Noam’s guarding the cave

All right, all right – a joke explained is a joke not funny. I titled this post Noam’s Guarding the Cave as a play on words, substituting “Noam’s” for Gnomes, which are mythical creatures that guard trees and animals of the forest. Swiss bankers are referred to as the Gnomes of Zurich, and it is not a compliment.


I went through a period in the 1990s to some later date, how much later I am embarrassed to say, wherein I followed the work of Noam Chomsky and his own personal Minime, David Barsamian. I read most of his books, and Barsamian interviewed the hell out of him, making yet more books.

I want to first point to a 2016 paper by Miles Mathis, Noam Chomsky is and Has Always Been a Spook [I cannot get the link to work, but it is, or just go to his updates page and search for “Chomsky.”], as it appears that he went through a similar infatuation, and is well recovered. The MM essay stands well on its own, but after publishing it he received an email from a former student of Chomsky’s at MIT, published on page 29 forward. In it the former student indicates that Chomsky, whose prose on political matters was forthright and well written, in matters of linguistics appeared to be the product of ghost writers. He also suggests that much of Chomsky’s early work might well have been derivative of his father’s.

This would make sense if Chomsky was an Intelligence agent, that his CV would be supplied to him by others to give him credibility and allow him to perform his true function, false leader and controlled opposition.

The Mathis essay is pretty heady stuff, 32 pages, so I understand only a few will travel there and take an hour from an already planned day to read it. That’s something I would do, having read so much of Chomsky prior to the essay.

I want to travel to another era instead, a time well before most readers here will remember, and an episode in that era known as the Pentagon Paper Caper. I wrote about this in 2017, a brief essay called The True Art of Lying, where I talk briefly of the matter.

Zinn, Ellsberg and Chomsky at the end of the Kabuki Dance.

The Pentagon Papers are massive, thousands of pages, supposedly laying out the true history of the Vietnam War for internal agency consumption, not to be made public. The first player in the Caper was Daniel Ellsberg, now 90 years of age, then an employee of Rand Corporation. He supposedly photocopied the papers, and then approached various higher-ups, like Henry Kissinger, in an attempt to make them public. There was no interest there. Ellsberg had committed a crime in doing what he did, and would face jail time, but had changed his mind about the Vietnam War and become an opponent. As such, he was trying to get the truth out to the public. That’s his story. He went to the New York Times, and there was entertained in an internal controversy, some wanting the works published, others opposed. Those in favor of publishing invoked the doctrine of Freedom of Speech, not well understood or much practiced by the Times. To this day.

Ellsberg engaged both Howard Zinn of Boston College, author of a People’s History of the United States, and Chomsky. The two supposedly edited 4,100 pages of the work and engaged in some cloak and dagger stuff to get them into proper hands. It reads like a Robert Ludlum novel.

Ellberg was arrested and indicted by a Los Angeles grand jury in 1971 for stealing and holding secret documents, a serious crime under the Espionage Act. He faced imprisonment. This all went on during the Watergate affair, but nonetheless caught my youthful eye, even as I was very wet behind the ears. In a remarkable act of supreme stupidity, so it seemed, the White House Plumbers broke into Ellberg’s psychiatrist’s office, leaving a trail that would cause a face palm even from Inspector Clouseau or Lt. Frank Drebin. It looked much like the Watergate burglary itself, intentional bungling. While Ellsberg was never officially vindicated, the judge in the matter declared a mistrial due to the break-in, and Ellsberg was set free, for life. He was even available for quotes as Edward Snowden went through a similar charade. It is all right out of the Intelligence playbook.

People like Ellsberg, Snowden (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Dr. Andrew Kaufman, they could be identical twins), and Julian Assange perform a useful function for the Deep State, to release prearranged false secrets which, when filtered through their hands, appear to be secret information that leaders do not want the public to have. These men all have one thing in common – never a day in jail or the Moscow airport. As I came to grips with the Julian Assange affair, I had to laugh that his shocking white hair was an eye stopper, and when not appearing before cameras in London, he walked the world freely, having regular colored hair or wearing a hat. His stint in the Ecuadorian Embassy was fake, and he wanders freely to this day. Maybe he sleeps in the apartment above Ellsberg’s garage.

What was the point of the Paper Caper? I’ve never read the Pentagon papers, at least the 4,100 pages released to the public due to the fictional work of Chomsky and Zinn. I doubt any but a few serious wonks ever did. I doubt Chomsky, Ellsberg and Zinn ever read or edited them. The serious scholars read this sort of stuff, and these scholars then write their books, and the library shelves are then lined with a false history. The purpose of the Paper Caper was to sell it, to make false history by having it appear to be hidden away in the deep state, never to be viewed by any but privileged eyes. Ellsberg, Chomsky and Zinn supposedly endangered their careers in a noble act of patriotism to get the truth to the public. Not so. It was all a charade.

The three of them, Chomsky, Zinn (who died in 2010) and Ellsberg were/are spooks. Were and always have been, as MM titled his piece.


As long as we are referring to the MM piece above from 2016, I am going to quote him from this week, in his paper about George Bernard Shaw:

Noam Chomsky held his pose far better than most, maintaining it for the most part until his 80s, but even he is now disintegrating into naked fascism. Given his recent pronouncements on the vaccine, he might as well be an advisor to Pfizer.

He is referring to Chomsky’s quote from late October:

“People who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to, but rather to insist that they be isolated. If people decide, ‘I am willing to be a danger to the community by refusing to vaccinate,’ they should say then, ‘Well, I also have the decency to isolate myself. I don’t want a vaccine, but I don’t have the right to run around harming people.’ That should be a convention.”

When asked how we would get food to people, he said “Well, that’s actually their problem.” Chomsky is a zealot for vaccinations. He’s also nasty, condescending, and offers a flood of appeals to authority, saying he’s “read the literature.” I doubt he’s read anything, just as with the Pentagon Papers.

I interacted with him this past week, as his email is public. I have not done that in years. He generally answers promptly, I imagine to everyone who contacts him, as I have no relationship with him at all. I congratulated him on his good health at age 92, and suggested that part of that was perhaps due to not having to undergo vaccinations. His response:

“Sorry to disappoint you, but I’ve been fully vaccinated since childhood. Includes regular flu vaccines — just had one along with two modernas, and a booster coming up.

I read the literature. It makes it clear why health officials around the world all recommend it. No exceptions that I know of, apart from Brazil under Bolsonaro, and they’re now under parliamentary investigation for crimes against humanity.”

I responded a couple of days later that Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro would indeed be taken down, but not for “crimes against humanity”. Rather, I suggested, it would be for failure to participate in crimes against humanity. I know how the world works.

I wonder, however, if Bolsonaro is controlled opposition. They do this frequently, as with JFK, Robert Kennedy, John F. Kennedy Jr., John Lennon, Martin Luther King, and Tanzania’s “Covid denying” president, John Magufuli. They give us hope, people who appear to be successful in resisting power, and then dash that hope into the rocks.

Noam Chomsky at age 92 has turned a corner. He no longer pretends. He comes off as a fascist, maybe tired of his role as false leader. I wish him no ill, only won’t be contacting him again, or looking up to him. (By the way, nothing he has ever done or is now doing is illegal. Lying while not under oath is protected speech.)

277 thoughts on “Noam’s guarding the cave

      1. Mark,
        I would love to have you on my podcast! Your work seems to be influenced by MM, although you are certainly no copycat. The big deal made by some over the fact that Trump didn’t pardon Assange gave a lot of these fake ass shills away. How do you pardon a man who isn’t really in jail?…..


    1. Julian Assange, as far as I know, exposed the US military for the disgusting and dehumanized entity it is. That devalued millions and millions of hours of work spent on pro US propaganda. I have not seen any evidence or observed anything suspicious that would allow me to conclude that Julian Assange is one of those cats who never sit in jail.


      1. I was a supporter of his and Wikileaks, but have long ago backed away, and hold all at arms length. The footage of his arrest was bogus. Holding him hostage in the Ecuadorian Embassy? The US and Britain had so much leverage, so many buttons to push that it would not have lasted a day. Just think of one: trade sanctions. How about revocation of diplomatic passports? That would force anyone in the US or British Embassy to stay in the building.

        However, I always have to remind myself, you could be right, I could be wrong. I just don’t buy the Assange persona,

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think the way Assange held that book as he was bundled into a black maria – I forget which book – for the TV cameras was so unlikely and blatantly a signal.


        2. you obviously know nothing about the story. The minute the president with a backbone Corea got stabbed im the back by his replacement who turned out to be an american puppet, they tried to force him out. First they gagged him on social media then they made his live impossible in the embassy. They even wanted to assasinate him but Julian set up booby traps They put scaffolding around the building to obscur the site which is in central London. The most surveilled building in the UK. His supporters camped out in front of the embassy 24/7 to prevent him being abducted or murdered. Finally after Moreno got his pieces of silver against all international treaties they hauled him out of the embassy. This man is a hero. And i do not say that lightly.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. “The footage of his arrest was bogus.”

          I don’t think so. The footage and the circumstances were arranged to humiliate, discredit and vilify him. The allegations that Assange is a plant, in my opinion, are part of that same smear campaign to destroy his public persona.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Julian Assange was freely filming Simpson’s episodes while supposedly hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. I guess like Osama and CNN no one knew where he was. Assange is an obvious phoney.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I don’t think he was in the embassy at the time of The Simpsons appearance.

          Nevertheless, if the appearance on the show is not suspicious enough for you, during his part he makes a “joke” about an Afghanistan wedding being bombed:

          To me, the entire appearance is just mockery of the (m)asses.


          1. To me, this epitomizes the American Way of Life. They casually murder people (oops, we did it again), and then have a good laugh at it. They never own up. Never. Instead, they externalize the bad properties of America on others: on Germans (nazis), Russians (commies), and now increasingly Chinese. It is second nature to them. They’re not even conscious of it.


            1. By “American” I’m sure you mean something else entirely. I’m new to this site so I don’t know what the owner’s boundaries are.


