park are really saying it is getting hotter. It is not, or maybe just a wee little bit, going on since the bottom of the Little Ice Age, circa 1680, and favoring us.

The news does not allow any dissent from the Climate agenda. Every government on the planet is bought in. Medieval windmills are replacing gas generating plants.  Ugly solar panel arrays are popping up like wild flowers.

Try some time try mining for, smelting, and making steel or copper using wind and solar. Try making a Tesla using just battery power. It cannot be done, but this is our future. Climate Change is all about fewer people and lowered standards of living. CO2 is demonized because it is plant food, and more food means more people. Oil, gas and coal are tools we use to make wealth and to make life easier.

That is what they want to stop. I told my grandson about climate scientists: Remember three things: They lie, they lie, they lie.

Of course, I cannot reach him. Teachers got there first. Every school, every newspaper and newscast, every public figure chants the mantra, without exception. As psyops go, this one is historic, working hand and glove with Covid to depopulate the planet. The key to any agitprop campaign is exclusivity. People, especially young students, are only allowed to see and hear one side, all others censored with vengeance. I can write freely here, for now, as with 1,600 followers, this blog is no more than a small town newspaper. If I reached a larger audience, I’d be drowned out by a chorus of liars experts making sure that my words fall like soft snow in cedars, unheard and unfelt.

Who is going to cut their lawns, make their Mai Tais? I suspect they are going to rely on robots rather than useless eaters. Who is going to make the robots? Other robots? I suspect in Bill Gates’s dream world, human progress comes to a halt.


PS: Regarding the unprecedented heat wave in the Northwest, my first thought was HAARP.  Below is a piece supporting this view.

HEAT WAVES AND HAARP

The post below says it can all be explained by natural phenomena, and is not unprecedented, only that you are unlucky if you live where it happens.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/06/was-global-warming-the-cause-of-the-great-northwest-heatwave-science-says-no/

91 thoughts on “Expert texpert, choking smoker …

  1. So glad you ended up getting to camp with your grandchildren even if it meant getting up and 3am, Mark, and it looks beautiful.

    I have to say I used to be a climate activist and until now I accept the science on manmade climate change. I’ve always tried to look at the arguments for and against and I thought that the Climategate emails were able to be explained OK. The “CO2 is plant food” argument isn’t really an argument because climate scientists certainly don’t argue with that. It’s not as if they’re saying let’s get rid of CO2, they recognise that it’s essential but it needs to be in the right amount.

    However, I do recognise little Greta as a psyop and I know that Extinction Rebellion is a suspect group although I have a friends who’re in it who I know are completely kosher. I will have to revisit the science at some point because as I now can see that COVID, AIDS, etc is all complete and utter BS perhaps the climate science has had me fooled too. I’m just not bothered to revisit it now. Also, I can see how climate change can be used against us – I certainly won’t deny that – true or not.

    Like

  2. until now I accept the science on manmade climate change.

    The contradiction spaghetti of just this claim is hilarious.

    There is nothing scientific about manmade climate change. It is a political, economical and sociological fearmongering agenda based in antiscience.

    Mankind is incapable of changing a global climate, even if we wanted to. Gaia is much stronger and more powerful than humans.

    Time to deprogram Petra. Your attempt to make the moonlandings real over at Fakeologist was laughable, but actually pretty tragic. Even normies don’t believe that Apollo scam, but you do. Programmed as f, self evidently.

    Like

    1. Your claims sound a bit programmed themselves I have to say: the typical knee-jerk reaction from someone who disbelieves the authorities by default, a very easy group to mind-control in my opinion.

      Care to explain how Bill Kaysing wasn’t an intelligence agent and as he so obviously was an intelligence agent what his purpose was?

      Like

      1. You clearly know nothing about me, my past research and reasonings, yet come with an empty accusation to me.

        Just as empty as concluding the great Bill Kaysing as a “CIA agent” because you found a funny name on Wickedpedia.

        Keep trolling these spheres, you do an excellent amateur job.

        Like

        1. No, it’s not just because of the funny name. You can look up ‘ol Dietrich on YouTube where supposedly he’s a Professor of Xenobiological Research, speaks in a fake German accent and has the specimen of an alien brain on his desk. He’s also written the book, Official Rules, New World Odor International Freestyle Farting Championship.
          https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4264820.Dietrich_von_Schmausen

          Supposedly, he was head of Technical Communications at Rocketdyne, the company who made the Saturn V rockets and yet he claims that the lunar module would have created a massive hole that it would have sunk into and would have sent sand and rocks everywhere. There’s no sand on the moon and the lunar module would never have behaved how he described.

          He has intelligence agent all over him poking fun and if you cannot see that I have nothing more to say. He was obviously an agent and if you can’t explain him then you ain’t got nothing.

          Like

          1. There’s no sand on the moon

            Finally a bright insight.

            So either you are completely lost or you are shilling for the easiest to spot hoax of all despite seeing its falsehood.

            Kaysing is not responsible for his cousin and the character assassination you committed on him does not refute the many arguments against the moonlandings presented by him in 1974 (!).

            Here you find more than 50 points more, most of which you haven’t even considered. You also hear why your bright insight debunks the whole starless filmset.

            https://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php?title=FRAC_13_-_Paper_Rockets

            Like

            1. I’m not committing a character assassination, I’m just pointing out the signs of his being an agent. A person in charge of Technical Publications for Rocketdyne wouldn’t speak of sand on the moon or if they did, they’d say it’s not regolith as they call it, it’s really only sand or something like that. They wouldn’t just speak of sand. That’s absurd. He gives no sense whatsoever of being a person in charge of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne.

              So have you debunked the debunking of Dave McGowan?
              http s://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/

              [Note: I have inserted a space in “http s” in the link above so that it will not reprint in the comments. It was taking up too much space, making navigation difficult. Copy the link, reinsert the space, and you are there.]

              I have a feeling Dave McGowan was controlled opposition and was putting out plausible-sounding denial of the moon landings … but they don’t stand.

              Like

              1. So now the goalpost is moved from “he had a funny cousin” to “his use of a word” as justification to call the pioneer of the moonlanding hoax research a “CIA agent”.

                That is the problem with the Imagined Choice fallacy. “person X would never do or say A or B”. Kaysing was writing for the general audience, so the choice of the word sand instead of regolith makes sense. Hell, I haven’t written a book, but combining everything I wrote about the Apollo Hoax, or the impossibility of space travel in general, would also be a book.

                I always call that Hollywood sandpit sand. And I am a geologist, so “should know better”. Luckily I do, because there cannot be sand (or “regolith”) on the Moon. And you can know that if you study the depictions of the Moon in science fiction preceding the Apollo days. They show the Moon like she should be; hard, harsh, rigid, black and white. Not the cuddly hills those clowns bunnyhopped in. I posted an overview somewhere here at POM, but the search function is so crappy I cannot find it.

                By calling Dave McGowan a ‘controlled opposition agent’ you are in good company. Miles (Mathis) and Mark (Tokarski) both think the same. In case of the former it is clear what he’s doing, because he does it all the time. Cultish behavior.

                In case of Mark I don’t find it fair to call the giant whose shoulders you stand on an “agent”. Without the prework done by McGowan, would we ever have Mathis’ or Tokarski’s work? I doubt it.

                Dave’s Boston Bombing material helped me greatly in not having to go through that stuff myself. Wagging the Moondoggie was hilarious writing, well done.

                “Debunked” you said?

                At this point in the essay McGowan seems not to have heard of Newton’s first law of motion, which says that in the absence of other forces a moving object would quite literally move forever.

                Newton has never been to space, his laws were not developed in, based on or for space, so this statement of using Newton or his laws for an environment unbeknownst to him or his derivations, is meaningless.

                On top of that; according to the mainstream model there are many forces in space. And it is that that in the basis makes space travel impossible, just like Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is making fools believe that mankind is stronger than Gaia, Nature. That is false, we always will bend to her laws.

                Like

                1. Gaia, do me a favor please. Our grandsons were exploring and wading in a steam in the Park and came across perfectly formed red clay On the shoreline of a type that would easily dry to brick. Is this common? No mixing required.

                  Regarding McGowan, my work on him is unique, not derivative of MM. Weird Scenes was his seminal work, his object to pass off all of the Operation Chaos musician/ actor deaths as real, while letting us in on their military/Intel backgrounds. It was textbook limited hangout. His work on Moon and Boston was not unique. His work on Lincoln stopped short of critical insight, that his death was fake.

                  Like

                2. Goalpost moved? I just made an aside about Dietrich and only fleshed him out when you challenged it.

                  It is rather you who move the goalposts, Gaia.

                  Debunking says:
                  “At this point in the essay McGowan seems not to have heard of Newton’s first law of motion, which says that in the absence of other forces a moving object would quite literally move forever.”

                  Your response:
                  “Newton has never been to space, his laws were not developed in, based on or for space, so this statement of using Newton or his laws for an environment unbeknownst to him or his derivations, is meaningless.”

                  Newton didn’t have to go to space, his law merely applies in relation to force (and lack of) and motion wherever they happen to be for goodness sake: as everyone seems agreed, disbelievers and believers in the moon landings alike apart from perhaps just you, space is, in the main part at least, a vacuum so there would have been no appreciable force being applied to the spaceship as it moved through space.

                  You say:
                  “On top of that; according to the mainstream model there are many forces in space. And it is that that in the basis makes space travel impossible, just like Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is making fools believe that mankind is stronger than Gaia, Nature. That is false, we always will bend to her laws.”

                  What makes me a superior analyst, Gaia, is that I have absolute respect for the evidence and I put what I believe to be possible/impossible plausible/implausible at a much lower ranking than the actual evidence. You have absolutely ZERO evidence that says forces in space would have slowed the Apollo spaceship appreciably. Zero.

                  Like

                  1. Newton didn’t have to go to space

                    A hilarious claim which shows you don’t approach this topic scientifically.

                    In order for physical laws to be valid and used, they need to be tested in that environment.

                    his law merely applies in relation to force (and lack of) and motion wherever they happen to be for goodness sake: as everyone seems agreed, disbelievers and believers in the moon landings alike apart from perhaps just you, space is, in the main part at least, a vacuum so there would have been no appreciable force being applied to the spaceship as it moved through space.

                    The claimed conditions of space are 10^-16 bar and -270 C (3 K) in the shade. Under those conditions gas does not exist. Only the lightest elements are superfluid at these extreme conditions, everything else becomes solid. Instantaneously, because of the “””vacuum”””.

                    The purely mechanical Newtonian element of rocketry is not the complete picture. We are dealing with a physical-chemical problem; it is not only the (lack of) pressure playing a role, it is especially the temperature (or lack thereof).

                    And on a holistic, conceptual level space travel is hilariously blasphemous.

                    No matter what celestial model (or lack thereof, “they are just lights in the skies” morons) you subscribe to; the cosmos is a divine harmonious perfect clockwork held by the Forces of the Cosmos, be it by gravity alone, or more likely also by electromagnetic forces. To think that some mere humans from a minor planet can ignore all those gravitational forces and design a trajectory on paper (pre-computing era!) and some funny bunnyhopping astronots can just fly through all those forces around them, ignoring them because there is a psyop for the perpetraitors (no typo) to sell the masses, is just hilarious.

                    You cannot just deny enormous forces of nature act upon you and your aluminum (worst material to deal with radiation, don’t do the microwave test) space thingy.

                    Space travel is impossible and will always be.

                    I have outlined that here, where you can also listen to the Fakeologist podcast about the topic.

                    https://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php?title=FAC_602_-_The_Impossibility_of_Space_Travel._Ever

                    I don’t know that Massimo Mazzuco, and I am not conversing with him, yet with you. You can bring all kinds of “debunkers of debunkers” to the table to cleverly hide that you do not have answers (or even questions) of your own, but that doesn’t make space travel suddenly real or possible.

                    Like

                    1. I’m not trying to cleverly hide anything, Gaia, but I will admit to laziness so by bringing out his debunker (it’s his debunker you need to converse with – you and Massimo are on the same page) what I aim to do is show you that you cannot debunk his debunking and also show that this guy (I’m assuming it’s a guy) is very, very knowledgeable. That is all, not trying to hide anything.