        2. He was not hiding in the embassy. That is a msm talkingpoint. He was granted asylum againt US extradion by then president Corea.
          People who know nothing about his case and supposed to see themselves as alternative media are mindlessly spouting unbased msm propaganda.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not saying there is irrefutable evidence, Harry, what I’ve done is make my case that he’s not an agent using significant pieces of evidence. You haven’t put forward your case for the opposing hypothesis. Where’s your case?


    1. I find this part especially telling:

      “It is an all-too-familiar sentiment amongst this particular denomination presently. As I have outlined before, many Jews today, especially in the United States, are using the ongoing COVID-19 medical tyranny to embrace Nazism.”

      This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Like Marxist socialism and its various shades of red, Islamic terrorism, etc., Nazism was a creation of the moneyed “Jewish” elite as part of their Hegelian dialectic. Many amongst its top-brass were crypto-Jews, including Hitler, and the same was true for many of their soldiers. And Israel is well-known for its reported fascism towards local Palestinians. So it’s actually expected of them to act this way, besides the gross, contemptuous irony.


        1. watch your fingers there waketfup site is just controlled opposition…can you not just smell it the moment you are there?


            1. i will admit that it is my nose and nothing much more… except one important thing: WHO ARE THEY? they write nothing personal about themselves. we have no idea who they are. But just the whole feel of the website made me feel it was not real, too cold too anonymous, and the content of the articles and the few responses i read…too similar too pat…everything smells in that website and almost all websites….not POM…but even here certain people smell bad also…beyond that, i do not give these things much thought…smell and go…


  1. Concerning Chomsky’s linguistic work, I had to learn the so-called Generative Transformational Grammar at university. There is a lot of interesting things to learn about languages, particular languages, and their history and genesis.

    I found the GTG to be the dullest and most uninspiring thing on the curriculum. Easy to learn for a systematic mind, but completely useless. It’s little more than a synthetic and artificial language of its own to find an abstract superset of all languages, abstracting away all that is concrete manifestation to arrive at an artificial nothingness that has zero benefit and zero interest.

    Why has this worthless nonsense of Chomsky’s GTG been introduced into academia? And why has it been allowed to exist and linger on for decades? Why has it not been disposed of into the trashcan of academic rubbish?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I just read that MM piece today, interesting, as always. But, he sounds so sad, doesn’t he? I find it odd that he accepts and repeats the old cliche of the ball and chain of being domesticated by the woman. Sounds like a Family Guy episode I just watched parodying Pygmalion. Yes, of course, don’t become a fat softie who can’t find his slippers, opt for the Big League instead, where all your ideas and wealth will fall to the proper hands and you can brag you did it like a real Alpha! HA!


  3. I’m not seeing the Kaufman resemblance, not that I’m particularly good at such things. Would go to figure though, if he is a lifetime actor of some sort, considering I really like him.


    1. You have to ignore facial hair and ears (which are easily distorted by camera angle), and see if the eyes, nose, mouth, lips, chin and skull align. This has long been a hobby of mine, yielding to me important information that others do not see. My private playground. I could take photos of you, your siblings and parents, do the same alignment as done with these two, and you would all be easily seem to be, even though related, different people. When two people align as these two do, something else is suggested. What? I hope to know someday. Look up Brave new World, and Bokonovsky Process.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have no doubt some are very gifted in this vein and so am following your work along with a couple of others. For me then, it becomes a matter of who to trust, quite another, but similar sort of skill. If I saw vids, with voice, I might get an edge. Brave New World I know well, but Bokonovsky I’ve never heard of, thanks for the recommend.


          1. I do hear you, but obviously you understand that’s impossible. We will not all be able to trust our own brain over every expert who has aptitudes, and hundreds of hours of research in any given field. When I cook a delicious meal, do I expect you to trust me when I invite you to dine? Should I insist that you watch my every move from garden to table so that you can trust I haven’t poisoned you intentionally or otherwise? If we truly live in a world where we can’t trust anyone in anything then why bother to associate with others at all?


            1. I hear you. When I drive across a suspension bridge, not having any idea how to build one, I trust the engineers to have done it right. But there are certain professions that have been overrun with incompetence, like virology, allopathic medicine. I trust doctors to fix things that are broken, but think they’ve been brainwashed when it comes to disease, drugs, and vaccines. The news media is off-the-chart incompetent. Other fields too. That’s just a short list.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I totally agree there. But, I thought we were talking about trusting the likes of you, and MM, and others with such visual aptitudes making ‘crazy’ claims. Have you heard of Newsspell yet? Now there’s a real mindfuck. I’m like Alice in Wonderland in this arena, and I’m not embarrassed by that at all, it’s really tough stuff!


                1. I don’t expect or need for anyone to trust me. I expect that you and everyone can do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Even with my photo work with faces I have made my methodology available to anyone who wants to try it. Sadly, education, centered as it is around tests and providing “correct” answers, does not teach people to think for themselves, but rather to rely on authority figures to provide the “correct” answer, which is memorized. This is saturated all around us in the scamdemic, no one able to think on their own, relying on “experts”, a word I despise.

                  There is a method of teaching called “The Trivium,” where kids are schooled in 1) grammar, 2) logic, and 3) rhetoric. (There is also an extended part of this system, the Quadrivium, which is arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. As I recall, when practiced, children got through the first three by the equivalent of what we call “8th grade”. The idea was that the kids, on entering adult life, would know how to think, and would thereby be harder to fool or mislead. I do believe people were far better educated in the 19th over the 20th century, which saw the Prussian system imposed everywhere. That system was designed to turn out soldiers, bureaucrats, and factory workers. It is still in use. (As a CPA I fell under the heading “bureaucrat”.)

                  You can see by looking around that indeed you can fool most of the people most of the time. By the way, here’s a post you might want to look over – in the latter part I reproduce a Kansas school system graduation test, 8th grade level. I doubt most of our college graduates could pass it today.

                  Monday morning ramble

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Thanks, will check out that post. But, it is not an education in the Trivium that makes you confident in your assertions around Snowden/Kaufman, is it? Wouldn’t that be more in line with the idea behind “Blink” by Gladwell? For all of us who are educated in the current system, yet see through this bullshit on some level, how did we get here?


                    1. I was educated in the traditional manner, like all of us. I have read of the Trivium, a book by that name by Sister Miriam Joseph. I am not and cannot be sure or confident about my suspicions of Kaufman and Cowen, less so Cowen. I expressed suspicion, not certainty, with the understanding that we cannot know. Under a post about Chomsky, who is virtually certain to be CO, it is an appropriate discussion.


      2. Other than the resemblance what have you got on Kaufman. I suspect he is controlled opp (but I suspect EVERYONE promoted of at least being a useful idiot and he ain’t no idiot you can’t promote someone by accident).

        And more importantly what do you believe is his purpose? Is it just making sure someone else doesn’t fill that void? Or something else.


    1. I don’t believe the Assange story, but Serco do provide prisoner escort services in the UK. There’s a prison not far from where I live and the prisoner transports I see sometimes are Serco vans.


      1. The Assange story is as fishy as a 4 week old dead mackrel in your larder….

        Assange was promoted by the msm BEFORE anyone knew wtf he was

        He revealed nothing significant about ANY of the real players

        He stayed in an oligarchs mansion in the uk BEFORE the Ecuador embassy bullshit

        There is no proof whatsoever that he ever spent a night there. The media SAY that he did but no evidence whatsoever [he probably returned to a mansion somewhere in the sticks, in a diplomatic car out of the basement after every media appearance, wtf knows]

        He was not arrested there either. Looking like a demented granddad then, he was theatrically escorted out of the embassy by Serco staff [not UK police ffs]

        Into one of their paddy wagons with a copy of a Gore Vidal book held up for the media to see, hilarious. The watching coppers thought it hilarious too

        Serco is a Crown Agent company [Dean Henderson will tell you all about them]

        Assange is a PSYOP, absolutely NO doubt about that

        This guy nailed him with numerous vids over the years:

        But guess what, Scott’s whole oeuvre was memory-holed last year, as you will see if you take the link. Nevertheless there are a few useful links there if you don’t believe me. I don’t care if you don’t belive me do some research and bhis whole bullshit story turns to dust in your hands


        1. I’m quite positive he himself is not a psyop – but they’ve kind of turned him into one. They profiled him and targeted him. He thought he could play with the big boys but I don’t think he had any idea what he was getting into. I think it’s clear he was as fooled by Chelsea Manning and the Collateral Murder video as everyone else. There is no way he’s in on those psyops so how would he be a psyop himself? Yes, he stayed in an oligarch’s mansion deluded that that person was there to help him. The woman who’s allegedly the mother of his children is definitely an agent. He’s surrounded by agents but he’s not one himself.


          1. I’m not clear what makes you so positive about Saint Julian Petra, but your final sentence makes me scratch my bald pate. “He’s surrounded by agents but he’s not one himself”. How would that actually work then? Are you saying that he’s stupid? That is certainly not my impression, he seemed quite bright when I’ve listened to him, not often I admit. I find it hard to imagine that he is the only dupe in a nest of spooks


            1. It’s got zero to do with intelligence, Pete. What I’ve learnt from arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing with people on both sides of the conspiracy fence is that people will be led to believe something and once they believe it you cannot coax them out of it just as is stated on POM’s tag.

              The power elite know how to make people believe things … and remain in that belief … they just know how to do it.

              Look at the 9/11 Consensus Panel. I’d say the vast majority of that panel are agents. When I wrote to Elizabeth Woodworth and David Ray Griffin to tell them that death and injury were staged they were simply outraged and said they’d known Steven Jones and Bill Veale for years and also loved ones of the dead. Of course, they’d known them, they send in their agents, enveloping their unsuspecting target like a mutant octopus … and they work a treat!

              No doubt Julian would have had his antenna tuned for infiltrators but he wasn’t expecting the fakery of Collateral Murder, encrypted and all, with Reuters demanding to see copies of it (as soon as you see them involved you know to be highly, highly suspicious) – not expecting that – it’s such an indictment isn’t it? But what happened? Nothing, nada, niente, nothing. Nothing happened on the back of that video.

              I think it’s clear that Julian is suffering in jail in vast contrast to Chelsea who couldn’t have looked more gorgeous and perky after her alleged 7 year stint and that he believes in Chelsea and the video. It makes no sense for him to be an agent too. I don’t think Julian’s a saint, I’m not sure I’d even think of him as a hero exactly. I’m afraid what I think most about Julian is that he was playing with fire and he didn’t know what he was getting into and he has no idea how infiltration works. You don’t go and stay in some rich person’s house like that … but, of course, very seductive, no?

              Chelsea, Adrian Llamo (Llamo – doncha love it?), Ethan McCord and the fakery of the video are explained here.


          2. “I think it’s clear he was as fooled by Chelsea Manning and the Collateral Murder video as everyone else.”

            Can you elaborate? In what way do you think Assange was “fooled by Chelsea Manning and the Collateral Murder video”? Do you question the video’s authenticity? The abject dehumanization of the US military? Do you think it’s a game?

            Do you think Bradley Manning was not transformed into Chelsea Manning to show what happens to traitors? I haven’t looked into it, but that is my take-away from mainstream media coverage. The message seems very clear to me. What am I missing?


            1. In answer to your question about Bradley I think the magnificent transition was part of the REWARD not punishment. In fact, it was a glamour shot of Chelsea that first aroused my suspicions, it seemed to have money behind it which struck me as being at odds with her situation.


            2. Video and audio are not fake. They are real. They show the abject dehumanization of the US military, rejoicing in killing people like shooting turkeys, using high-tech gear from a safe distance, with zero personal exposure and zero risk, like in a video game, and getting a good laugh out of it, as in the Simpsons episode someone linked on this page. Nitpicking about callsigns, if not downright part of a disinformation purpose, betrays a bizarre refusal to admit the obvious, to put it mildly. It amounts to a feeble and vain attempt at unseating smoking gun quality evidence.

              I do not know whether the “glamour shot” of “Chelsea Manning” is the same person as Bradley Manning, who reportedly leaked these damning videos to Wikileaks. Could be that Bradley was murdered and now someone else posing as Chelsea. I have no interest in diving into this case. I trust a lot of American patriots have already done so for the Love of Freedom & Democracy in God’s own exceptional country.

              At any rate, the message to the public is loud and clear: Traitors will have their testicles cut off and spend the rest of their days as denatured perverts. To interpret this as reward because the photo looks “glamourous” cannot pass as anything to do with honest communication and reinforces the suspicion of a disinformation purpose.


              1. “I have no interest in diving into this case.”

                Wow! That says a lot, Lumi. What needs to be understood is that the power elite target the disbelievers as much as the believers. They do not control the world by targeting only the believers so what we need to appreciate is HOW they target the disbelievers. How do they do it? If we’re “onto them”, if we know who they are and how they lie, how can they target us?

                They target us by feeding us propaganda that resonates with us and they have absolutely no compunction about putting out stuff that speaks against them – they have no problem looking really, really bad, all they’re concerned with is maintaining power and part of maintaining power is, in fact, to look bad – it works much better for them to look bad and it’s also an excellent way to propagandise those whose inclination is not to believe them.

                We see them pushing out stuff that makes them look bad RIGHT NOW in the fake vaccine victims which are so utterly nauseating. There are real vaccine victims – thousands and thousands of them – so the question is: why do they push out fake ones? Why push out fake ones when there’s real ones galore? Because they need to control the narrative, if something bad’s happening they need to be the ones curating that thing and they do it by pushing out simulacra, not the real thing.

                They did it with 9/11, of course. They made themselves look really, really bad to the non-buyers of the terrorist story by misleading all the disbelievers into believing in real death and injury … when they faked it – try telling most truthers that they didn’t kill anyone – it’s a nightmare except in forums like this one. One might speculate that rather than mislead the anticipated disbelievers into believing in real death and injury that they would make it clear to us they didn’t kill anyone – or at least not deliberately mislead us – in order that they wouldn’t seem so evil to us … but instead they did the exact opposite and we can see exactly why.

                Now they’re really killing people by the thousands – ironically, making out they’re saving us. It’s enough to drive you mad.

                Just because Chelsea is an agent and the video is fake doesn’t mean similar things or, in fact, much, much worse things didn’t go on in Iraq. It’s like the fake vaccine victims. The real victims of the vaccines situation is much, much worse than the few fake ones they push out. The difference is that the real victims of vaccines situation is being promulgated on social media – and, often, we KNOW people ourselves who’ve suffered – whereas what was happening in Iraq has been much more hidden – at least, I haven’t seen anything.

                I’ll just present some of my analysis of Chelsea’s 11-min (actual duration 11:33) interview with Juju Chang on ABC’s Nightline. I hope you read it and watch the interview and then come back to me with your comments:

                Juju’s first words to Chelsea: So many people call you a traitor; many people call you a hero. Who is Chelsea Manning?
                [Pretty much equal weight to traitor and hero. Odd on MSM, no?]

                Chelsea: I’m just me. It’s as simple as that.
                [So not a whistleblower, not disgusted with what she’s seen. She’s just her.]

                Juju’s vo: Images like these. American soldiers opening fire from an Apache helicopter …
                Subtitles: “Oh yeah, look at that … Right through the windshield.” “Ha! Ha!“
                Juju’s vo: “… on what would turn out to be civilians including children …
                Subtitles: “Well, It’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.” “That’s right.”
                Juju’s vo: … among the dead, two journalists from Reuters.”

                Chelsea: Everything you need to know about warfare is right there in a 1 minute 47 [sec] video.

                Juju: What do you mean by that?

                Chelsea: Counterinsurgency is not a simple thing. … It’s not as simple as good guys versus bad guys. It’s a mess.
                [Not the condemnatory words you’d expect from someone who’s prepared to go to prison for them, are they? And what’s so complicated here? What reason is there to think that opening fire is in any way justified? She provides no explanation.]

                Juju’s vo: Manning says she read news articles about how Reuters had tried in vain to request this video for two years so she decided to bring it up the chain of command.

                Juju: What did he or she say back?

                Chelsea: “It’s just another incident. The only reason it sticks out and is prominent is because it was two journalists. There are thousands and thousands of videos like that.

                [Thousands and thousands!?! It’s hard to determine if Chelsea is reporting what the higher up said or if it’s her own words. If, at that stage, the footage was only accessible internally why would the higher up be saying “the only reason it sticks out … is because it was two journalists”? If there are “thousand and thousands” of videos like that why, internally, would this footage seem particularly prominent? And why wasn’t Chelsea privy to these “thousands and thousands” of videos. Why has she only seen this snippet? Could we infer this is the power elite telling us, “Hey, we do this sort of heinous stuff whenever we like – suck it up. What are you – yes you – what are you going to do about it?” And isn’t Chelsea concerned that this is just one snippet of thousands? Shouldn’t she make some noise about all the others she didn’t leak to Wikileaks. Did she not try to track any others down? We’ve just got the one even though she managed to leak 700,000 documents?]

                Liked by 1 person

                1. I agree with most of what you say, just not with regard to Manning and the video leaks.

                  I watched the video. It’s not really an interview, just some soundbites posing as one, interspersed with audio and video commentary and narrative. I’m not sure the person presented as Chelsea Manning has anything to do with the young soldier who leaked the videos. Besides, she belittles the significance of the leaked footage: tells you what counterinsurgency is, not good guy here, bad guy there, blabla. It’s mainly a big commercial for transsexual perversion or obsession or disease or whatever it is. More important than a 35 year prison term. Right. To sum it up, the perversion of the US military is supplanted by the perversion of transsexuality.


                  1. I see, Lumi, so while before your argument seemed to be that Chelsea’s gender transition was a punishment now what you’re saying is the person presented as Chelsea Manning isn’t Bradley Manning after having a gender transition operation and that the belittling of the significance of the leaked footage is evidence that it’s not the same person. That’s quite a turnaround.

                    I’d say what you’re doing is trying – rather clumsily – to make the evidence fit your hypothesis rather than approaching the other way around. What we must be scrupulous about is not trying to make the evidence fit our hypothesis but ensuring that all the evidence supports and favours our hypothesis over all others.

                    What you betray, Lumi, is attachment to belief. When it comes to analysing anything that we are told by the power elite we need to be able to turn on a dime in our beliefs and have ZERO attachment. They always have tricks up their sleeves and they’re always playing to our emotions and tendencies to believe. I’m simply of the nature that I tend not to attach to beliefs which stands me in great stead when approaching any material they put forward. I simply am not inclined to believe one thing over another … or when I am … I’m totally willing to turn on a dime and say, “Oh yes, I believed that for 50 years but now I see it’s a big fat lie.” I don’t care what’s true I just want to know what is true.

                    Some of the reasons that support Chelsea being an agent and the film being fake:

                    — We know without a single doubt that they will try to infiltrate Wikileaks … and succeed!

                    — What better way than a film that shows US soldiers firing on unarmed civilians? And were there any consequences for those soldiers or anyone at all? ZERO.

                    — We see Chelsea feted by the MSM and blatantly not show what we’d expect from a whistleblower – which – at first sight – could indicate her not being Bradley the whistleblower but could also be a typical sign of a psyop where they make it really obvious she’s an agent rather than a genuine whistleblower – (“revelation of the method” / “hidden in plain sight”). For the hypothesis that it’s not the same person you need to identify something that indicates they’re not the same person – to me they look like the same person.

                    — There are clear anomalies in the film including the fact of 13 call signs when according to the narrative there wasn’t even communication between the Apaches and Ethan McCord’s ground crew. But there are also quite a few others. 13 call signs is not “nit-picking”. 13 call signs needs to be explained but it’s so very, very obvious that the audio track is snippets of genuine audio stitched together – so very obvious.

                    Critical thinking means being scrupulous and rigorous with regard to the evidence and ensuring that every single skerrick of evidence supports and favours your chosen hypothesis over any others. Every single skerrick of evidence – as far as I’m aware – supports and favours the “agent / fake film” hypothesis.

                    If you want to argue against that hypothesis you need to not just grab at possible alternative explanations for single items, you need to present a case where all the available evidence supports and favours the hypothesis that Bradley/Chelsea Manning is a genuine whistleblower and the Collateral Murder film is real over the opposing hypothesis.