                      I know that my understanding of space is extremely limited, it’s pitiful, in fact. What I rely on is following the debunking trail. Wherever things are out of my scope of understanding (a common situation) I follow what is said in favour of and against Hypothesis A and the same for the opposing hypothesis … and I look at the hard evidence and judge where I can.

                      I’m not very impressed by “impossible” arguments. In my opinion, evidence has primacy not what people believe to be plausible/implausible, impossible/possible. Many people believe that it would have been impossible to lay explosives in the WTC buildings without detection meaning they couldn’t have come down by CD. Well, of course, that’s ridiculous, isn’t it? Firstly, they assume it had to be without detection. It seems every man and his dog was in on 9/11 so “without detection” wasn’t necessarily even a necessity but even if it were, it doesn’t seem such an impossible task and we know they came down by CD because that’s what the evidence says regardless of difficulty of laying explosives. The evidence says they came down by CD. End of.

                      “The claimed conditions of space are 10^-16 bar and -270 C (3 K) in the shade. Under those conditions gas does not exist. Only the lightest elements are superfluid at these extreme conditions, everything else becomes solid. Instantaneously, because of the “””vacuum”””.”

                      I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Do you mean that there would be solid particles of gas in the “vacuum” that would interfere with a spaceship’s trajectory? If so, I think this claim is really in the realm of speculation.

                      Please accept I’m a know-nothing in relation to space and rather than me try to understand stuff I know I won’t understand why don’t you test your mettle against someone who’s much more knowledgeable than I? Please have a look at the debunking of Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon. If you don’t wish to do that, that’s fine, but I will engage no further.

                      htt p://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/eqfeqs/debunking_american_moon/

                      [Note: Remove space from “htt p” for link to work for you.]

                      Like

                    2. Damn again. Mark, my apologies. Can you pls edit my comments with links to the debunking of Dave McGowan and Massimo Mazzucco where the whole article appears. If you take out the https:// only the link will show.

                      Like

                  1. You just deny my response’s existence and keep pushing your stupid Apollo defense.

                    Are you a Flat Earfer too, by any chance? Then it all would make sense again. In a twisted psychosis kinda way.

                    Like

                    1. I had a look at the table of contents but I couldn’t really latch onto anything that meant something to me. What I do is follow the “for” and “against” arguments and I assume that those who are “against” will be able to refute those who put the “for” arguments (and vice versa) and if they can’t obviously that’s significant.

                      The mainstream can’t debunk David Ray Griffin’s (or anyone’s) debunking of the debunkers on 9/11.
                      The mainstream can’t debunk the debunking of the COVID BS.

                      You haven’t debunked the debunking of Dave McGowan or Massimo Mazzucco.

                      That’s significant.

                      Why don’t you just give me the most important thing you think says astronauts haven’t landed on the moon and we’ll discuss that.

                      I think I believe pretty much all events that everyone else says are hoaxes are hoaxes – plus a few more I just pick up here and there (although other people may also say they’re hoaxes I just haven’t seen it) – except the moon landings and climate change. I’m pretty much decided on the moon landings I think because I simply have seen absolutely nothing that convincingly debunks them. My identical twin and I argue about them to the point of lunacy (excuse the pun) but I think she’s pretty useless to argue with because she’s the kind of person that “works out” from 2.5 facts using her superior judgement and logic that X means Y. Her self-belief is pretty astounding … but she doesn’t see it that way. If she were a little more knowledgeable she might be slightly more convincing but she doesn’t think she needs knowledge just her superior powers of logic and reason.

                      On climate change I’m more open especially as I haven’t looked at the arguments for and against for quite a long time. When I did they seemed to stack up extremely well otherwise I wouldn’t have become a climate activist but I always try to keep an open mind.

                      I don’t believe in Flat Earth – the only time I’ve ever really looked was a Netflix documentary where finally right at the end of the documentary they did the laser beam test across a significant distance and guess what? The beam didn’t reach the point it would have had there been no curvature.

                      Like

                3. Just to add:

                  “Kaysing was writing for the general audience, so the choice of the word sand instead of regolith makes sense.”

                  No, it doesn’t. Those who believe we went to the moon would dismiss him as an idiot for using the term “sand” without addressing the fact that the term used by those in the industry so to speak use the term “regolith” and they would also dismiss him as an idiot for saying that the lunar module would have created a huge blast crater when the thrust used in descent would not have resulted in such a crater.

                  If he’s only appealing to those who are INCLINED to disbelieve the moon landings and not to those who are on board with them then that seems rather pointless, doesn’t it? Doesn’t he have to make himself credible to everyone – both those inclined and disinclined to believe him?

                  Like

              2. Dave McGowan is a well-known limited hangout, you can trust your feelings on that. It’s even in the name of his website: Center for an Informed America. He was the first to convince me that the moon landings were not real. I think he makes a pretty solid case.

                Considering your comments on Stephers latest post and the insight you show I presume you now how these things work.

                Question: do you also still believe the JFK murder was real? Since that was the CIA’s kickoff for the whole conspiracy, disinformation and limited hangout/gatekeeper/damage-control culture, it is essential that you understand it for what it really was.

                Like

                1. I am open on the JFK murder. I did look at MM’s stuff on it and wasn’t totally persuaded but nor did I reject it – I’d need to look again and I really should do that because it would be good to be clear on it. Is there any other stuff apart from MM’s on the fakery of the murder that you know of – perhaps here on POM?

                  OK, so we coincide on DM not being genuine, however, I think the reddit debunking of his stuff above stands up and I don’t think he was limited hangout on the moon landings so much as putting forward completely wrong analysis. Have you looked at the debunking? What do you think of it?

                  I only looked at the moon landings after I woke up to 9/11 so I was all prepared to disbelieve them, they certainly sounded pretty farfetched. My first point of call was, in fact, Wagging the Moondoggie, and I really do love the name! Absolutely love it! I found it very compelling at the time, however, I thought that I should look at the evidence myself. The first thing to sway me towards their reality was the audio of the astronauts speaking with mission control. I thought, “No one’s going to or even could fake that, that’s so boooorrring. Sure, if you’re on the moon and in mission control it’s probably fascinating but test pilots sitting in a studio reciting that kind of disjointed dialogue – no way.” Funnily enough, even people who believe we went to the moon don’t think my belief has any merit – of the people I’ve spoken with, believers and disbelievers alike, they think no problem they could have faked the audio.

                  The thing is I try as much as possible to avoid using my opinion in my argument, I try to always approach using Occam’s Razor and make my argument as objective as possible.
                  What favours the audio’s reality:
                  — No one has identified any fakery in the audio
                  — They recorded hours and hours of it when they didn’t need to and the longer they did it the more they exposed themselves to identification of fakery

                  To believe they faked it:
                  — we must assume they did it flawlessly for hours although to make us believe in the moon landings they really didn’t need to record nearly so much audio so
                  — the question arises why they went to that trouble.

                  When I looked further everything to me looked as if everything we’re shown perfectly fits expectations according to the very different lunar conditions, namely:
                  — no air pressure
                  — low gravity
                  — brightly-lit lunar surface during lunar dawn against a black sky

                  And the evidence fits in a way you really wouldn’t expect from fakery in my opinion. For example, there are only the slightest traces of lunar dust seen in the wrinkles of the mylar covering the landing pads of the lunar module that can only be seen by zooming in to high res photos. Surely, if you’re going to fake dust on the landing pads you wouldn’t do it in such a discreet manner. Similarly, there is the faintest of blast craters, that is we can see a radial exhaust pattern but virtually no crater. Surely, if you’re going to fake a blast crater you wouldn’t just fake a barely visible radial exhaust pattern although this would be EXACTLY what we’d expect according to the lunar conditions.
                  https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=2c7cfcc561d2f9a4311059e2dc14b55e&topic=210.msg6601#msg6601

                  If this is fakery then it’s absolutely nothing like the fakery of every other psyop known to man. I believe the psyop MO is extremely strict and someone would have to do a lot of convincing of me to persuade me that they decided to change the fakery MO JUST for Apollo.

                  To me, what we see are things that you simply couldn’t anticipate if you were faking the moon landings. What we see is obviously correct in “hindsight” but I don’t think could have been predicted with “foresight”.

                  Another thing that stands out is the knowledgeability of those responding to the moon hoax claims. Their debunking seems perfectly legitimate while I recognise everywhere else: 9/11, COVID, Sandy Hook, etc all the debunking is complete bunkum. For example, I think this person (who may be the same person who debunks DM above) does a great job of debunking Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon. As a non-scientist and non-expert or even amateur I always look at the for and against arguments and I have to say those who claim we went argue better. I only put a link to the debunking of DM but the whole post appeared so I’ll remove the https:// that appears in the link below (which you may have to insert) in the hope that just the link will appear.
                  http://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/eqfeqs/debunking_american_moon/

                  Like

                  1. Have you read JFKTV on POM? You can also type JFK in the search box on fakeologist.com.

                    If you read JFK’s speech in its entirety it becomes clear that he is not speaking out against the banking cabal but against a fictitious enemy that is waging a hidden war against America in particular and freedom and democracy in general that makes secrecy a necessary evil.

                    http://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427

                    I have not read the Reddit debunking in it’s entirety, there is to much of an ‘it is easy to find a stick to beat a dog’ vibe to it. There is a difference between seriously considering whether something is true or not and just wanting to debunk something. I think the Reddit post belongs to the latter category.

                    There is so much deceit at NASA and in space travel in general that it is more than likely that the greatest achievement ever made in (as far as I can tell non-existent) space travel is a fake. A huge gatekeeper project has been started to ridicule all information and imagery about spacefakery by lumping it in with a non-existent flateart community. That says it all.

                    Just to name a few other examples of spacefakery: the idea that there really can be such a thing as a rocket that can land upright, on a raft at sea no less, or a Tesla roadster launched into space to be catapulted from an orbit around the sun to a permanent orbit around mars, is not worthy of discussion in my opinion. The so-called pictures of Mars turned out to be pictures of a desert, taken with a red filter. They even showed a prairie dog.

                    I don’t understand your point about faking the audio. Audio is audio, you don’t have to fake that. There is no way to prove or disprove where the sound came from.

                    If there had been no air pressure and lesser gravity, the dust thrown up behind the tires of the lunar vehicle would not have fallen back to the ground in a small arc. On the other hand, the seemingly lower gravity is easy to fake in the case of the astronauts.

                    Why is it so hard to believe that different MO’s are used for different hoaxes. They don’t have to decide to use a different MO than normal, they just do what they think is necessary to fool you.

                    I think Occam’s razor is too blunt an instrument to expose layer after layer of deception that has been created, maintained and expanded for hundreds if not thousands of years. Psyche and perception and the relentless manipulation thereof, generation after generation, play a very large role in this story. That makes it particularly complex.

                    Like

                    1. Thanks for the info on JFK, XS – I’ll look it up.

                      — Debunking. It doesn’t strike me as an easy stick to beat a dog I have to say. My feeling from both debunkings is that the person who’s doing them displays he holds a great deal of detailed knowledge which successfully debunks claims such as Van Allen belts holding too much radiation for example.

                      — You may well be right about other space fakery – I wouldn’t know. Of course, the Challenger disaster is the most in-your-face hoax of all time where they didn’t even change the names of people or try to hide them away. It’s truly unbelievable but each event needs to be looked at in its own right, especially the moon landings.

                      — I don’t mean the audio is faked because of its source, I mean the conversation would be impossible to act out realistically because the dialogue is so disjointed and boring … unless you were there kind of thing. And as I say, I don’t use my opinion of it being unfakeable I simply say that no one has identified any fakery in it and we’d have to wonder why they’d bother to record so very many hours of it when it wasn’t really necessary to persuade us they went to the moon. As an artefact, it better supports real than fake because nothing wrong with it can be identified.

                      — “If there had been no air pressure and lesser gravity, the dust thrown up behind the tires of the lunar vehicle would not have fallen back to the ground in a small arc.”
                      I’d say it doesn’t fall back in a small arc, it flies back (no air pressure and lower gravity) in a rooster tail shape which doesn’t match how it would fall in earth. Notice also that there isn’t a really long trail of dust behind the vehicle which you’d get on earth – dust trails behind land vehicles go for quite a long time.