                    If you don’t wish to dive into that evidence – fair enough – if you wish to stick with your current belief you are entitled to do that but what it means is you are without credible argument, all you’re doing is arguing for your belief. Is that what you want? To argue for your belief rather than make a proper case where you consider all the evidence?


                    1. Petra, you’re doing a brilliant job of disassembling the Assange affair. One thing is bugging me, and it is a time commitment, so I am avoiding it best I can. It is the Assange arrest footage. It almost looks like they are dragging a gnome with his face on it … I have found that the more I look at these events, the more they come apart as I look at them. Care to give it a try?


                    2. “That’s quite a turnaround.” – It is not. See my comment on November 9, 2021 at 3:04 PM. I said I do not know and am not interested to find out whether Bradley was murdered or has had his testicles cut off. Either way, the message is clear enough.


                  2. Thanks, Mark. Julian does, indeed, look different as he’s leaving the embassy, however, I still think it looks like Julian. He’s been holed up all those years and going slightly crazy – no doubt they even somehow encouraged this wild mountain man look to be what we see at the time he was leaving.

                    Having lived next door to Julian’s father for a long time and spent quite a lot of time with him, what I know about him is that he is not a straight talker – as one of my housemates said about him – he talks in riddles. And I’d say like father, like son. Neither of them is a direct, honest, open person … but that doesn’t mean they’re in with the power elite – not at all. I think Julian’s failing is the classic hubris – he thought he could outwit these people … big mistake. He is being massively played I think. What I’m very, very curious about is Stella Moris and the children they supposedly had together. Very, very curious about whether the children are both their children and how all that came about and, if so, and why???

                    We can see that photos showing them together are photoshopped, eg, second photo in this article where the feet cutoff for Julian and Stella doesn’t match. Also, if he was locked up the whole time how could he have been out on the street?


                    1. Thanks Petra, I concur with Mark, you have presented an excellent case for questioning everything, absolutely everything. A fully detached and sceptical attitude is very difficult for most folk of course, we all end up believing some things, however scrupulous we are. And I admit that often I am not detached enough. Hey ho, we live in a hall of mirrors, with smoke effects too….

                      I called him Saint Julian earlier in this thread because here in the uk he is viewed as a saint by the woke, leftist, authoritarians who dominate the mainstream culture here

                      Aside: They really have flipped the old right and left nonsense here in the uk. We are fortunate, compared with most of the Anglosphere, in that the nominal right are in “power”. Because they are nothing like as totalitarian as the mad leftists, who would probably force inject babies with the clot shot given half a chance. The covid guff is almost behind us here too, at the moment. Most folk go along to get along and do what it takes. But there is a strong undercurrent of “who gives a shit anymore”. Brits ain’t totally stupid and the death toll has been primarily amongst the aged and the already ill, that is blatantly obvious to most by now. Hardly anybody knows a real victim that didn’t recover from the kung flu either. The herd mentality always wins in the end here too, no matter what the government wants. The lateral flow test is easy to cheat as well, so you can easily obtain a negative electronic result for any occasion. Which makes the vaxx passport a complete none starter, at the moment, excellent.

                      God knows what they’ve really got planned next, they have told us plan that B for this winter is:
                      Masks [ha ha, I’ve never worn one, I choose to be exempt under their own guidelines]
                      Working from home [I’m retired]
                      Vaxx passports [good luck with that suckers]
                      More propaganda! [they didn’t put it quite that way]
                      That isn’t going to make anyone quake in their boots is it

                      I went to a soccer match in Liverpool on Saturday, to watch Everton [my lifelong team] v Spurs. No masks, no distancing, no covid checks, pubs full beforehand, a full house in the stadium every seat taken. Covid, wtf is that?

                      To get to my point, I am intrigued by your personal connection to Saint Julian Petra. I agree with Mark, the fake embassy exit video is a massive tell, it was clearly staged with Julian’s help [eg the Vidal book, he didn’t struggle]. And I cannot get my head round the fact that he is a dupe in a nest of agents. You think Julian didn’t realise just how compromised everyone around him is? He isn’t stupid, so what is it about your belief that makes you so certain that he is a dupe and not an agent?

                      Best wishes

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. I have to diverge with you at this point, Petri. I operate on the premise that Assange was never a captive in an embassy, that it was all a script. I’ll have to spend time with the arrest footage, viewing it again and again until it speaks as something is hinky. That’s a subjective process and can lead to grave error, I am aware. I suspect the photos of him, his wife and child are real. Smiles are not in our mouths, but our eyes, and those appear to be genuine loving photos. But we do not know where they were taken.

                      MM made the point that once Napoleon was sent to St. Helena, he could have walked the streets of France or Corsica and not be recognized, making only minor adjustments to his appearance. The same with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, said to have been imprisoned here in Colorado during Obama’s term. Same with Charles Manson. Remove the beard, the wild eyes, and he lives among us, a normal man. Once “in prison” or exile, they leave the public mind.

                      Anyway, I’ll work on this. The arrest footage just does not work for me. My first question is this: Why was a photographer allowed to stand there and film that ruckus? It would have been pointless had we not been able to see Assange’s face, and it appears they went to great lengths to show us Assange, almost has if that part were deliberate. They way he is looking right at us is odd, as if staged, almost as if he is a mock up, or an actor wearing a mask.


                    3. “Why was a photographer allowed to stand there and film that ruckus?”

                      Allowed? Think it was very deliberate. Notice the camera captures the “3” of the address at 0:13 and then pans to capture another display of “3” at 0:18 … making you know what. Of course, could be coincidental. Bottom line in my opinion is: Chelsea Manning is an agent and Collateral Murder was faked and Julian definitely isn’t in on them – no question about it. Even if Julian is let free to walk the streets at times or whatever this doesn’t mean he’s in with them, they might allow him this or that privilege for whatever reasons. They have got him completely encircled – they can just do as they please.


                    4. As I say, Pete, intelligence simply has nothing to do with it. David Ray Griffin’s not stupid either, is he? Tony Rooke who made Incontrovertible isn’t stupid either. So many people aren’t stupid but people have a tendency to hate being duped, they hate it, and they don’t want to recognise that people they’ve had so much trust in are simply actors, so even when you point out so very clearly that they have been duped they refuse to see it … a phenomenon that is so very, very convenient for the power elite. Most 9/11 truthers can’t get their heads around the enormous number of agents involved in the truther-targeted propaganda. I am of the happy disposition that it doesn’t worry me, to me it’s like a magician’s trick, I feel in awe, I’m like, “OMG! You had me fooled.” I haven’t spent 7 years locked up though so maybe if I discovered that someone had tricked me into believing that we were comrades in arms and I thought they’d been spending time in jail in a similar way to me and then found out they were an agent I’d be very, very unhappy about it.

                      All these women had serious intimate relationships with infiltrators. They’re not all stupid.


                    5. Thanks Petra, I agree with what you say about being duped, we’ve surely all been there, more than once too. I know that I have, even since I became more aware of the extent and depth of the deceptions, about 10 years or so ago

                      But, in Julian’s case, isn’t the more obvious, and simple, answer that he is an agent, just like all the others around him? That’s how it seems to me anyhow, I can’t see a reason to think that he’s a dupe. But I can see plenty to think that he’s just just another actor in yet another deception psyop


                    6. Pete,

                      Why would all these agents simply be swarming each other? It makes no sense. What is the purpose of Chelsea, Adrian, Ethan, Snowden, etc, if Julian’s in with them? I can’t see the purpose. I know Julian’s dad personally – known him for years (yeah, I know, haha) – and I can tell he absolutely believes in Chelsea and the film.

                      What is the purpose of all the 9/11 agents infiltrating the prominent 9/11 truthers to keep them directed away from the fakery of death and injury if they’re ALL agents?

                      Agents don’t just swarm each other, they need targets – it’s their job.

                      Infiltration is incredibly prevalent and SUCCESSFUL even though agents generally give us the clues that they’re agents as part of their “revelation of the method” routine – Chelsea totally gives herself away in the interview with Juju and the film is really sloppily faked. Stella Moris is most obviously an agent – name change to one letter different from Stella Maris!, symbol of the sirens – give me a break! Maybe she went off script and fell in love with Julian. I’d LOVE to know what’s happened there, I really would.

                      What you see when he is taken from the Ecuadorian Embassy means absolutely nothing when you know the perps are controlling things. They probably want people to think he’s an agent too, don’t they? Of course, they do. So they might organise it so it looks like he’s doing suspicious stuff in order that he loses support … or just to keep everyone guessing, of course.


                    7. Thanks Petra, you make a strong case. I guess that we will never really know the answer though. Like I said, hall of mirrors with smoke effects too


        2. Yes, yes, yes! Assange is “famous”…for “being Assange”!!

          That’s it?? Yes, that’s it!

          And there’s that “other” asshole too…Snowden!

          Hogwash never smelt so good! 🙂


  4. Forgot to mention, Chomsky and Leonard Cohen have some things in common. None of it good. Both owned. Have not read the Chomsky piece yet by Miles. Should be interesting.


  5. Man, that page with its popups and flashes and jumping around was almost impossible to read. It is like I am under attack for going there. But you’re right, that’s not a police vehicle. It is just a passenger van. I wonder where it is taking him. It is not to Belmarsh.


  6. For an confessed pipe smoker of 70 years, and long time drinker, Avram Chomsky is lucky to be alive and well at 92. Considering his profession I doubt he got much exercise. Another Stephen Hawking type?


  7. Chomsky
    I have my doubts about Chomsky being an asset but he certainly is a complete idiot if he isn’t. I exchanged a number of emails with him about 9/11 and he just wouldn’t budge on his nonsensical, “If the Bush administration had done it they would have used Iraqi terrorists rather than Saudi. It would have been sheer lunacy.” I told him his argument was an example of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact as there was clear evidence that they were responsible regardless of how mad it might have been to choose terrorists of Saudi nationality. I kept pushing how it was speculation not evidence and he came back with, “So I cannot say, if I throw the ball up it will come down.” I’m like, that’s to do with physical laws, there was no physical law in the nationality of the terrorists – but it’s a stupid argument for the very important reason that power doesn’t have to be rational! and if anyone should know that it’s Chomsky. Power does not have to behave in a rational manner … and seemingly counterintuitively it works better when it doesn’t.