                      — “Why is it so hard to believe that different MO’s are used for different hoaxes. They don’t have to decide to use a different MO than normal, they just do what they think is necessary to fool you.”
                      They don’t use different MO’s for different hoaxes, MS – I mean sure there’s some variation but I have NEVER seen a psyop where they don’t make the fakery obvious. If you know of one please let me know what it is. Yes, part of the moon landings narrative if you will, Bill Kaysing, is a psyop … and boy do they use the same MO for him. They give us utterly ludicrous nonsense about a nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, and they tell us Bill was in charge of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne. This is improbable in the extreme. If someone worked for Rocketdyne and were blowing the whistle, they wouldn’t come out with nonsense about massive blast craters and sand. That is absurd. What they’d do is say, “Well, they tell you this but actually … and they show you this but actually …”. The guy was supposedly at Rocketdyne. What goods did he deliver? None. I think it’s interesting that I seem to be the only person who’s picked that up, I would’ve thought those who believe in the moon landings would go, “Huh? How could this guy have been in charge of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne. He’s a complete idiot,” but they don’t because people let strange anomalies like that slide by … and the perps know this. They know that he can slide by both those who believe in the moon landings and those who don’t. They understand us so well, XS, and I think that’s useful to recognise.

                      — I know Occam’s Razor is regarded as a rule-of-thumb tool but I don’t see it like that. To me it’s always in operation, it’s always about, “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, what hypothesis fits the evidence with the fewest questions and assumptions raised.” It works like a dream in my book but if someone exposes how it doesn’t I’ll certainly consider it. You do need a certain amount of evidence for it to work though, you can’t just use it on a few pieces of evidence and where there is a situation where the discussion is not confined to the possibility of a limited number of hypotheses I guess it might not work so well there either. I basically only use it for psyops I think so there it’s really about only two or three hypotheses under consideration and in determining whether something is a psyop or not I think it’s the tool of choice.

                      Like

                  2. The first thing to sway me towards their reality was the audio of the astronauts speaking with mission control.

                    Funny because that is one of the points debunking this silly story. Not only in the “phone call” with Ricky “Watergate” Nixon, but in many instances the pause between Houston and the astronots communicating is shorter than 2 seconds, which is impossible, because even if the signal would travel at the speed of light, it would still take 2.4+ seconds EVERYTIME between the astronots communicating to Houston and the personnel hearing that, before they are able to reply.

                    Another case of impossible physics in the Moon hoax narrative.

                    Like

                    1. I always look up arguments to see what the debunking says. In this case it seems pretty convincing to me. What is your response, Gaia?

                      https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9168/why-wasnt-there-a-communication-delay-when-neil-armstrong-landed-on-the-moon

                      C Stuart Hardwick’s response absolutely astounds me. I don’t think he’s lying but it just amazes me.
                      https://www.quora.com/Why-did-there-seem-to-be-no-delay-in-communication-between-Mission-Control-and-Apollo-astronauts-on-the-moon

                      Like

                    2. I have to say, Gaia, even though you seem to have a much greater understanding of science than I do generally speaking – not hard though – there is something unscientific about your approach.

                      I recently heard Kary Mullis say in an interview that a scientist tries to prove their hypothesis wrong. I was like, “Bingo”! Even though I’m not a scientist and really have very poor understanding of science beyond the most basic level I try as much as humanly possible within my limits to ensure my hypothesis is correct and there aren’t arguments out there that contradict what I believe. So I look at both sides as much as I possibly can.

                      You see your reluctance to look at the debunking of Massimo Mazzucco? You didn’t want to look because when you looked at the debunking of Dave McGowan you were unable to respond so you turned your argument to me to accuse me of trying to hide my lack of answers. Where is your due diligence? You present your argument for incorrect time delay without looking at the debunking of that argument or – if you have – you don’t address the alleged debunking. You WANT to believe we didn’t go to the moon, you really WANT that belief to be true. Rather than want to believe what is true, you want what you believe to be true.

                      Like

  3. Petra, thanks for the comment and I accept it with humility when I say that I know somewhat where you stand, having stood there myself. My reflections maybe matter to you, maybe not. The evidence for AGW is virtually nonexistent, a mass of appeals to the stone and gatekeepers preventing any dissent to be made public. They have such power to make any illusion seem real. They did this with McCarthyism in the 1950s (to convince us that there was such a thing as “Communism” and that we should fear it), the Cold War (keeping school children along with adults in constant fear and unable to think properly), the Challenger disaster (pure trauma-based mind control for children), and the grandaddy of TBMC, 9/11. The list is much longer than this, of course. Think Columbine. Reaching children seems their ultimate strategy. The power these people have over the public mind is intimidating, so much so that I have decided to live aside it, not in it, and be happy anyway, unable to change it. I don’t imagine there is any way to reach people who have been brainwashed. How did I break free? With a large kick in the butt from MM, I self-propelled.

    Greenland ice cores show that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, that in fact, temperature increases usually precede CO2 buildup, which is released from ocean waters. There is not total agreement between Greenland and Antarctic ice core data, and this needs resolution, as the two should be in agreement. But key to understanding is that during ice ages, atmospheric CO2 far exceeded current levels. That seals it.

    Regarding Yellowstone, I waxed a little eloquent, as humans are having an effect. Fortunately most people never leave the roadways, so the backcountry is unaffected. Animals, for the most part, escape to the high country as soon as snowmelt allows. This time next month there’ll be little for tourists to see in the northern reaches of the Park, where we spend our time.

    I can think if two vestigial remnants, one natural, the other human-caused. Pronghorn are abundant, but do not affect the landscape much. They once had a natural predator, a North American cheetah, as I recall, now extinct. Wolves cannot catch a pronghorn until it dies of old age. I once sat witness to a wolf chasing a newborn pronghorn, and had to turn away while others watched, unable to watch. However, the young animal ran fast and darted and weaved, and ultimately, the wolf gave up. Even a newborn was too fast for a wolf.

    The other is bison … they eat 12-14 hours a day, and grow huge and powerful. The newborn, called “red dogs,” sleep in circles protected by adults, and are seldom taken down. The herd has grown large and is affecting the landscape. There is no predator that can take down a healthy adult bison. At one time, the millions of humans who occupied the pre-Columbian west lived on bison, highly skilled and clever hunters. The US government deliberately hired hunters (Bill Cody one of perhaps hundreds) to kill them off, not to harvest the meat, but to let them rot in massive piles. The object was to make room for settlers and displace the natives. Now Yellowstone holds a remnant population, and without predators, it is growing unwieldy. Travel through LaMar Valley is usually interrupted, often for long periods, by bison migrations from one side of the road to the other. The herd needs culling, we humans are totally responsible for this imbalance.

    Like

    1. That’s a pretty arrogant belief for an environmentalist – saying that bisons herds are growing out of balance, needing culling. Imbalance by whose standards? What’s the starting position in bison population in N.America prior to human interference and land grab? In other words, who is going to define what the “balanced” bison population means, how many heads it counts?

      Sorry, but human population is the only part of nature which has grown out of balance. We humans are interfering with all the other species and their natural habitat, driving them to extinction for various reasons – fur, meat, land occupancy or by poisoning their habitat, etc.

      It’s sad to see a very intelligent man calling for bison herds culling. We have absolutely no right to kill off any part of Nature’s variety, but we have taken it by force. Since animals can’t protect themselves against guns and bullets, they’re being slaughtered according to an arbitrary agreement about the “balanced” numbers of their herds. These self-appointed arbiters are those same people, forcing the existing hegemony down our throats and treating us in the same way as “overgrown” animal population.

      It surprises me to see you giving them credit or approval for controlling the animal population, whilst claiming to be some kind of Nature’s guardian.

      Like

      1. So, MiniMe, in Australia we’re experiencing massive mice plagues (occurring after abnormal very greening rain). In the last plague, they ate $10,000 worth of my friend’s nursery stock while, currently, they’re churning through loads of hay, etc – I don’t watch the news so I’m not exactly sure what their impact is, just know about them vaguely and have seen the images of them. Do you think the farmers shouldn’t exercise control over the plagues and let the mice churn through the hay, etc.

        Like

      2. Others agree with you, MM, including Steve Kelly, who says that no study has been done regarding carrying capacity in YNP for bison. Perhaps my opinion is an overreaction to what I see in LaMar, where road information signs tell us of how wolves have preserved stream beds and valleys, yet right before my eyes I see LaMar heavily impacted by bison, stream beds not preserved, vegetation growth not diversified, no shade provided to cool the water and allow for other species to thrive. The sign is contradicted by what is before my eyes, a few pronghorn but no elk, only magpies, wolves, an occasional bear on a carcass in spring (winterkill).

        As always, I could be wrong. And, there will be no culling inside the park. When they migrate, ranchers and their Department of Livestock employees, using brucellosis as a fake calling card, will take them down when out of sight, haze them for cameras.

        I simply don’t see any natural balance to untethered growth of bison herds, no natural predation to keep things in balance. When Europeans arrived, the bison herds were out of control, their natural predators (humans) gone missing.

        Like

  4. Fascinating about the animal populations, Mark. I remember seeing the short film by George Monbiot (not my favourite person as I’m sure he’s not yours) about how the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone improved the ecology by moving deer out of certain areas so that vegetation started to flourish which in turn brought in other animals which in turn … it is pretty fascinating but seemingly not quite so simple with the growing numbers of bison as you point out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

    I will certainly take another look at the climate science again … but not at the moment.

    Like

    1. Petra-

      I compiled a short list of “easy listening” videos that effectively tackle the fraud of anthropogenic global warming.

      First, is a series of three vids showing fraud in tampering with temperature records. Easy, short videos.
      “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRXDOAhjBn8”
      “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmBiXfekga8”
      “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4gC9E_3iU&t=6s”

      Here is one by an astrophysicist, the main takeaway is that mainstream climate science literally uses flat earth theory to create their climate model.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeuVaWiaLEQ&t=4s”

      Here is one I just watched tonight, providing a general picture of where “climate science” goes wrong.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epJybIc8cGM&t=2551s”

      Like

      1. Thanks, Matt. Okaaay, now part of me feels slightly treasonous recommending the site founded by John Cook, Skeptical Science, because I strenuously disagree with him on COVID and other psyops and I also don’t have much respect for him in that he simply doesn’t respond to my emails pointing out the refutation of the mainstream science on COVID hasn’t been debunked. Nevertheless, when it comes to climate change I do find it very useful and I have to confess I have admiration for him for setting it up in the first place – I think it’s a great resource and ensures that commenters stay respectful and relevant without censorship. I always go there for argument against AGW to see what it has to say and I think it always tends to successfully refute those who debunk AGW. So I’ve looked up Tony Heller and Bob Carter before and I think SS refutes their arguments well. Haven’t seen Joseph Postma before but I can see they refute him too.

        So what do you say to SS’s refutations?

        Tony Heller
        https://www.google.com/search?q=%22tony+heller%22+OR+%22steve+goddard%22+site%3Askepticalscience.com

        Joseph Postma
        https://www.google.com/search?q=%22postma%22+site%3Askepticalscience.com

        Bob Carter
        https://skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

        Like

        1. Petra-

          Why, in this world that we live in, do we daily have to deal with strong, incessant streams of propaganda? First of all, who has the power of reach to spread the blanket of propaganda promoting AGW and the Covid agenda, while at the same time covering their flanks with a myriad of “debunking” entities to keep us on the straight and narrow? Fact-checking in its various guises is the “new normal” safety-net for those who need/want to stay close to mother’s breast. Comforting words of assurance are readily available from the managers of today’s “science”.

          Our ability to recognize narratives that are created out of nothing is easily honed in this generation’s lifetime, as nearly all that is presented to us on the platter of media news is either a whole lie or part thereof. We only need to become accustomed to the methods and patterns of newsspeak/agendaspeak, and apply a little intelligence and common sense to the voices speaking at us.

          I have to laugh at this introduction of “Skeptical Science” into the conversation. Skeptical Science is nothing more than a glorified, sophisticated, ‘fact-checking’ entity, entirely in the service of today’s two major religious movements, meaning AGW and Covid. Skeptical Science is like having The Guardian condensed into a blog, with every headline screaming out the approved message.