    “The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
    Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist.

    Julian Assange
    I lived next door to Julian’s dad, John Shipton, in Newtown, Sydney for 13 years. John was the most frequent visitor to our household by far and my housemates and I were very friendly with him – I also became friends separately with John’s ex-partner, Cathy, (and mother of his son, Gabriel) who lived in the same house as John but it was only an arrangement of convenience – they never came to our house together and I struck up my friendship with Cathy in the local cafe.

    Before Wikileaks I met Julian once – it was before we’d gotten acquainted with John and we were having a party. Julian was visiting his dad and “gatecrashed” the party. Within about 3 minutes of talking to him he mentioned that he was the first person in Australia to be charged for hacking a government computer. I also felt he was assessing me for a certain quality … in which I came up lacking but that was perfectly fine with me. I thought he seemed an interesting person but a little up himself.

    I absolutely do not think he is an intelligence asset but I do not think it beyond him to have done certain kinds of deals and, in fact, I think he must have done certain deals one way or another. I think when Wikileaks appeared on the horizon, intelligence went into overdrive to sucker it in. Yes, intelligence had their welcoming party of agents all ready and waiting to sucker in the Wikileakers. Collateral Murder is very obviously a faked video – the audio is sloppily stitched together snippets of genuine audio that bears mention of 13 call signs! Yes, there are 13 call signs flagrantly displayed in the transcript and no one has seemed to notice this startling fact ‘cept lil ‘ol me as far as I’m aware. Supposedly, neither of the two Apaches were even in contact with Ethan McCord’s ground crew which of itself needs questioning so if the Apaches weren’t even in contact with the ground crew where do 13 call signs come from? … plus so much more. I’ve tried to tell John that Chelsea’s an agent and the CM video is fake but he simply doesn’t respond. So many problems with Julian’s legal defence team too – looks massively like controlled opposition.

    People do not want to know the truth even when it could help. Very strange phenomenon but evidence of its existence is undeniable.

    Stella Moris – mother of two of Julian’s children (we think)
    As a friend pointed out, “Stella Moris” is one letter different from Stella Maris, Star of the Sea, and a symbol associated with La Sirene, associated with the sirens, lurers of sailors and also associated with baby snatchers! Stella is very obviously an agent and how she came to bear the two children is a bit of a mystery – the older child definitely looks like Julian but whether the mother is Stella and whether the other child is both Julian’s and Stella’s I have no idea. One person I’ve communicated with on social media who’s turned up to court sessions and so on says she knows that Julian had no interest in Stella (real name as far as we know, Sara Gonzalez Devant) so … all a big mystery to me and I’ve never broached the subject with John.

    It is quite common for agents to end up in relationships with those they infiltrate and even end up having kids with them. Helen Steel of the McLibel case fell victim to one.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I’d completely forgotten about Collateral Murder, but thought at the time that it was fake. One of the objectives of propaganda is to keep us divided. They do not care what we think, only that we are divided against one another. In another era, this was Jane Fonda’s whole purpose. Do you imagine she was intelligent enough to be an asset? Perhaps. She sat on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and said that the American colonists had no outside help during the American Revolution, oblivious to French assistance. Kinda of dumb, but Jane was serving her purpose even if not the sharpest knife in the drawer. She was being manipulated, to a degree, but was also a willing participant. Maybe so too with Julian.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “One of the objectives of propaganda is to keep us divided. They do not care what we think, only that we are divided against one another.”

        Could not agree more. I have to say that while people might look like paid controlled opposition I think some are actually “genuine” controlled opposition in that they spout EXACTLY what TPTB want them to spout completely gratis! – it’s as if they understand the limits of truth they can speak just like those who understand they need to spout the government line as is. The TPTB have a great knack for creating a sense of taboo about the truth – or is it the people themselves?

        The irony. In many truther circles it’s more taboo to say, “Hey, the US govt didn’t cold-bloodedly and callously kill those poor people in the buildings, course they didn’t. They just wanted us to believe that. It was an exercise,” than “The US govt cold-bloodedly and callously killed those poor people in the buildings.”

        Now, of course, it’s taboo in most circles to say, “Hey, they’re cold-bloodedly and callously killing people with their aggressive drug trials, the jab, their ludicrous measures – every which way they’re killing and maiming people,” than it is to say, “governments are protecting us with the vaccine,” or “People should have the choice to have the vaccine.” … Oh lordy, lordy, the vaccccciiiiiinnnnne.

        They’re always creating a taboo – whether it’s saying the government killed people or whether it’s saying they didn’t.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Oh I believe we are all so easily sucked in, it’s a question of courage, not intelligence, can you get yourself back out? Do you have the resources to reverse the programming? It’s a really tall order for anyone, I expect.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. There’s various forces at work but I think this quote is very pertinent to human nature:

          “A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.”

          It’s astounding to me how resistant 9/11 truthers are to the notion they didn’t kill people. They’re so fossilised in the notion that people were killed … but the perps lied about the buildings and they lied about the planes … why the hell wouldn’t they lie about death and injury especially because they always like people to get it a bit wrong – not having the actual truth means you’re always stymied in getting it out – you don’t have it for starters – it’s rather difficult to tell the truth when you don’t actually have it! … and one only has to have a little look to tell that death and injury were obviously staged. It’s just amazing.

          If you told truthers in advance, however, “Look, they do these psyops where they do X, Y and Z” and then 9/11 happened people would have no trouble at all getting that they didn’t kill anyone.


          1. It’s possible that a few people may’ve actually died on 9/11 (perhaps due to close contact to the falling towers and debris emitted from inside those buildings). But one thing is certain: there were no 3,000 deaths caused by 19 Muslim terrorist high-jackers.


            1. Deaths are possible but there is ZERO evidence of a single death on 9/11 so if any happened so be it but there is zero evidence of it. The important thing isn’t deaths or no deaths, the important thing is that they very deliberately misled those they anticipated wouldn’t buy the terrorist story into believing in the deaths. That’s the crucial factor, not whether there were or weren’t but the deliberate misleading of the non-buyers of the terrorist narrative into believing in the deaths. Simple “inside job” is a vastly different proposition to massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising numerous other exercises where the only reality was destruction of buildings – they’re simply two entirely different kinds of events.

              They don’t bother with those who they know will recognise Sandy Hook, Manchester, Las Vegas, Nice truck, Bataclan, Stockholm truck, Ottawa Parliament, Orlando, San Bernardino, etc as staged events into trying to persuade them that THEY performed the killings, they know that people who recognise the phoniness are not going to think that people were actually killed – at least most of the time – they know those who recognise phoniness will recognise COMPLETE phoniness whereas 9/11 they did very, very differently. They made both the believers and the non-believers believe in a crucial aspect: the deaths.

              Making both groups believe in the deaths was a much better way to suppress the truth of 9/11: it’s more difficult to get the truth out when you don’t have a crucial bit of it yourself and the believers simply will not come at the US government cold-bloodedly and callously killing those poor people in the buildings. Moreover, when the disbelievers of government recognise the phoniness of the deaths for 9/11 they can see better how it fits into the continuum of staged events. When I realised that death and injury were staged for 9/11 I then looked at three other events to see if the same applied: Pearl Harbour, the anthrax attacks and the 1980 Bologna station bombing – all three proved to be just like 9/11 … and thus all four fit on the continuum of “completely staged events (except for physical destruction)”. You gain such a better understanding of how psyops can be conducted when you realise that death and injury were staged on 9/11 and the perps don’t want that, of course. When I got the truth of 9/11 I realised that the term “false flag” is a bit of a propaganda term – it tends to make you think a particular crime was committed and the issue is simply the perpetrator, that is, generally it’s really Group A (who blamed Group B) that did it. But so often alleged “false flags” are not false flags in that sense, the crime alleged to have been committed, in fact, isn’t actually committed, it’s really just one big psyop.

              Of course, in this psyop there are thousands and thousands of deaths and maimings being caused which is just monumentally disturbing but this is a different psyop obviously … lots of things still in common with 9/11 though. I’ve made a page of the parallels here if you’re interested although no doubt you’ve thought of them yourself:


              Liked by 2 people

              1. Very succinct points. The same tactics are used in other psyops like political assassinations (e.g., JFK and Archduke Ferdinand), maritime disasters (e.g., Titanic and Lusitania), and viral breakouts (e.g., “Spanish Flu”, Ebola, and COVID-19). They always make sure that “truthers” only question certain details of the stories without questioning them altogether. That way, the mind control still works, insuring that no deeper investigations will be conducted.

                Liked by 2 people

              2. You’ll also find plenty of parallels COVID-19 shares with the “Spanish Flu” pandemic, which happened around the same time as WWI (which, IMO, was also a massive psyop like the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars from a century earlier). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Great video. I’ve seen quite a bit of reference to the Spanish flu being a psyop very similar to this one but this video really gives that “deja vu” flavour perfectly.

                  I found this comment on the video interesting:
                  “I was a premed student in college; I have a degree in Chemistry and worked at a hospital. How come I never heard about the Spanish Flu ever in any of my classes? How come my grandparents talked about WWI, WWII, the Great Depression, the Korean War, Bolshevik Revolution (that they came to America to escape), but they NEVER mentioned Spanish Flu? How come I had to learn about the Spanish Flu 15 years after leaving college when I was studying germ warfare and read that the US government supposedly went to the Arctic circle to dig up a frozen corpse who supposedly died of this flu? The mask is the beta test for the vaccine/microchip. Everyone you see in a mask is gonna beg for the vaccine. That’s why I will never wear the mask. There’s no evidence that a mask does anything except give hypoxia to the wearer. I don’t even know that I believe the Spanish Flu even happened. In fact, it’s my hypothesis that every 100 years or so, the “elites” engage in economic terrorism, and they kill a lot of people via starvation, homelessness, depression, etc., and then they blame it on a virus.”

                  The line:
                  “… and read that the US government supposedly went to the Arctic circle to dig up a frozen corpse who supposedly died of this flu,” reminds me of this article shamelessly published in Nature. I hate it but I cannot chortling along with those bastards.

                  “After a detective hunt across China, researchers chasing the origin of the deadly SARS virus have finally found their smoking gun. In a remote cave in Yunnan province, virologists have identified a single population of horseshoe bats that harbours virus strains with all the genetic building blocks of the one that jumped to humans in 2002, killing almost 800 people around the world.

                  The killer strain could easily have arisen from such a bat population, the researchers report in PLoS Pathogens1 on 30 November. They warn that the ingredients are in place for a similar disease to emerge again.”


                  1. The fact that the “Spanish Flu” was seldom mentioned or taught until recently is very telling in itself. They’re obviously hiding something in plain sight about that project.

                    As for the Nature article itself, the timing of its release is also telling, along with its dubious content. No doubt the present hoax has already been in the making by 2017 and the clowns behind that piece likely were in the know and were boasting about it. Hence its shamelessness.

                    Speaking of which, its documented that many prominent institutions admit that they have no information documenting COVID-19’s existence in their databases. This alone proves the whole thing is fake, without needing to go any further. You’d think that if this is real that they would’ve released real information documenting the existence of Sars-CoV-2 by now. Here are some examples:



                    That’s the most revealing truth as of now.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. I think you go a bit too far in suggesting that something, we do not know what, happened from 1916 to 1922 that affected a lot of people. Your conclusion that Spanish Flu was fake is a brush off, not well researched at all. It was not a virus, certainly not H1N1, but something happened that caused many deaths of people in their prime, including my aunt.


                    2. One may use the same arguments for the Coronavirus or Ebola, but that doesn’t prove they’re real. So far, I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that any of the large pandemics from the past were what they’re presented, including the “Spanish Flu”.

                      As for people dying from something, it could’ve been that they may have died from a variety of health-related complications, many of which go undetected until it’s too late. Perhaps you have a point, but anecdotal evidence isn’t enough to convince me that it’s real.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. Also Mark, I didn’t say outright in the comment above yours that the “Spanish Flu” never existed. I simply implied that it wasn’t what they tell us it was, and that can be better interpreted in a myriad of ways besides the possibility that it was a hoax. So much for your comment that I’m not “well-researched” in this particular subject, as I only mentioned the 1918 pandemic in passing.


                    4. Somewhere I referenced the work of Mike Bailyee, who noticed in studying the Greenland ice cores the appearance of large particles in 1916 through 1922. He wrote the book about the Black Death (1348) that it coincided with a collision with a comet, light phenomena in the skies, and that at the same time we experienced earthquakes, massive die offs of fish, and other stuff normally associated with the filth that comets introduce, and that people start dying off too, pustules and respiratory difficulties the norm. They blamed it on rats carrying a virus, but that assertion is easily defeated. The plague arrived in Iceland long before any ships carrying people or rats got there.

                      The particles in the air at that time could be the result of warfare, poison gases, or perhaps we had another cometary incident unreported, maybe undocumented. It could be that the Spanish Flu was the result of many things, as our tendency is to reduce things to one cause, in this case, a frozen corpse and discovery of a virus using junk science.

                      Under all circumstances, something happened, many people died, and to brush it off as a psyop is in its own way reductionist. Even just the Rosenau experiments tell us that something was going on, and his admission that he did not understand what it was exactly, needs further exploration on your part.


                    5. “Under all circumstances, something happened, many people died, and to brush it off as a psyop is in its own way reductionist.”

                      I don’t doubt that many people died around this time (if the numbers are accurate), and possibly from one disease or viral infection, but it’s probably not what they call the “Spanish Flu”. For one thing, it isn’t even Spanish. It first appeared near a military base in Kansas. The only reason it’s called that is because the Spanish media was heavily reporting on the pandemic.



                      Mainstream “experts” aren’t even sure where it originated before it reached the Midwestern state. Answers vary on where it really came from, with suggestions that the earliest versions were found in France in 1916-17.



                      Also, more people died from bacterial pneumonia than from the “Spanish Flu” itself. It’s admitted that more people died from some sort of bacterial pneumonia than the Influenza virus alone.



                      Bacterial pneumonia can be exacerbated from wearing masks or face coverings for extended periods of time.



                      Liked by 1 person

              3. 9/11 a “massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise”? I’d say it was just a spectacular hoax and insurance fraud. Not an exercice but rather a performance.

                In Pearl Harbour, the Japanese bombers were real, at least; but I strongly suspect that the USS Missouri, parked apart, was as empty as the Twin Towers and sunk by planted explosives, just like the Twin Towers. And of course the attack was known before so film crews were placed to have it all on celluloid.

                Never heard the idea before that Bologna might have been fake. Strongly doubt it.

                And I used to think that the Las Vegas shooting was real, but I could be wrong. Haven’t really looked into it. Just from the impression it made in mainstream media. It wasn’t hyped like so many other terror events.

                Liked by 1 person

  8. Mark, wonderful work here. Love the facial match too, it’s been a long time.

    I still recall NC’s 9/11 booklet appearing weeks or so after the event. At the moment, I thought, oh wow, he’s on it, how great! Until I realized much later it was just to cement the narrative.

    He’s been ensconced here in the borderlands for a few years now, sunning himself like the decrepit reptile he is. The shots of him with Zinn and Ellsberg are damning. And now his jab advocacy, let them starve? What a fraudulent fascist, ffs.

    My daughter is currently working her way through the execrable fairy tale of Gilmore Girls, which she knows is mostly crap, but she likes the escapist angle of the small, safe town. By chance, I caught part of an episode that showed a brain-damaged liberal (but I repeat myself) college kid’s apartment in New Haven that featured a large poster of ol’ NC on the wall in the background. As you do. I recoiled like a vampire confronted with a silver crucifix. (I’m the atypical vampire that loves garlic)

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Oh, there’s for sure an arrogance and vanity there, esp. for Z and E. They look like they could be trolling for sailors on shore leave. Three liberal icons, all in a row, so lucky they were not thrown in the gulag for their courage in exposing the truth! Makes me recall a former friend’s proud comment a couple years back: “All my friends are liberals”, which he sealed with a self-satisfied smirk.


  9. The person Andrew Kaufman most reminds me of is Richard Gage – not that I think they’re the same person although even looks-wise there’s a certain similarity – but there’s something similar in their ability to spout the science so fluently and their congeniality. I haven’t identified anything that Andrew says that’s unscientific nor that Richard says that’s unscientific. I know that there’s talk of molten steel which is bogus and I wonder what the purpose of that big fat lie is – is it just distracting propaganda or has some other purpose? – but I don’t think Richard says anything about molten steel – perhaps he carefully eschews that. Do not know. Any comments welcome.

    Molten steel debunked –


    1. The Kaufman character is engaging and at the same time puts me off, shaved head, appearing at just the right time. He now has hair. There is something about him, and I am yet to get it, that gives me the creeps. In a couple of his videos in the background a young boy, maybe 10-12 years old, passes through the doorway. The script is that he is divorced and has two children. It is hard to sit here and say that the kid in the background is an actor, but it has that feel. Everything about Kaufman, including the name, creeps me out.

      Then I have to consider that he and Cowan are friends and routinely chat and post videos, and I have to suggest that Cowan is controlled opposition too, either that or stupid to trust Kaufman. I have not paid an ounce of attention to either of them in months. And then there is Allison McDowell, who thinks we should devote 5+ hours to her videos, indigestible minutia, pure narcissism as I see it. We are on our own folks.


      1. I like to stick to just a few scientists and doctors whom I have no reason at all to suspect are controlled opposition and leave it at that. I, too, think both Kaufman and Cowan are controlled opposition although I don’t have clear evidence – there was one thing Kaufman said in an interview with Sam Bailey that struck me as off but I didn’t pay attention and can’t be bothered watching again. These are the people I mostly stick to:

        Virus Mania co-authors – Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr Claus Koehnlein, Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Stefano Scoglio

        Konstantin Demeter, independent journalist and co-author of a few articles with Engelbrecht

        Dr Saeed Qureshi, chemist

        Dr David Rasnick, biochemist

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I have followed Kauffman and Cowan thoroughly since they popped on the scene. Even if they are controlled – which I am not convinced of at this point – what is their purpose?

      If the controlled op is at the point where they claim viruses don’t exist, vaxxes are poison, the medical industry is a dangerous fraud and natural healing is the superior option then maybe things are going better than I thought.

      I don’t see how anyone publicly stating that viruses are a hoax can be in on it, considering that the existence of viruses is the ESSENTIAL element of the fraud we are enduring.

      It is revealing the magic trick.

      It is the crucial piece of information that if able to propagate sufficiently through society would bring the entire scheme to its knees.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. This is how I feel about it too. If Cowan/Kaufman are the ‘controlled opposition’ are they out of they ‘mind is the only thing that matters camp’? That would align I guess with the psychedelics can heal sort of psy-op I guess, like the LSD and the Men Who Stare at Goats?


      2. Generally the role of Controlled Opposition is that of gatekeeper, “this far, no further.” While I do not trust Kaufman (his eyes appear to be to be cruelly cynical), I am much less troubled by Cowan, and of course, do not know what is in the heart of either for real. I quit going to Cowan’s website because I didn’t want to pay $5 a month for talks that I rarely sat through. I am a reader, and I did read his book.


      3. my grandfather used to say that “if” is one of the the smallest words in the language but has the greatest meaning of all…if able to propagate through society…? ha, not a chance, and the governers know that damn well…the virus idea is way to embedded and is going nowhere soon…so having a few ashke nazis saying all the right things gives people like you hope…on the edge of your seat hope, that soon it will all turn around… you will know it is not going to happen once you realize the nature of the common man….