          I first encountered “SS” years ago when I began seriously researching the fake science of virology. Needless to say, SS tried to persuade me otherwise. Your own experience with John Cook on Covid should be a huge clue as to why SS even exists. Speaking of John Cook, his bio on the about page of the Skeptical Science site really says it all…also notice the word “consensus” slipped into the bio, then add to that this link from the site: http://theconsensusproject.com/. Yep, proved by consensus (not science, mind you).

          On to the John Cook bio:

          “John Cook is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University. He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. His research focus is understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John authored the book Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change, that combines climate science, critical thinking, and cartoons to explain and counter climate misinformation. He also co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts and Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper finding 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, a finding that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron.”

          John Cook, in service to the “Agenda(s)”.

          In spite of what JC says about Tony Heller, Bob Carter, and Joseph Postma, I still recommend the vids in my earlier comment. Forgetting the messengers (that JC is shooting at) for the moment, the INFORMATION contained therein is revealing and important.

          Like

  5. Petri, excuse me for interjecting into your very interesting discussion with Gaia. I just have one thing to add, what I regard as the best evidence that Apollo 11 had no humans aboard and was ditched in the ocean.

    Apollo 11: Something went somewhere

    The link above is about a guy who believes in the moon landings, Phil Polacia, so he has to be brought in as a hostile witness. He was in Cape Kennedy in 1969 and took a Super Eight camera film of the launch. It is a steady view of the event from the beginning until the rocket was out of view. If you take note, all NASA footages are spliced sequences from different views.

    At 105 seconds, Pollacia’s film shows the rocket breaking through cirrostratus clouds, which normally are found in the area of 26,000 feet. Official NASA records say that at the point in time the rocket was at 79,000 feet. In other words, the rocket was underpowered and had only gone 1/3 of the necessary distance, and not enough to escape into lower earth orbit. As one of the scientists who studied the film said, though no one went to the moon, “something went somewhere,” that is, an empty and underpowered rocket went into the Atlantic ocean.

    All astronaut recovery film had been filmed in advance. I suspect much of the moon footage and photos were done in the 90s, the Internet presenting NASA with a need to advance the hoax further. And yes, the scientists involved in the Polacia project inspected the film carefully, doing the necessary calculations to assure themselves that the Super Eight footage was properly calibrated.

    That, to me, was case closed. Photos do not convince people, as they do not see with their own eyes, but rather those of “experts.” Scientific concepts like Van Allen Belt and exponential odds of everything going according to plan on a first attempt in an incredibly complex undertaking are lost on the layman. People will believe in the moon landings as long as people are gullible, but I have seen evidence that shows me that any lingering doubt I might have had that the landings were fake could be set aside. It was a hoax. (I had no lingering doubt about that, by the way.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Mark. Okay, since waking up to 9/11, I’ve developed unconsciously as I’ve analysed more and more events, five principles which I abide by when trying to determine the correct hypothesis … and if everyone followed these principles we’d all be better analysts in my opinion.

      First and foremost, absolutely first and foremost and what most people do not do:
      Accept any challenge to your belief (whether from a person, from information presented or even just by your own thoughts) with grace, and ensure that you scrutinise this challenge rigorously so that you can determine whether or not your belief needs to change – gasp! – or whether it can defend itself perfectly against the challenge.
      Ensure every single piece of available evidence supports your chosen hypothesis and favours it over any other. Reality demands that every single piece of evidence must support your hypothesis and favour it over any other. It’s that simple. Of course, there may be anomalies you might have to accept without explanation (although they reality would demand that they can be explained somehow even if you can’t) but you need to ensure these anomalies don’t actually contradict your hypothesis or favour another (at least on balance).
      Evidence has utmost primacy. What we believe to be possible, impossible, plausible or implausible, have no weight in the face of actual evidence. No weight at all. Of course, evidence can be faked but what I’m talking about is compelling evidence where there is no sign of fakery and there’s a reasonable amount of it.
      Identify what your thinking is based on: is it based on opinion (what you believe to be possible/impossible, for example) or fact – and, importantly, relevant fact. Ensure that you keep a very strong distinction between what is tangible fact and what is not.
      Consider how closely pieces of evidence (large or small) fit your hypothesis like a glove, how they might go either way and how well they disfavour opposing hypotheses. As I’ve said in another comment, the minute amounts of dust in the wrinkles of mylar on the landing pads to be seen only by zooming in and the faint pattern of radial exhaust rather than an obvious blast crater massively support the landings because this is not how fakery is done (whether for a psyop where it’s deliberately sloppy or even when it’s trying to be as real as possible). We really have to scratch our heads and wonder why fakery would be done this way and to me it’s very much something that we can see is correct in hindsight but would not be anticipated. Interestingly, in responding to the question about the dust on the landing pads, the debunker of Massimo Mazzucco (like Mazzucco himself) indicates he believes there isn’t any at all – obviously because it’s so difficult to see.

      Now I think it’s fair to say that we can easily tell 9/11 was an inside job simply from the obvious signature of controlled demolition in the collapse of WTC-7 (their “gift” to the anticipated disbelievers of their story). We need do no further research to know it was an inside job. Of course, WTC-7’s collapse doesn’t reveal (most deliberately) the most important truth of 9/11: that it was, in fact, a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real where planes were faked and death and injury were staged but we can certainly say it was an inside job just from that – and, in fact, there are number of single pieces of evidence that each on their own tell us it was an inside job: the alleged Flight 175 into the South tower, etc.

      But, of course, ALL the evidence lines up, doesn’t it? It all lines up with “inside job” and then when we look at the evidence of staging of death and injury we further know, massive exercise.

      I think it’s not good critical thinking to form a belief based on a small number of seemingly compelling pieces of evidence – somewhere you could be mistaken – just, for example, you say cirrostratus clouds form at an altitude of 26,000 feet but when I just looked them up I saw a range of 20,000 – 43,000 ft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrostratus_cloud). OK, 43,000 isn’t the 79,000 ft claimed but you see what I mean? Perhaps it was an anomalously high cirrostratus cloud. The thing is, if your belief is correct then all the evidence will line up. Shouldn’t you do due diligence and make sure it does? Sure, you don’t have to look at absolutely everything but as soon as someone or something challenges your belief then you really need to look because as Principle 2 states: all the evidence must support and favour your hypothesis over any other.

      If your hypothesis is correct, Mark, then you and Gaia should be able to debunk the debunking of Dave McGowan and Massimo Mazzucco – or if you can’t debunk it – then you should be able to somehow reconcile this lack of ability with your hypothesis. You cannot just ignore it. It must be dealt with. How do you deal with it?

      Like

      1. Another very important principle I forgot is:
        Where the subject is out of your scope of expertise, follow the debunking trail and consider both:
        — Whose court the ball ends in, in other words, who gets the last word, whose argument is undebunkable by the supporters of any opposing hypotheses
        — How well each side argues their case.

        Like

      2. 43,000 is still only slightly more than half of its supposed height at that time, and the far edge of possibility. Assume a midpoint, 34,500 feet, and you’ve still got a lot of explaining to do.

        Like

        1. Sure, Mark, but do you agree that ALL the evidence, every single piece, must support and favour your chosen hypothesis? Have you done due diligence? Are you going to say in defence of your argument that they must have dropped a few grains of dust in the wrinkles in the mylar covering of the dust pads that can only be seen with a magnifying glass and similarly they etched the faintest of radial exhaust patterns in the sand for the “blast crater”? Never, ever, ever in a psyop have they faked anything in that manner, have they? They always make it obvious. And if, for once, they decided to fake the moon landings non-psyop style it’s hard to credit they would anticipate that, in fact, expectation is of minimal dust (with just the faintest trace) and minimal blast crater (with just the faintest trace) to that extent. If that’s the kind of knowledge they had then I think they would have known how to get to the moon.

          Do you think the anomaly of the time it took for the rocket to reach the cloud has greater weight against the real hypothesis than the anomaly that the minimal dust and radial exhaust present for the fake hypothesis.

          There are anomalies both ways and we have to look at which anomalies have greater weight, which anomalies may actually be able to be explained according to the opposing hypothesis but we just don’t know how.

          No one has identified a single sign of fakery in the hours of audio (as far as I know) between astronauts and mission control. Gaia said in another comment that the delay was wrong but I think that claim has successfully been debunked.

          How about this in the debunking of American Moon, talking about hypergolic fuels under Point 10.

          It is very obvious that the person writing is extremely knowledgeable. You really have to wonder how someone could be so very knowledgeable but believe we went to the moon when we didn’t and, of course, everything he says lines up with going to the moon. If you go to the actual page, there are many links to follow for the evidence: http://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/eqfeqs/debunking_american_moon/

          Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth (video @ 1:26:36), why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon.

          — he points out that hypergolic fuels are a class of fuels rather than a single type and some have visible flames while others don’t with examples
          — he points out that, in some cases, when the same fuel is used on earth there is a visible flame while in space no and why:

          “when fired in an atmosphere, a supersonic rocket exhaust forms a standing shockwave due to pressure differentials with the surrounding air. This causes “shock diamonds”, areas of increased heat which can ignite unburned fuel or exhaust products, or debris from the ablative layer of the rocket nozzle. In a vacuum this additional combustion would not happen. Chemiluminescent reactions of radical combustion products in the exhaust can also produce visible light, as is apparently the case with exhaust from the space shuttle’s main engine. Again, these reactions don’t happen in a vacuum in the absence of shock diamonds. So it is the Earth’s atmosphere which made the ascent engine’s plume visible in the test (and you can clearly see the “shock diamonds” in the footage). “

          Like

          1. All evidence is not equal. I judge evidence by its spontaneity, that is, there are golden nuggets strewn about, planted and waiting to be found. The moon photos and videos need to be set aside as obvious fakery, but that does not in total negate the moon landings. It just means they faked the photos. It only takes one obvious non-nugget piece of evidence to upset the entire apple cart, and the Polacia video is just that, not planned or planted, not under control if NASA, and the significance of which was not understood until it was too late for NASA to suppress it.

            Besides which the notion that they could go to the moon and back using 1969 technology when they cannot do it now, cannot achieve anything but unmanned LEO now, I mean, c’mon. You’re beating a dead horse, stubbornly sticking to a stance for unstated reasons, perhaps one being human, that you don’t like being wrong. So much of this is so plainly and obviously a hoax. Give it up.

            Like

            1. “You’re beating a dead horse, stubbornly sticking to a stance for unstated reasons, perhaps one being human, that you don’t like being wrong.”

              Mark, I 100% assure you that I am not stubbornly sticking to a stance for unstated reasons. Please believe me. I do not see fakery in the photos, I do not see fakery anywhere and I think many things are difficult to explain as being faked.

              What I see is a vast surface that is brightly lit by intense light (sunlight) against a black sky. I don’t see how this would be faked on earth but regardless even if it could be, if the fakery cannot be identified then the images favour real over fake.

              So if you believe the images are fake, please let me know what images they are and what you identify as fake.

              This is what I believe: similar to the perps targeting the anticipated disbelievers of their cockamamie story with special propaganda to ensure we kept believing in death and injury, eg, planting the PNAC document, the Alien Scientist video telling us about all the people targeted in the buildings, the anti-Israel propaganda where only the Jews in the buildings were given advance warning, the ONLY day Silverstein didn’t breakfast in Windows on the World, etc, etc the perps have also targeted those who tend not to believe them generally with Bill Kaysing who is very, very obviously a plant. You simply cannot deny that. So if he’s a plant, what’s his purpose? Of course, even though Bill was allegedly head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne he didn’t provide any juice, did he? He didn’t say, “This is how they faked it” or anything of that nature. I have to confess I’m not acquainted with much of what he did say but I haven’t seen any quotation of him to that effect.

              I mean, I didn’t look at Bill Kaysing first and think he was a plant, I PREDICTED he would be a plant. I noticed my sister and a couple of friends don’t believe most things (my sister is off the scale, although maybe on this site she wouldn’t be considered that way) and I thought to myself, “OK, so there’s people who tend not to believe anything from the authorities. They will be identified and targeted. I wonder if the first person to say we didn’t go to the moon was a plant to encourage the disbelievers by default not to believe in them so that when they call out the real psyops such as 9/11 the Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect will be created.” In fact, I really think that I was probably inclined to dismiss my sister when she first told me that 9/11 was an inside job because she didn’t believe in the moon landings. She didn’t wake me up, it was watching JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick that woke me up.

              Admittedly, there’s so many things I don’t believe myself now but I know I fit a slightly different profile from my sister and two friends.

              Bill is different from the 9/11 propaganda in that most people who don’t believe in the moon landings are not necessarily much influenced by him and some wouldn’t even be aware of him so his influence I’d say is relatively small unlike the 9/11 propaganda which totally had me fooled and was the only thing keeping my belief alive until I finally woke up to it. Nevertheless, he had some influence and we can certainly see why they would plant him. And how on earth do you explain him otherwise?

              The moon landings might seem farfetched but I think the evidence supports they happened, I really do and I think it doesn’t help to make your case for real psyops when you don’t recognise them.

              Like

              1. Slow to respond, Petri, most of yesterday spent driving from Casper, Wyoming to home. You apparently regard moon landing photos as valid evidence. It has been many years since I viewed them, and I walked away seeing obvious fakery, the blackened skies a studio effect, knowing that even amateur sky watchers would see misplacement of stars and planets. They had to do that. But even more obvious was the quality and staging, done by men wearing heavy gloving and unable to properly manipulate the equipment taking professional photos, this given the obvious unlikelihood that Kodak film could do anything but freeze, instantly, in sub-zero moon temperatures. Of course it was done on earth!

                One man whose work I viewed with sympathetic detachment, as he seemed a bit round-the-bend, compared the Moon Buggy to a Willy’s Jeep, and found that’s all it was. Wish I could keep track of eVerything that passes by my eyes, but it made sense. Since they were on earth, in a movie studio, of course they are not going to make major investments in technology for a hoax! We could easily see where the buggy came against the outer wall of the studio and had to turn back. Others saw where the backdrops were hills of identical dimensions.

                If you find that convincing, we have no common ground.

                Anyway, I see later after this that you disengage, and I understand that dynamic. I’m OK with that, as I do so as well, with a strong sense that evidence makes your exit a strategic retreat. No rancor intended. Be well.

                Like

                1. Hi Mark,
                  I said I was happy to look at photos or video that you think exhibit fakery so if you present them (or links to them) and let me know where you think the fakery is I’m happy to look at them and discuss. Otherwise, I don’t have the energy for other discussion … and yes no hard feelings. On the contrary, I am very grateful to you for your website and, of course, we’re not all going to agree on everything.

                  I just think it’s a shame that the ONE event in history I believe is real and is actually an astonishing achievement is disbelieved by so many but there’s nothing I can do about it (just as there’s nothing I can do about all the events people believe are real which aren’t – especially the current bullshit COVID which drives me absolutely nuts). I also think it undermines the truth cause because it undermines credibility when other people are – in this rare case – actually correctly convinced of the reality of moon landings. And what really bothers me is that people have been encouraged into disbelieving the moon landings by the paid disinformation agents, Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan and others probably – not sure if Bart Sibrel is genuine or not. That does get me. But so be it. I’ve never been able to convince my identical twin that the moon landings were real despite hours and hours of endless discussion so why do I think I’d be able to convince anyone else? People will believe what they will believe.

                  Like

                    1. Not convincing at all … the premise of the debunking effort is that the LEM was really built to be loaded on a spacecraft (boosted by a rocket already shown to be underpowered), and offloaded (no footage available) on the lunar surface and operated at temperatures of -380+ Fahrenheit. The technology described is said to be functional at that degree of cold. How much better would it have been if they wrapped it in Playtex, as with the astronauts.

                      Please. On Stephers’ thread you made worthy points about the vaccine, so you are not a fool. But this side of you I do not get. Since LEM was not going anywhere but a movie set, of course they used existing technology, and of course they worked over a Willy’s Jeep, the simplest means to an end. If people were not so easy to fool, they might have had to try harder, but they did not.

                      Like

                  1. I’m trying to respond to your last response, Mark, but my response won’t post. Can you see it somewhere because when I’ve tried to post it again I get the message “duplicate”?

                    Like

                  2. They lie to us all the time, don’t they, Mark, and have since time immemorial. 1605 Gunpowder Plot, Great Fire of 1666, Spanish flu, Zika, Ebola, MERS, swine flu, Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, 9/11, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Westminster, 9/11, anthrax attacks, Bali bombing, Port Arthur, La Penca bombing, Oklahoma bombing, Bologna station bombing, 2017 Mogadishu bombing, Manchester bombing, 1995 Srebrenica massacre, the current pandemic and on and on and on and on. So many contrived and lied-about events, many of which I’m completely ignorant of or even if I know of the event haven’t yet twigged to is a lie.

                    We’re both agreed that they lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

                    Wouldn’t it be something though if one event that is thought to be a lie by a pretty significant number of people actually wasn’t a lie and that event – if true – was really an astonishing achievement? An amazing phenomenon amongst all the mind-control terror and other dross.

                    I don’t know what you’ve told your grandchildren, Mark, but if you haven’t told them the Apollo missions were a hoax you’d probably like to, right? You want them to know the truth … and I’m all for knowing the truth. But in the world of lies wouldn’t it be good for your grandchildren to be able to appreciate an amazing phenomenon (and you with them) – that though seemingly farfetched – was actually true and not the lie you currently believe it to be.

                    If true, the moon landings would be an incredible testimony to the ingenuity, skill and wonderful collaboration between thousands and thousands of human beings. Something good among all the complete and utter BS we’re subjected to day in day out.

                    I’ve watched the Moon Machines series a couple of times and last night I watched again the program on the moon rover. I always find it awe-inspiring to listen to the dedicated engineers talk of their work with quiet pride and find it amusing to look at all the prototypes they did of the rover before they really had a clue what the surface of the moon was like.

                    You wouldn’t argue with Kary Mullis, would you, Mark, on his wise words:
                    the scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong.

                    I think these are the most sensible words on critical thinking I’ve ever heard.

                    So what I ask you to do for the sake of your grandchildren, for the sake of simply allowing the possibility to share with them something good among all the dross they subject us to, is to do just a little bit of trying to prove your hypothesis wrong on the moon landings.

                    I invite you, Mark, to watch the video on the development of the moon rover.

                    If you do that I’d be most curious to see what your response to it is.

                    Like

                    1. It seems to me, Petra, that you’re in need of disproving your hypothesis. I’ve been round and round on the moon landings, years of it behind me, and find no evidence of substance to support their being real, least of all the Rovers, that just happened on the scene with no information on how they got there other than schematics of their placement on the lunar lander, no notion of what weight had to be gotten rid of due to the added weight. I think it is pure doubling-down, nothing more. Gaia has more to say on this subject, and I will yield the floor to him in due time.

                      Like

                  3. ” … and find no evidence of substance to support their being real, least of all the Rovers, that just happened on the scene with no information on how they got there other than schematics of their placement on the lunar lander, no notion of what weight had to be gotten rid of due to the added weight.”

                    I take it you didn’t watch the Moon Machines program on the lunar rover, Mark.

                    “I’ve been round and round on the moon landings, years of it behind me …”

                    There’s a real danger in people of the same mindset all coming together. Of course, we have a natural tendency to do that, don’t we, we don’t want to be in discussion groups where we’re at odds with people all the time. I have to say I feel like a heretic on this site saying that the moon landings were real. I also have that feeling a bit on Off-Guardian as on that site many don’t believe in the moon landings either although not all. But I think Walter Lippman’s words are important to keep in mind:

                    “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

                    While you have have done years and years of stuff on the moon landings, Mark, you didn’t work out that Bill Kaysing was a plant. I did. And there were two reasons I worked it out.

                    — From arguing with lots of different people I realised that the vast majority of people tend to believe according to their inclinations to believe/disbelieve the authorities (my identical twin and two friends being good examples of the disbelievers by default and most others being believers by default) not according to the evidence. Most people simply do not have completely open minds. I do – or at least I’ve come to have an open mind. The 9/11 analyst I most admire, Gerard Holmgren, who sadly died in 2010 four years before I had the slightest clue, said a similar thing in his piece, A Theory. https://www.yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/A-theory.pdf. He said 10% of people believe everything from government no matter what you say and 10% don’t believe anything no matter what you say. He obviously got his percentages wrong but those profiles definitely exist. So I PREDICTED the possibility that the first person to say we didn’t land on the moon was a plant to encourage those who tend to disbelieve to not believe in the moon landings which would undermine their efforts when they called out the actual lies the power elite tell us on a daily basis. Do you really want to be a person undermining yourself and other truthtellers in getting out the truth by pushing the moon hoax theory if it’s not true? You’ve gone round and round but you clearly haven’t really done enough research because you didn’t work out Bill Kaysing was a plant and you would have been able to do that if you’d done the required research with an open mind – doesn’t actually take all that much.

                    — My first port of call was Wikipedia, as I know that’s where the intelligence agents always leave their clues and immediately the CIA jumped out at me like an evil jack-in-the-box with the name of Kaysing’s alleged nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen – I did have a laugh even if it was provided by those evil bastards. If, alternatively, I’d first gone to an interview with him where he said that the lunar module would have left a huge crater blasting sand and rocks everywhere I would have also immediately known he was a plant because the head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would never say such a thing.

                    What you really need to take on the significance of is this: the perps knew they could put forward someone where what he said was at complete odds with his alleged position and that no moon hoaxer would pick up he was a plant and nor would any Apollo enthusiast wanting to debunk him because they would just let that strange anomaly slide by. Do you see the significance of this, Mark? They KNOW HOW WE THINK. They know they can shove someone in our faces who doesn’t add up at all but whatever side of the conspiracy fence we’re on we accept him at face value.

                    I am the only person as far as I know who’s picked up Bill Kaysing was a plant and the reason is I don’t fit the disbelieve / believe everything profile or any other particular profile. I simply have an open mind and always judge by the evidence – which certainly doesn’t mean I don’t misinterpret evidence and sometimes get it wrong but I’m not guided by my inclinations to believe one thing or another and this is very, very important. So it’s not surprising that I’d done sufficient research to know what a person at Rocketdyne would say about the moon landings while moon hoaxers haven’t.

                    So let’s talk about the moon rover, Mark.

                    Sure, the moon rover looks like a Willy’s jeep. So what? How far does the resemblance really go is the question?

                    As I’ve said I follow the debunking trail.
                    — LTV says Willy’s jeep
                    — Jeep-guy says, with a certain sense of irony, yes – Willy’s jeep if you do all kinds of manipulations to it.
                    — You say “jeep-guy unconvincing” however all you do is reject his argument you don’t refute it, you don’t say “Jeep-guy says X but really Y” you just make your claim.

                    What you don’t do is properly debunk so where I’m left on the debunking trail is at jeep-guy. He’s winning the argument so far.

                    I’ve also watched the Moon Machines program on the moon rover. In fact, quite unbelievably I watched it again last night. Cannot believe I did that – two nights in a row. It’s not as if I’m an Apollo enthusiast, I only first got interested in the moon landings to see if they were real or not and I didn’t get interested in space after I worked out they were real. No interest in Mars rover, Space-X or anything like that but I definitely have a soft spot for the moon landings.

                    So in the MM program we see a number of quite hilarious-looking early prototypes that look nothing like a jeep. As the narrator says some look more like farm machines. The early prototyping suggests that although they ended up with a jeep-like vehicle it wasn’t simply that they grabbed out at a Willy’s jeep, it was that a jeep-like vehicle was the way to go. And jeep-LIKE is very much the operative word. A Willy’s jeep doesn’t have tires made from piano-wire, a Willy’s jeep isn’t run by a battery that is thermally-controlled by a 10lb container of paraffin wax, etc

                    If you don’t look you won’t find Mark. You didn’t work out Bill Kaysing was a plant because you didn’t look enough. Similarly, you didn’t work out that the moon rover has only the slightest resemblance in reality to a Willy’s jeep because you haven’t looked … even though I presented to you the perfect opportunity to have a look in the excellent Moon Machines program on the rover. You really have to ask yourself why you didn’t look, Mark. Are you really so invested in your belief that the moon landings are a hoax? Do really WANT so much the moon landings to be a hoax? Wouldn’t you just like ONE thing NOT to be a hoax? After all, it wasn’t a crime or fake crime. If true, it was an astonishing achievement, something that if I were an American I’d feel proud of even though I don’t believe in patriotism (and we also know ex-Nazi scientists played a big role … although in reality probably the biggest role was played by Russia because without the impetus of the competition with Russia the moon landings would never have happened in a pink fit I don’t think.)