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Precisely, Godfly. They have carte blanche to push out the naked truth and sometimes they do just that because:

          — it’s part of the “revelation of the method” karmic obligation they subscribe to

          — they know full well that due to such phenomena as the intimidatory nature of power and the tendency of people’s beliefs to fossilise only a small percentage of the population will pay any attention (if not for this convenient blindness they would not do it and the “revelation of the method” aspect would simply be substituted by some other ritualistic device)

          — the truth can still be used as propaganda, eg, WTC-7 is indeed a perfect implosion but it was deliberately showcased as a way to push the focus away from the much more revealing planes and to help keep the pivotal truth suppressed – staged death and injury

          I decided to go back and check for anomalies in this very interesting discussion between Dr Sam Bailey (have absolutely no doubts about her authenticity) and Dr Andrew Kaufman but all I noticed were his eyes move from side to side a lot – I also notice sometimes in James Corbett odd movement of the eyes. There were a couple of things he said of a scientific nature that raised doubts but when I looked them up they were perfectly reasonable. I think he does a very good job of explaining certain things … but then so does Richard Gage. I haven’t quite decided if Richard Gage is an agent or whether agents swarmed around him in order to manage him and the 9/11 “inside job” narrative. Are others convinced one way or the other and, if so, why?


          1. Just to add: THEY MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE so another reason they tell the truth is that they must have their operatives in at every level of truth that it is being spoken. If there are people out there telling the truth they need to have their operatives out there telling the truth at the same level … or almost. I think they always have a way of doing something with their operatives to somehow undermine the truth, even if it’s just inappropriate focus which actually can be quite monumental in its effects. Also, if we know they have operatives out there telling the truth – or the truth to a very, very large degree – they keep those of us who are aware of this phenomenon guessing and wondering, “Is this the truth? Are we being misled?” in which case we might sometimes disbelieve what actually is the truth.

            They love to make it a guessing game where we always feel unsure of foot.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. As i have just written on the “censure culture” thread, it is the psychology of the truthers that brings me to POM;
              I mean i have been asking myself in these last few weeks why, when i need my few minutes a day on the computer i come to POM since obviously i no longer need to wonder what the controllers are up to….
              and then it hit me: these people who damn well know what is going on but continue to focus on the way we are being lied to and do not move on to something else;
              why? what drives them to obsessively play the research and guessing game with the controllers peons…..
              Now note how the truthers have to become as devious as the controllers; after all, if they are spending their time trying to figure out how they are being lied to, then they are forming themselves into liars…we sully our “souls” just to take them seriously… in a word…
              Sadly enough, since we are playing by the controllers rules, and using their board (the computer itself) we are going to lose even when we win. They just have to declare themselves the winner no matter how the game turns out, and voila, they are the winners….
              The solution to the problem i mentioned in my “censure culture” posting is this….
              i mean the problem that life has no intrinsic meaning…..
              is that, of course, each one of us creates his meaning by the way he lives his life;
              and today? how can one who knows how our “leaders” despise us and our toying with us like a cornered rats…how can you live with some dignity? My answer is the only dignity left to us is to not play at their game. the only dignity left is to resist, but how….

              imagine the elephant in the room idea and you know that this elephant will not do you any physical harm if you leave it alone, if you ignore its presence; it is almost impossible to ignore its presence since it is taking up 50 percent or more of the space and you can smell it at every turn, and yet we have to live…you cannot engage the elephant into any sort of discussion for it is set and cannot hear you; it is a dumb beast and that is that; you will never ever be able to change even the dumb beasts physical position for if you do it will instantly crush you; and even its fleas often jump onto you and make you scratch and yet this is the position today of those that know what the fuck is going on; of course , the elephant is our government and the fleas are our neighbors …so what is one to do?

              here is the kicker though: and most truthers never realize it:

              the door is open.

              sure, even outside you will still hear the elephant snoring and might catch a whiff of his stench and everyday you might have to scratch off a flea or two (neighbor)
              but basically, the truther can walk out the door if they want to…
              most seem, though, to want to stay in the room…strange….


              1. I take your point. I’m 60 and I didn’t start to wake up even the tiniest bit till I was 53 so I could just go back to the life I led before because it’s not as if I’m really DOING anything focusing all my attention on psyops … but somehow it doesn’t appeal so much and I think I’m still at the fascination stage of how they do all this stuff – hidden in plain sight – and even when you point it out how they make it obvious people still refuse to see it. I find it hard to respect other people any more so I simply don’t want to have all that much to do with them … and unfortunately it includes even people on my side of the conspiracy fence because I’ll disagree with them quite strenuously too.


                1. hi petra…yes the “fascination stage”…well put phrase. I am not sure we ever stop being fascinated by what is happening when we begin to realize what is happening; sometimes going through my day, doing what needs to be done, it can hit me: the monstrosity of it all..words fail us here and we look upon the world out there with AWE; how can it be and how can we have been asleep for so long. From the age of 16 i went into a state of resistance (like a state of shock almost) and the resistance took so much of my energy that i never tried to deeply analyze what i was rejecting; i just rejected. I went through my life almost completely out of the system, living abroad anonymously my whole life with just a passport, and cash in my pocket to skirt any and all issues concerning legal things, learning the language of each country i resided in , in order to fit in and earn cash. The words “boss” “vacation” “job” “savings” and ALL other such words are simply not in my vocabulary; i have remained in my own world from the beginning and will refuse to my dying day to participate in anything that is called what? society? After a certain number of years in each country, i just one day disappear and start over in the next country; and there was never any going back because i ignored all visa laws and when i left the country my visa was always years expired. my world was inside books and painting and that sort of thing. This was all my way of resistance and rejection toward a thing i could not really name; In that sense then i have been awake since the age of 16; awake and yet somehow still blind . I refused to root myself into anything and refused to have or care for anything that the state could use to control me and take away from me; in other words i refused to love anything outside of myself… i lived with a backpack under the bed until i was 50 years old….literally…. I am the proverbial “runner” but i never really lied to myself about it. At 50 i married and began to have children but you cannot teach an old dog new tricks: you could say that now i have 5 backpacks under the bed,(here metaphorically speaking) and when they come knocking , and THEY HAVE BEGUN to come knocking, i already have a shortlist of where i may be able to escape to; to try and touch the elephant is simply not something i will consider; there is always a door open somewhere…death too is also a door; the important thing for me is to never give in, not even once, for to give in once is to already be dead, is to already be a whore.

                  I did not plan to make this little confession but maybe others can find it amusing, (or disgusting) so i will not push the cancel button; recently, i have begun to laugh more than usual; i mean my life has been so wonderful for these last seven years and the legal shit will not hit the fan for another 15 months and so i live day by day, loving my three children and my wife and my life in the mountains here …
                  the laughter, the lightness i have begun to feel might be in direct proportion to the heavy absurdities all around us now; it has gotten so obnoxious that what else can we do but laugh… or maybe i can use that saying about hitting bottom:
                  my belief in people, finally after 58 years has hit bottom: i simply just do not give a fuck anymore about anything but my children…nothing….imagine: they do not understand anything that is happening in the world… isn’t that just so beautiful?


                  1. Utah is here 🙂

                    Always will be. Canyons, wide open vistas… And a decent person or two.

                    Welcome…as always.


                    1. i wish utah was not in the usa rastus
                      i wish you did not live in the usa,
                      otherwise you might have visitors in a year or so.
                      unfortunately, truly, the last place on earth i would ever go is the usa

                      in morrocco muslims would sometimes say to me:
                      ” islam is a wonderful thing if it wasnt for the muslims”

                      in mexico , sometimes mexicans would say to me:
                      ” mexico is a fantastic country if it was not for the mexicans”

                      that is how i feel toward the usa. I can not stomach the people.


                  2. I wish you the best of luck come 15 months, Godfly, and I suppose it’s wonderful that your children (and most children although not some unlucky children) don’t understand what’s happening in the world. I have friends who’ve just left Sydney to live off-the-grid so to speak. I really hope it works out for them but it seems a tough change to me. If you’ve been doing it since you were 16, well, you know what it’s all about.

                    I just watched this video of a Calabrian woman cooking a feast home-grown and wild vegetables and on a fire she made herself from logs with the “help” of an American guy living in Rome who somehow managed to get himself on Italian Master Chef. It almost brought tears to my eyes.

                    So many people live life out there without a care about the elephant and I’m not sure it’s fair to call them asleep or sheep – why should they bother with dealing with the elephant when they can live a pretty good life simply paying heed as little as possible and simply tolerating whichever inconveniences it puts in their way? I think there’s definitely an argument for living life like that but since I awoke eight years ago now I’ve become interested in critical thinking and it just amazes me how it doesn’t matter whether someone’s written a book on the subject their critical thinking will fail them when evidence conflicts with their beliefs.


              2. So you think we should all ignore the fact that we are housing, feeding and cleaning up after this elephant for the rest of our lives and kick the can down the road for the next generations to figure out on their own not only how to get rid of the elephant, but how to clean up all the shit its left behind. Isn’t that how we got here in the first place? How much mounting shit can one civilization tolerate? This is not just harmless stuff here, these are wars around the world, murder, sex trafficking, drug running, etc., etc. I personally have been in 3 manufactured weather disasters, everything I want to do on my own land is illegal, and I was fired for not ‘getting with the program’. You really think you can walk out unscathed into some fantasy land of freedom just b/c you ‘woke up’?


                1. you have completely misunderstood my posting….
                  i mean what the…are you talking about?
                  we are not housing feeding and cleaning up after the government…

                  yeah well, get out there girl and fight that not so harmless stuff like wars and murder and sex trafficking… who is stopping you?

                  read the little confession i just posted…but i suspect you will misunderstand that also….no no get going…there is work to be done in Timbuktu


                  1. you see , what your post is really saying is that you still see the government as your own, as if you have some responsibility for it and that is your mistake…you will say that it is for future generations that you feel responsible for but that is coming from your childhood brainwashing; future generations has no real meaning; it is only in your head…

                    as for the things you want to do on your land being illegal, let me tell you how to solve that problem in a jiffy. ready?…because i have been down that road big time… it is…get out of dodge…in other words, move to a country where the government will let you do anything on the land…ask and i will give you a list of countries which i know from first hand experience will allow you to do whatever you want on your land..