                    Like

        2. Sorry meant to include in my answer. In part of his response about the visible/invisible flame he says:

          “If any additional evidence were needed that the lunar module did take off using a rocket, this sequence of stills from the Apollo 17 liftoff, courtesy of a poster on Quora, highlights that there was a visible flame where the rocket exhaust hit the descent stage. The burning of the materials of the descent stage no doubt caused the visible flame.”

          So how do you fake an invisible flame pushing off a rocket but which becomes visible when the exhaust hits the descent stage? That is an incredibly sophisticated thing to fake and which you surely would never think of if you were faking it.

          Like

  6. Damn I forgot the numbering doesn’t hold. I’d be grateful, Mark, if you could substitute the text below in my comment and delete this comment.

    — First and foremost, absolutely first and foremost and what most people do not do:
    Accept any challenge to your belief (whether from a person, from information presented or even just by your own thoughts) with grace, and ensure that you scrutinise this challenge rigorously so that you can determine whether or not your belief needs to change – gasp! – or whether it can defend itself perfectly against the challenge.

    — Ensure every single piece of available evidence supports your chosen hypothesis and favours it over any other. Reality demands that every single piece of evidence must support your hypothesis and favour it over any other. It’s that simple. Of course, there may be anomalies you might have to accept without explanation (although they reality would demand that they can be explained somehow even if you can’t) but you need to ensure these anomalies don’t actually contradict your hypothesis or favour another (at least on balance).

    — Evidence has utmost primacy. What we believe to be possible, impossible, plausible or implausible, have no weight in the face of actual evidence. No weight at all. Of course, evidence can be faked but what I’m talking about is compelling evidence where there is no sign of fakery and there’s a reasonable amount of it.

    — Identify what your thinking is based on: is it based on opinion (what you believe to be possible/impossible, for example) or fact – and, importantly, relevant fact. Ensure that you keep a very strong distinction between what is tangible fact and what is not.

    — Consider how closely pieces of evidence (large or small) fit your hypothesis like a glove, how they might go either way and how well they disfavour opposing hypotheses. As I’ve said in another comment, the minute amounts of dust in the wrinkles of mylar on the landing pads to be seen only by zooming in and the faint pattern of radial exhaust rather than an obvious blast crater massively support the landings because this is not how fakery is done (whether for a psyop where it’s deliberately sloppy or even when it’s trying to be as real as possible). We really have to scratch our heads and wonder why fakery would be done this way and to me it’s very much something that we can see is correct in hindsight but would not be anticipated. Interestingly, in responding to the question about the dust on the landing pads, the debunker of Massimo Mazzucco (like Mazzucco himself) indicates he believes there isn’t any at all – obviously because it’s so difficult to see.

    Like

  7. I am a resident of central Washington state (probably one of the hottest regions in the PNW being a high desert) and I can confirm that there were exactly 4 days of “out the ordinary hot weather” Monday June 28th to Thursday July the 1st with Tuesday June 29th reaching 117 in my area. One that Tuesday it was 80 degrees at 4 a.m.. I work outside, doing a physical job, so I felt the difference between those four days and what we are currently experiencing here now which is normal July weather for my area.

    Like

    1. Jeff, It seems June in the US was the hottest on record where nighttime temperatures are increasing. The minimum temperature is increasing more than the maximum temperature which is not good for recovery from the heat.

      “In some parts of the Pacific Northwest recently, temperatures soared nearly 30 degrees Fahrenheit above their average, an extreme that “would have been virtually impossible without climate change,” said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.”

      I know the media lie their heads off but …

      https://web.archive.org/web/20210709160630/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/upshot/record-breaking-hot-weather-at-night-deaths.html

      Like

      1. You’ll see at the end if my post two links, one saying that the heat wave was linked to HAARP, the other that it can be explained naturally and that anyway, anomalies are not evidence for AGW. My bet, HAARP, AGW and Covid are the same animal.

        Like

        1. Well, that is certainly an interesting theory, Mark. I don’t reject it but I’d need to have a careful look which I don’t have the time for now, especially as I’ve never really looked at HAARP at all which I should have.

          Like

  8. I thank you Gaia, Mark and XS very much for engaging with me on the moon landings because you’ve helped me clarify my thoughts. I don’t have the energy to keep debating, I’ll just make this final comment and will read any comments made in reply but no more debate although I’ll respond on any photos or videos you show me, Mark, that you think exhibit signs of fakery.

    What I hope to do is show how it is to your detriment to maintain belief that the moon landings were a hoax because it undermines your ability to spread the truth on real psyops – OK, I have very little ability to spread the truth even though I DO recognise the moon landings but I always think it’s best to recognise the truth and also to see where the perps are encouraging you to believe a lie.

    What the perps are very good at is making us believe half-truths which, I believe, are as good as lies.

    9/11 – Truth: Inside job / Lie: killed the people
    9/11 and moon landings – Truth: inside job / Lie: ML fake

    These are incontrovertible facts:
    Dave McGowan was a 100% disinformation agent with regard to the moon landings (don’t know about the rest of his stuff) but I believe all of you – whether you think he was an agent or not – believe what he said about the moon landings was in the main true. No, everything he’s said has been successfully debunked. He was 100% disinformation.

    Bill Kaysing was a 100% disinformation agent. He couldn’t possibly have been head of Technical Communications at Rocketdyne and spoken of “sand” and massive blast craters.

    These are two important facts to reflect on because none of you recognised them.

    Your minds were controlled and please don’t try to deflect by thinking, “Well, I had my own reasons for not believing in the moon landings, it wasn’t what Dave or Bill said.” Even if you have your own reasons which you obviously do you still thought they said the truth and were not 100% disinformation agents (even if you had a half-truth on Dave McGowan (half-truth – as good as a lie)).

    Bill was very obviously an agent because what he said was completely at odds with his alleged position at Rocketdyne while what Dave said sounded much more plausible to the average person. They always have agents at different rungs on the truth ladder as you know.

    So before we even look at the evidence for the moon landings we have this enormous question of why two disinformation agents would be trying to get people to NOT believe in the moon landings, assuming they were fake. Why would they need disinformation agents on the job if they were fake? If they were real though we have a perfect explanation: they want to undermine people’s credibility when they call out the real psyops such as 9/11. I believe this worked against my sister trying to tell me 9/11 was an inside job. I didn’t believe her on the moon landings so was less inclined to believe her on 9/11. The thing was, it wasn’t that I really believed in the moon landings at that time because I hadn’t really looked, I just thought her reasons for not believing them were not compelling – now she’s giving me different reasons but whatever reasons she gives me I think they’re nonsense. What she said about 9/11 though was spot on – all she said was that the buildings came down by controlled demolition but I didn’t give her the time of day at that point, I just dismissed her with “They wouldn’t have had the confidence that they could get away with it.” How little I knew, of course. When I first started to look and read Wagging the Moondoggie I have to say I found it very compelling … until I looked further.

    We all fall into “believing” profiles. Some of us believe everything from authorities, some nothing and there’s various in between. And the perps, of course, play to our profiles – they target ALL of us … especially those of us who disbelieve them by default and this is a fact we need to be very, very mindful of. The perps targeted the anticipated disbelievers of their 9/11 story with propaganda to maintain our belief in real death and injury … and for probably thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of truthers it’s worked a treat and is still working wonderfully to this day 20 years later, (it certainly worked on me for way longer than it should have – I don’t know how long it worked for you guys)! They really know how to control our minds.

    If we really want to know the truth but we’re inclined to disbelieve everything from the authorities we have to be very, very careful in how we look at information. We have to be scrupulous because these people are ALWAYS targeting us … at the same time they always give us the clues. They didn’t have to tell us that Bill Kaysing was head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne – complete giveaway – but they did … and they knew no one would pick him up as an agent – on either side of the conspiracy fence! Astounding!

    What Kary Mullis says is the best guidepost anyone could follow:
    the scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong.

    How you aim to prove your hypothesis wrong (repetition from another comment):
    — Embrace any challenge you receive to your belief and scrutinise it thoroughly and actively look for challenges.

    — Ensure every single piece of available evidence supports your chosen hypothesis and favours it over any other. Reality demands that every single piece of evidence must support your hypothesis and favour it over any other. It’s that simple. Of course, there may be anomalies you might have to accept without explanation (although they reality would demand that they can be explained somehow even if you can’t) but you need to ensure these anomalies don’t actually contradict your hypothesis or favour another (at least on balance).

    — Evidence has utmost primacy. What we believe to be possible, impossible, plausible or implausible, have no weight in the face of actual evidence. No weight at all. Of course, evidence can be faked but what I’m talking about is compelling evidence where there is no sign of fakery and there’s a reasonable amount of it.

    — Identify what your thinking is based on: is it based on opinion (what you believe to be possible/impossible, for example) or fact. Ensure that you keep a very strong distinction between what is tangible fact and what is not.

    — Consider how closely pieces of evidence (large or small) fit your hypothesis like a glove or how they might go either way. I place more importance on close-fittingness of hypothesis than how large a piece of evidence is. A large piece of evidence might go either way more easily while a small piece might very closely fit and close fit to me is more telling.

    — Where the subject is out of your scope of expertise, follow the debunking trail and consider both:
    ——Whose court the ball ends in, in other words, whose argument is undebunkable by the supporters of any opposing hypotheses
    ——How well each side argues their case.

    Like

      1. Thanks for this, JB, and I add something I’ve long known, that JFK’s prediction that a man would walk on the moon by the end of the decade was a large part of this hoax, him knowing he would fake his own death and by a symbolic martyr.

        Like

      2. Petra has some interesting points and Jackie’s link seems like a slam dunk. An event to fool people at that point in time, then the expose to make later generations have that aha moment, and make them stop looking for answers, such as a possible existing superior tech that has existed for ages. We have Sir Branson’s recent endeavor to continue to keep the masses in awe and the ideas selling for a never ending bar tab sent to the taxpayers.

        Like

        1. Petra simply fails to address evidence. He’s got it in his mind that the Apollo missions were real. Nothing will dissuade him. I do not have energy to debunk his easily dissembled nonsense. I am done. Good day.

          Like

    1. Petra, I humbly suggest you (and anyone else) to focus on the core issue, skipping the endless shenanigans about pictures and video anomalies, incorrect shadows, starless sky, radiation in space, Bill Kaysing or Dave McGowan being agents or not, and so on and so forth. That isn’t going to prove anything one way or the other. Furthermore, at best they can cast doubts on the moon landing, but leave untouched the hard fact that the whole of the space saga is, and forever will be, a fantasy land.
      Among the many fakeries we are constantly immersed in, space traveling has a somewhat peculiar place in that it can be easily exposed for what it is, a fairytale, just sticking to simple science, the real one, not the various skateboard-medicine ball-rifle-bullet-recoil NASA silly versions.
      There is no way you can get propulsion by a gas expanding in a vacuum, it would violate the laws of physics, case closed.
      Space travels, manned or unmanned, are impossible, unless:
      1) the basic laws of physics are wrong (as far as we know they are not, they seem to work fine outside the Disney world of space rocketry)
      2) we are able to develop new propulsion systems other than gas expansion
      3) space is not a vacuum as they claim (but now friction dictates that the hyperbolic speeds they claim are impossible, also, cosmology has to be rewritten)
      4) quantum teleportation (maybe the next new prestige show for an ever more stupefied and gullible audience)

      “Rocket science” is just another giant naked emperor, like virology, climate change, Darwin’s evolution and Einstein’s Relativity, to mention only the most blatant.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “There is no way you can get propulsion by a gas expanding in a vacuum, it would violate the laws of physics, case closed.”

        To me, Ayokera Kimura, Rule No. 1 of determining the truth of a situation is to carefully look at and judge by the evidence first and foremost – especially when there’s an absolute wealth of it – not to judge by what you believe to be impossible or implausible. We all laugh at Michael Shermer et al saying that they wouldn’t have been able to lay the explosives, right? I’m very, very wary of “impossible” claims. I like evidence. If the evidence contradicts the “impossible” claim I go with the evidence.

        Have you discussed with Apollo or other space enthusiasts your belief about propulsion by a gas expanding in a vacuum?

        Can you tell me what is wrong with the explanation below for how a rocket works in space when there is no air to push against?

        How does a rocket work in space where there is no air to push against?
        https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2002Sept.cfm

        I will say little further as I’ve said everything I need to say in my other comments. Just to say:

        — I think the evidence clearly shows the moon landings are the one true thing among the hundreds and hundreds of lies they tell us, including the in-your-face supremo psyop that was the Challenger disaster. I’ve always wondered what happened to Barbara Olson and various other people who allegedly died in the various psyops but no need for the Challenger disaster! It’s such a hoot! It’s kind of hard to believe. Why did they simply not worry at all about hiding these people while hiding everyone else from all the other psyops (except I think Sandy Hook children which is a slightly different case) – at least, as far as I know they have – anyone seen anyone else still alive? Isn’t it astounding what they get away with?

        — people who recognise all the other psyops and ALSO think the moon landings were a hoax do themselves a disservice because they undermine their ability to get the truth out about the real psyops, they more easily have themselves dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” (I mean you will anyway, of course, I am all the time). The purpose of Bill Kaysing was to encourage people to falsely believe in the one true thing they tell us. The perps are not going to let the people who disbelieve all their lies be correct all the time, they won’t have that if they can possibly help it. They NEED to fool people, including those who don’t believe them.

        Like

        1. “not to judge by what you believe to be impossible or implausible. We all laugh at Michael Shermer et al saying that they wouldn’t have been able to lay the explosives, right? I’m very, very wary of “impossible” claims. I like evidence. If the evidence contradicts the “impossible” claim I go with the evidence.”

          So what Michael Shermer et al say it’s impossible and the laws of physics have the same weight to you?
          That’s a most bizarre way of reasoning, to say the least.
          If I claim it’s impossible reindeers can fly because that’s not allowed by the laws of physics you would answer that dozens of movies contradict my claim (they couldn’t be all fake, could they?) so you go with the evidence.

          “Have you discussed with Apollo or other space enthusiasts your belief about propulsion by a gas expanding in a vacuum?”

          Of course many times.

          “Can you tell me what is wrong with the explanation below for how a rocket works in space when there is no air to push against?”

          “Consider a machine gun mounted on a lightweight cart. If the gun is fired, the bullets go in one direction while the cart recoils in the other. The magnitude of the momentum of the bullets equals the momentum of the cart but the directions are opposite. Thus, one momentum is positive and one is negative, making the total change (their sum) zero. Although things are now moving, the total momentum of the gun-cart system has not changed.”

          Before I try to explain why it’s completely bogus, I have a couple of questions: Have you ever bothered to check for yourself if the explanation they give you makes sense, or have you just accepted it because you blindly trust “the experts”? If that’s the case, the experts worldwide have been telling you there is a pandemic caused by a virus, and that the TT and WTC7 crashing down at free fall speed is perfectly explainable without CD, why don’t you trust them on that too?
          The cart-machine gun is the umptenth incarnation of the classical newtonian “recoil” explanation (btw when you show it’s bogus they most often resort to another one, equally bogus).
          It’s a prestige, and it works because nobody is paying attention to the trick performed by the magician before their eyes.
          The trick is making you believe that in the example the bullet exiting the machine gun is equivalent to the gas exiting the rocket. They are not, from a Newtonian point of view, they are antithetic. Because they have opposite inertia.
          The keyword here is inertia, not mass. They want you to focus on the fact that a solid object and a gas have both mass, so there’s no difference. The difference is they have opposite inertia.
          The bullet is at rest inside the barrel, its velocity is zero as well as its momentum (mv).
          The bullet has inertia of rest and will stay at rest (Newton 1) until an external force will cause it to accelerate, hence changing its momentum.
          A bullet will never exit the barrel unless a force is applied, and is that force that propels the bullet one way and the cart the other way.
          The same force (f=ma: Newton 2) that causes the bullet to accelerate will be applied in the opposite direction to the machine gun (Newton 3), and that’s what we call “recoil”.
          A bullet changes its initial state of rest to a state of motion during the process of exiting the barrel.
          Contrary to the bullet, a gas molecule is never at rest, it’s in a permanent state of motion (it has inertia of motion = it will stay in motion until an external force will change its state).
          A gas molecule has always his own momentum and it’s never zero.
          A gas molecule is not at rest inside the barrel, it keeps moving at a constant velocity and stays inside only if there is no way to exit.
          A gas molecule has velocity and momentum BEFORE exiting the barrel (or the rocket) and maintains his initial state of motion during the process, so there is no change of velocity i.e. no acceleration, and since f=ma, zero acceleration means no force is involved in the sheer process of expansion.
          If the force involved in the expansion is zero, then the same zero force (Newton 3) will be applied in the opposite direction to the gun, cart or rocket (i.e. no recoil and no propulsion). That is, unless during the process of expansion the gas is allowed to exchange momentum interacting with something (e.g. a bullet or an external pressure). If you take out the bullet, or anything else with which the gas can interact during the expansion, the whole process become pointless. Nothing has changed in the system, before and after the gas expansion, no force, no acceleration, no recoil, no propulsion.
          Without interaction with something external to the system (as in a vacuum), the total linear momentum of the gas molecules before and after the expansion cannot change, therefore, if you say that an object is accelerated (i.e. its momentum has changed) as a consequence of a gas expanding in a vacuum, you end up increasing the total momentum of the system, and that would be a violation of the law of conservation of momentum, because, as the experts correctly point out, total momentum is always conserved.
          If you think the linear momentum of the system changes because “the gas is expanding only in one direction” you are wrong, because the molecules are moving following the same path they had before you opened the door, and the only consequence of the expansion is that they now have a longer path to travel, but that neither change their linear momentum, nor that of the system.
          In the case of an expanding gas, conservation of momentum has to be taken into account only if and when the gas molecules will hit something and momentum will be transferred. Think of it as a delay in transfer, just like on a billiard you hit the cue ball and it takes some time for it to reach the target ball and exchange momentum. In the vacuum of space gas molecules are like cue balls drifting in the universe at constant speed waiting to transfer momentum when hitting something.
          If you think the gas is “pushing the rocket from inside” you are wrong again. A system cannot “push on itself” simply because any kind of force internal to the system will be balanced by an equal and opposite force (Newton 3), so that the net result is always zero. That’s why you cannot lift yourself over the floor by grabbing your jacket and pulling it up, no matter the amount of force you can generate. You are a closed system and cannot move yourself until you “open” it allowing an external force to operate.
          A car lifted above the ground is a closed system, it cannot move no matter how high the engine is revving, how much fuel it burns or how fast the wheels are spinning. It ain’t going nowhere until you lower it allowing the wheels to interact with the ground.
          A rocket exhausting gas in the vacuum of space is like a car with the wheels spinning above the ground.

          Like

          1. A rocket exhausting gas in the vacuum of space is like a car with the wheels spinning above the ground.

            Wrong.

            There IS NO GAS under the claimed conditions of space. It cannot exist. Only H and He are superfluid, all the other elements become solid. No gas.

            You fall into the trap set for you; approaching this as a purely mechanical problem.

            It is not, it is a physical-chemical problem.

            Like

            1. As far as I know, the claimed condition of space is that of a quasi perfect vacuum, in other words very near to a “nothingness”. If the reason why there can be no gas you are referring to is the purported near absolute zero temperature, I would like to know how the concept of temperature applies to a nothingness. Also, it’s not clear to me how you can convince molecules randomly drifting at high speed to stick together under the zero pressure of a nothingness.
              I’m not challenging you, just for my better understanding.

              Like

              1. “So what Michael Shermer et al say it’s impossible and the laws of physics have the same weight to you?
                That’s a most bizarre way of reasoning, to say the least.”

                Actually, I revise my response to your question. Whether it’s the laws of physics or what people say wouldn’t have been able to be done for reasons not relating to the laws of physics:

                Evidence rules! Evidence ALWAYS comes first, especially when it comes from numerous angles. Sure, a single piece or a few pieces can easily be misinterpreted but when it all lines up – all of it – as I think it does for the moon landings – that’s a different matter.

                There’s the laws of physics and then there’s people’s opinions about the laws of physics. No matter how plausible or reasonable your explanation it is still an opinion about the laws of physics until you can prove your opinion correct.

                Like

              2. Don’t worry about challenging (me), I think that element of human social reflection is greatly missed in the Transhumanist Covidiocracy we live in, so thank you and don’t hold back in challenging our peers, enhance your efforts, it is needed!

                To start with the last part; I agree with the problems conceptualizing temperature in near absence of pressure, but our conceptualization is irrelevant in the test to be done; is space travel possible [under the current model of space] ?

                First get that “vacuum” out of your lexicon. It is a term used by YTers (and by NASA alike, I know that) and then misrepresented to claim a dome and flat earth and “an atmosphere can not be in contact with a vacuum !1!!!1!1!!111!”

                And that is true, but that is not what the model of space says.

                When I looked it up years ago at Wikipedia, it was proudly presented to be -270 C (3 K) and 10^-16 bar. Which obviously is very low pressure and you can define it as a “light vacuum” (or something alike, forgot the exact term).

                But what is important, is to approach the whole situation, not just pick out the mechanical part or rocketry which is what everybody solely focuses their attention on.

                Thermo-dynamics, the name says it all; it is both temperature (chemistry) and motion (physics), with the main component first.

                There are just a few sketchy diagrams of near 0 T AND P conditions, but they all share the same phenomenon; at those conditions (THEY claim space has) gas cannot exist.

                This list is another one than I have seen before, with slightly different numbers, but see the condensation (or “boiling”) points of gases here
                H = -253 C (20 K)
                He = -269 C (4 K)

                What would conceptually happen in the (impossible) case of a rocket in space ?

                According to the mainstream model
                a) T near 0
                b) p near 0 (‘the vast nothingness’ you mention and I also use, but not the misleading ‘vacuum’)
                b) space is infinite
                d) there is at least G(ravity), but with many other (unknown, duh) forces possibly also there

                1st – these conditions are impossible to replicate on Earth, so to claim we can go into space is ridiculous from the onset; engineering is applied science that requires testing. Proper testing, not Disney testing.
                2nd – under these conditions no gas can exist, so any propulsion designed
                in and for the atmosphere!
                using gas, cannot work.
                3rd – because of the extremely low pressures (“””vacuum”””, again, drop it), the density is extremely low, so very little particles per volume, so even if they vibrate a little bit (Temperature), they would not touch their distant neighbors (Pressure, density).

                In my view, what would conceptually happen in this though experiment of picturing a gas-propelled rocket in space is that instantaneously (space is infinite, ok, fine, then it must be black and white, no transient effects like the atmosphere has (compare a humid summer night at lower elevation with a stone cold same summer night high up in the mountains)….

                To understand why space travel must be fake you can look at the case much more holistically, conceptually.

                Once anyone enters a completely new realm, where new and undiscovered natural laws rule, you need to redefine your understanding of your environment; a revolution in scientific discoveries would take place after the moment you stepped into that realm (1940s-1957/59/61).

                Not, as the case was with “space travel”, scripted decades (Onestone, thank you smj) or a century (le grand-père; Verne) before. And then “going into space”, “landing on the Moon” or other Disney baloney, encountering that things were (fundamentally) exactly as you expected them to be.

                Nah, exploration doesn’t work like that. Real exploration that is.

                Like

                1. Space travel starts with ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles), if you are interested in that hoax, check out John le Bons work on it, he is one of the few ones I have seen who has tackled that.

                  But according to them narrative, they go into space. So no, they don’t. It is a Nuke Hoax thingy; Hollyweird mind control.

                  Like

                2. forgot to finish what I think would happen:

                  As I understand the basics, a rocket consists of 3 important parts:
                  A – combustion chamber
                  B – nozzle
                  C – exhaust

                  Again, in the very basis, a rocket works not very dissimilar from a fossil fuel (yes, fossil, no, not dinos) engine. The constant process of combustion provides thrust.

                  This means that the nozzle needs to be constantly opening and closing.

                  At the exact moment (no transient effects!) the nozzle opens and the combusted materials in the chamber come into contact with space (with conditions as proposed by the White Cloaked Priesthood), every molecule of those former gases solidifies and floats off in the vast nothingness of space.

                  The first process because of the temperatures (or lack thereof) and the second because of the extremely low pressure and thus density of particles; the equilibrium between the tiny combustion chamber and infinite space around it would be established instantaneously and no work can be done by molecules which formerly where gases when they were in the combustion chamber with the nozzle closed.

                  (then also the aluminum can, the space thingy, would crumble because of the “pressure sucked out of it”, like a fast depressurized gastank on Earth (or a can in a vacuum chamber), but it is more than purely a mechanical problem, you see?)

                  Like

          2. “So what Michael Shermer et al say it’s impossible and the laws of physics have the same weight to you?
            That’s a most bizarre way of reasoning, to say the least.”

            No they don’t have the same weight, of course, but it seems you have your physics and others have theirs … so in a sense …
            Obviously, there’s what’s true about physics and what isn’t and that is what needs to be determined.

            “Before I try to explain why it’s completely bogus, I have a couple of questions: Have you ever bothered to check for yourself if the explanation they give you makes sense, or have you just accepted it because you blindly trust “the experts”? ”

            I check for myself where I feel I understand the subject sufficiently but where I don’t – and physics is a good example where my eyes glaze over very quickly – I rely on:
            — following a debunking trail – I look at Person A’s argument vs Person B’s and back again and see who seems the most compelling within my limited range of understanding
            — what other evidence exists. If there’s sufficient evidence available in my opinion to prove things one way or the other I don’t worry about the part I can’t understand. I certainly do not expect to understand everything about going to the moon – a lot of it is rocket science after all. There are so many different angles from which we can look at the moon landings which all align with their reality.

            What you say about a gas sounds reasonably plausible but I feel in no position to judge, you’d have to show me what argument you get in response but even then I’d say it’s possible that no one properly understands the physics and even though it might seem as though it shouldn’t work according to your perfectly reasonable explanation it does nevertheless because certain factors have not been considered.

            I argue that there is sufficient evidence to show incontrovertibly we went to the moon and the “impossible” physics argument no matter how plausible simply won’t work for me. Evidence – especially when there’s a mountain of it – comes first, not physics explanations.

            Like

          3. And just one more thing:
            I think the approach of deciding on an hypothesis on the basis of just one thing will not necessarily result in the right answer and is a wrong approach. The nature of reality is such that if an hypothesis is correct all the evidence will support and favour that hypothesis over any competing hypotheses.

            This is absolutely not true for the “fake” hypothesis. There are so many things that are explained much better by the “true” hypothesis than the “fake” hypothesis.

            — Vast swathes of moonscape brightly and evenly lit by an intense light against a black sky is much better explained by real than fake. How would they have faked it?

            — The documented engineering problems that were overcome is better explained by true than fake. How do overcome non-existent problems? People aren’t motivated to do that where there’s no reality.

            — Googlemoon and all the footage of the unmanned lunar modules need to be fake … and while I know they perpetuate fakery for centuries nevertheless that’s a pretty big fake to perpetuate.

            I shouldn’t say more because I’ve really said all I need to say.

            Like

              1. Just to say, Mark, I’m a woman and, of course, I don’t think TV necessarily presents reality – the vast majority of the time it doesn’t – either it admits it’s not presenting reality through recognised fictional programs or it’s presenting us with fake news. But we can always tell the fake news because they always let us know with their signs and symbols. We must give them that, they always let us know. With the moon landings, however, there are no signs of fakery and not only are there no signs, it’s very difficult to see how they could have faked the moon landings because lunar conditions are so different, especially the fact of a black sky in daytime, that is a very, very different condition from what we have on earth during daytime.

                Like

                1. I would think the black sky on the moon would be the biggest “tell” there is, as any fool can see just by looking that our atmosphere distorts the stars we see, but that with no atmosphere they would all shine through with blinding light. In order to fake that part, they would have had to fill the roof of the movie stage with lights, and they would have to have been accurate, as there are amateur and professional star gazers all about who would spot mistakes. That was too big an undertaking, so they just blacked it and made up some tech talk (as they do in Star Trek) to cover their asses.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Perhaps Petra could enlighten all of us how the observant astronots could have missed all the combined bright lights coming from the Cosmos, producing a pitch black background, while being able to capture their Apollo 15 “rendezvous” teapot under clearly low light conditions….?

                    “no sign of fakery”

                    LOL

                    Like

                    1. You consider throwing some link in my face is an answer in your own words about this particular photo?

                      clear you’re here just to troll, Petra. You live in Australia FFS. Go outside and look up.

                      And don’t bother me with nonsense by carnies who are shilling for the most childish hoax of ’em all.

                      Like

                    2. Throw a link in your face, Gaia? How very many times has the stars question been brought up? I don’t normally just put a link but on this occasion it makes perfect sense. I’m not a troll, OK? Who would I be trolling for? We don’t all agree do we on everything? You and Ayokera obviously don’t agree on the physics of space, do you? Troll … please. The fact that you call me a troll indicates you have zero understanding of who I am.

                      Like

                    3. How very many times has the stars question been brought up?

                      Don’t know and don’t care.

                      I asked a specific question about a specific photo, not “a stars question”.

                      And don’t worry, the troll label you didn’t earn with one link. In fact, it was a refreshingly short cuntribution in between the sophistricated word salad of normal.

                      But it is clear you have no own views on this topic, hence your focus on totally unimportant carnies like McGowan or some Italian dude.

                      You cannot have seen the fakery in the white rabbit hopping theater and then go back to believing it was all real.

                      Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

                      Like

                  2. They’re certainly brighter on the moon in lunar daytime than they are in the daytime here, Mark, a lot brighter. Perhaps if the astronauts had gone during moon nighttime the stars would have been much brighter.

                    Like

              2. Petra’s Premise is fundamentally wrong;

                (s)he thinks something is real until it is proven fake (and somehow depends on an impossible to quantify factor as ‘size’), instead of the thinking anyone would and should have with any narrative told to us:

                Cán this be real?

                If yes, it might be, but is not necessarily, real (know thy myth makers !)
                If not, it must be fake/forged/staged/psyopped

                And on that basis, 9/11 morphing planes, 6,000,000 magically going up in smoke, space travel (and thus visiting aliens), Anthropogenic Global Warmongering, Nuclear chain reactions and so many other things must be rejected, simply because they cannot be real.

                Like

            1. “I think the approach of deciding on an hypothesis on the basis of just one thing will not necessarily result in the right answer and is a wrong approach.”

              That sounds as an utterly absurd statement to me.
              I think we can agree that a scientific impossibility is not “one thing”, it’s a decisive thing, and seals the deal. All the rest is useless fluff.
              I think what you actually wanted to say is that you keep believing in moon landings because you don’t acknowledge the “one thing” of space rocketry being impossible, not because it’s “just one thing”.
              It seems to me our modus cogitandi couldn’t be more far apart, there’s no point going on further.

              Like

              1. “It seems to me our modus cogitandi couldn’t be more far apart, there’s no point going on further.”

                You’re probably right there … but I’ll have one more go. When you refer to “useless fluff” does that mean the vast wealth of evidence for going to the moon: all the video and audio; all the artefacts found in museums; the documentation of the development of the engineering that got the astronauts in space, then to the moon and to the moon again; the navigation computer; third party imagery from Googlemoon and the unmanned modules and so on. All this is useless fluff which we can consign to the garbage bin without scrutiny or concern because your ideas of what is possible in space according to the laws of physics means everything fake?

                How many people agree with you on the impossibility of rockets in space according to the laws of physics?

                Now I know, of course, that because only one person believes something doesn’t mean they’re wrong and everyone else is right, I certainly know that. However, to my mind actual EVIDENCE carries far more weight than thoughts about what’s possible and what isn’t. So if your ideas about rockets in space and the laws of physics ALIGNED with all the relevant evidence in the same way that the 2.25 seconds of freefall in the collapse of WTC-7 aligned with the rest of the evidence that says “inside job” then I’d be like, “You may well be right about the impossibility of rockets in space, we can clearly see that all the evidence supports the fakery of the moon landings” … however this is very much not the case.

                Reality demands that all the evidence – every single teensy weensy skerrick of evidence – supports and favours the correct hypothesis over any competing hypotheses and none of the actual evidence supports and favours “fake” for the moon landings, it all supports and favours “real” – that is the nature of reality – it can’t half support and favour “fake” and half support and favour “real” – it must all go the one way. The moon landings were either real or fake – not both.

                So what you’re doing is according your unproven ideas about rockets in space and the laws of physics greater respect than the evidence. The difference between me and most everyone I argue with is that my respect for the evidence is absolute. I put evidence above everything else. I don’t scorn footage of the moon landings because movies are made in Hollywood – yes, I know movies are made in Hollywood but all the fakery in them can be identified, it’s not as if some magical business goes on where the fakery cannot be identified. And if the moon landing footage was faked the fakery could be identified … but it never has been, only bogus identification saying that wires can be seen and similar nonsense.

                Like

                1. “All this is useless fluff which we can consign to the garbage bin without scrutiny or concern because your ideas of what is possible in space according to the laws of physics means everything fake?”

                  I’m just saying that it should be obvious to anyone that scientific facts take priority over all the rest.
                  If I say that upon thorough scrutiny of the scientific facts I’ve reached the conclusion that reindeers can’t fly, until you can prove me wrong on that specific issue it’s utterly preposterous to ignore the point and go forward debating about anomalies in footage of flying reindeers or discrepancy in witnesses accounts. If reindeers CAN’T fly who cares about footage, all the “evidences” MUST BE fakeries on various level. It’s that simple.
                  I’m trying to make a logical point here, not saying that I could not be proven wrong.
                  If you are uninterested in scientific matters or find the ideas of mr. Nobody uncompelling, so be it, fine, I’m not interested in your “evidences” so let’s quit wasting time in pointless debating.
                  That said I don’t understand why you asked me to tell you what’s wrong with the MS explanation of how rockets work in space, and when I did you replied that at the end of the day it’s just my opinion. Care to clarify what’s the point of asking an explanation if you’re incapable or unwilling to take any stance on that matter? Do you see any logic in that? I don’t.
                  To me it’s obvious the matter has been already settled in your mind, you’re not seeking the truth, not anymore at least. It seems you fell in love long ago with the moon landings saga and nothing would make you change your mind. The emperor is as ugly as a toad and as naked as a J-bird but I’m afraid you will keep seeing forever prince charming under the cinderella spell you’ve cast upon yourself.

                  Like

                  1. All I can say is I judge by the actual evidence provided. I don’t understand physics so perhaps it’s wrong of me to call it your opinion, however, I don’t believe because I don’t understand physics I cannot know if something’s true or not where there is sufficient evidence whose reality I feel in a position to judge. If there were no footage, if there were no audio and none of the other evidence of artefacts, engineering development and so on to defend the reality of the moon landings I would simply say I don’t have the evidence to know if we went to the moon or not. I’d accept that perhaps your argument against the physics of rockets was right but I simply wouldn’t be in a position to judge because I don’t understand physics.

                    I can only infer you’ve got it wrong on the physics – not because I understand what you say or what anyone says on the matter – but because there is sufficient evidence to show we went.

                    Like

        2. I’ve thought of a possible reason for the only time in history (as far as I know – if anyone knows of another psyop that has this characteristic please let me know) that they didn’t try to hide the alleged dead for the Challenger disaster:

          they wanted to cement among those who disbelieve them as a rule the idea that NASA lies all the time. I’m sure the Challenger disaster is not the only lie, however, the evidence for the moon landings is clear.

          So they pushed out Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan AND (possibly) they didn’t try to hide the alleged dead in the Challenger disaster all for the purpose of undermining those who don’t believe them as a general rule by making them disbelieve the moon landings and thus having themselves more easily labelled “conspiracy theorist” – I mean I’m not sure how much difference it really makes as I believe in the moon landings but still get labelled crazy conspiracy theorist all the time, nevertheless we can see the perps WANT the disbelievers not to believe in the moon landings, it’s very clear.

          In the case of Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan it’s obviously a fact that that’s what their purpose was. In the case of the Challenger disaster I don’t think it’s so clear but we have to wonder why – in the history of hundreds of psyops – they didn’t bother hiding the alleged dead. I mean you really have to laugh with the Challenger disaster. It’s just so ludicrously in your face.

          Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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