                2. Those of us who squarely face and learn from major life events,
                  at some point realize we are not victims.
                  We will be the first to tell ya that–like right now.


                3. I’ve been “fired” a few times.

                  It’s a badge of honor!

                  If one sits in a cubicle for 20+ years and has NOT been “fired”….then just what the fuck are they doing!?!? Jesus Christ, people!!!


                  Hell, I’ve been screamed at in wide open forum by a Boeing VP as I give a presentation for all!!

                  Fucking Christ, why not!!! :). LOL, I’ve been fired by them too…and yes, re-hired 4 times 🙂

                  Any asshole parent who strips you of your confidence at an early age should swing from a rope.

                  Because that’s ALL life is, isn’t it, …a game of confidence.

                  That is it, period.


                  1. exactly …a badge of honour
                    kenshohomestead girl was fired and it seems to have had a deeply traumatic effect on her…she has mentioned it twice and even has it on her blog introduction!!…like so what…..
                    .a badge of honour!!!!


              3. Godfly,

                It’s not so crazy as you imagine. You know what? Some of us just want a bit of company and to be able to voice what cannot be said in “other” company.

                That’s it? Yes, that’s it!

                I don’t think everyone here is “obsessing”..I promise you. Descent people…descent discussion.


                :). Lighten up dude 🙂

                I need to come out and grind some oats and barley with you in Japan 🙂


  10. Claus Köhnlein fights for centuries already for something which should be self evident but it is not: to ban medicine from the market which was proven to be harmful. It’s never done. Once a poison starts to sell it won’t leave the market. Example: Contergan. It was a painkiller for pregnant women in the 60-s and caused miscarriages and malformations of babies. Many of them still live today and this are the people with no hands or legs or with very short ones. They are around 60 years old now. Contergan has been renamed into different brands and the active ingredient: Thalidomide is still being sold for cancer therapies or as alternative to Ritalin. Can you imagine? They just write: it is not recommended for women of childbearing age. Claus Köhnlein comes from the system of course and still has his own doctors office. So he’s is very careful not to go directly against medicine. He just points out the absurdities and names facts which cannot be denied. He pointed very early that the first Corona therapies based on a overdose of Hydroxychloroquine and Cortisone was a mistake and the reason of heavy side effects which were then being told to be Covid. It was published in The Lancet, which tells the doctors what they have to use and is since then still the legitimate recommendation for Covid Therapies. The system only punishes doctors who don’t treat enough. It never punishes doctors who treat to much. So the doctors have to treat as much as possible to be on the safe side. Even the “good” doctors will be very careful in telling you not to take something. They will say something like: we usually take this and that for your sickness but I wouldn’t take it.
    I recently had an exchange with a friend from USA who wants to take the third jab but is afraid because the second one was really bad for her and I still couldn’t talk her out of the idea. There were others saying the same and still they all want to believe their good doctors so badly they literally accept the possibility of death. There was only one person in the exchange who ironically complemented them for taking jabs. And they not even got the irony. Unbelievable how stupid people became.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Doctors themselves (I know one, Sis).
      ..they PRIDE themselves on obedience.

      Think about it:. Godlike reverence, “Oh, You’re a DOCTOR!!”, The wheelbarrows of cash coming in (yes, really), and the “You Need To Come Visit Me” garbage..when in 54 years on this earth I’ve never been Visited once. Not once. Because Doctors are to be visited, …they do Not in turn “visit you”. Because that’s just how it it, isn’t? So when “CDC” and “Fauci” speak, …well then, God has spoken! Christ Has Risen!!

      I used to feel “lesser”….but that was before I learned WTF is going on.

      Now? I would not have it any other way! I promise you..I will be a “nobody” and be perfectly at peace and content. I hope that may resonate w some of you.

      Please…don’t fall for their BS. And it’s all BS, isn’t it???


  11. Mark, regarding your comment at 6:37 AM about the Black Death and the comet:

    A brief history of epidemic and pestilential diseases: with the principal phenomena of the physical world, which precede and accompany them, and observations deduced from the facts stated ; in two volumes (Volume 2)

    Noah Webster, 1799

    (This is the info page. If you elect to download the PDF, it is a 300+ MB whopper.)

    I happened upon this book in September and started reading, and although it is written in very enjoyable English, I got distracted. Here’s a few passages:

    “As dry seasons usually precede volcanic eruptions, so very wet seasons often follow them. … Witness the seasons following the universal convulsions of the earth in 1692 and 3, and 1766. Thus, the electricity is re-conducted to the earth.”

    Electricity back then was held to be the cause of fire, or firiness, as in volcanos, but also in comets. Webster’s thinking is still guided by the good old four elements, earth, water, air and fire.

    “Modern philosophy objects to the popular sense in which the word, elements, is used; since it appears that what has usually been considered as an element, is found by modern chymistry to be a compound substance, resolvable into parts, in their nature and properties, distinct. Notwithstanding these discoveries, I cannot consent to discard the popular use of the word element.”

    “[These] observations [volcanic eruption in Iceland] verify my ideas, respecting the agency of electricity in producing pestilence, and extremes in seasons. On this theory not only pestilence, but severe cold, and extreme heat, hail and snow are all familiarly explained, and their connection with volcanic eruptions, and other electrical operations, visible and invisible, demonstrated.” – p.16

    Surprise! Webster didn’t subscribe to the dogma of weather extremes produced by anthropogenic CO2. Instead, he attributes them, just like pestilence, to electrical operations, i.e. volcanic eruptions and comets.


    1. Wow. Amazing comment, I almost typed comet. Velikovsky was on to something, right or wrong in detail, and it brought out a storm of protest, not unlike the way news is dominated today by a few voices. I thought it to be forbidden knowledge.


  12. Concerning Julian Assange, it’s been said that he also is connected to the Rothschilds and he was used by the banking dynasty as a mouthpiece (at least initially) to discredit a rival bank in Switzerland – Bank JuliusConcerning Julian Assange, it’s been said that he also is connected to the Rothschilds and he was used by the banking dynasty as a mouthpiece (at least initially) to discredit a rival bank in Switzerland – Bank Julius Baer. In fact, Assange’s rise to fame began with The Economist bestowing him an award in 2008. The magazine is owned and ran by the Rothschilds.

    (NOTE: The Rothschilds were Bauers before they changed their surname in the 1760s. Perhaps cousins competing with each other? Or is this simply the usual case of phony competition, manufactured to conceal something more important? At any rate, it’s not imagine, since there is a direct link between the two, at least in their commercial transactions.)

    He also received bail money from Jemima Goldsmith (Khan), who is related to the Rothschilds and the British aristocracy. (She also was a good friend of Lady Diana Spencer, who is rumored to be a Goldsmith/Rothschild. Also, one of Diana’s lovers was Dr. Hasnat Kahn.) Baer. In fact, Assange’s rise to fame began with The Economist bestowing him an award in 2008. The magazine is owned and ran by the Rothschilds.

    (NOTE: The Rothschilds were Bauers before they changed their surname in the 1760s. Perhaps cousins competing with each other? Or is this simply the usual case of phony competition, manufactured to conceal something more important? At any rate, it’s not imagine, since there is a direct link between the two, at least in their commercial transactions.)

    He also received bail money from Jemima Goldsmith (Khan), who is related to the Rothschilds and the British aristocracy. (She also was a good friend of Lady Diana Spencer, who is rumored to be a Goldsmith/Rothschild. Also, one of Diana’s lovers was Dr. Hasnat Kahn.)


    1. I read the Puppet99 article. We can interpret Assange and Wikileaks as weapons in the battle between the One World Gov camp and the American Hegemony camp, the latter having supporters in the USA and the former in the rest of the world (because US rule is disgusting and unacceptable to many countries around the world). But that doesn’t make Assange and Wikileaks fake.


      1. Perhaps not fake in the sense that their “leaked” information and staff aren’t real, but certainly fake in the sense that their image as a rogue independent organization of whistleblowers does not reflect reality. Assange may not be a knowing actor in the larger scheme of things, but he definitely is being used by the controllers to advance their ulterior motives under the guises of exposing corruption and populist upheaval.

        That’s my two cents.


        1. I have revised my (very limited and superficial) understanding of Assange and Wikileaks based on what you wrote. I am convinced there is infighting among the controllers, and Assange is used to harm the American Hegemony camp. Has perfidious Albion, poised between One World Gov and American Hegemony, dumped and betrayed Assange?


  13. Concerning Julian Assange, it’s been said that he also is connected to the Rothschilds and he was used by the banking dynasty as a mouthpiece (at least initially) to discredit a rival bank in Switzerland – Bank Julius Baer. In fact, Assange’s rise to fame began with The Economist bestowing him an award in 2008. The magazine is owned and ran by the Rothschilds.

    (NOTE: The Rothschilds were Bauers before they changed their surname in the 1760s. Perhaps cousins competing with each other? Or is this simply the usual case of phony competition, manufactured to conceal something more important? At any rate, it’s not imagine, since there is a direct link between the two, at least in their commercial transactions.)

    He also received bail money from Jemima Goldsmith (Khan), who is related to the Rothschilds and the British aristocracy. (She also was a good friend of Lady Diana Spencer, who is rumored to be a Goldsmith/Rothschild. Also, one of Diana’s lovers was Dr. Hasnat Kahn.)


      1. Thanks Harry, your evidence in those posts supports my comments earlier up this thread

        Diana is in fact rumoured to be a bastard sibling of Jemima and Zac Goldsmith, from their father Sir James, a notorious figure here in the uk. Give Jimmy his due he was an early proponent of Brexit, a very early proponent in the 1990’s

        The photographic evidence is quite strong, the 3 of them, Jemima, Zac and Di looked like peas in a pod. Diana’s ma was Frances Ruth Shand Kydd, previously Spencer, nee Roche [Miles would have a field day with those names hey]. The story has it that she had an affair with Sir Jimmy when her then hubby, Earl Spencer, was otherwise engaged. She left the Earl for Shand Kydd 6 years after Di was born and married him a couple of years later

        When Charlie boy married Di they told us all here in the uk that Di was a “commoner” ie. not an aristocrat! Ha ha, she was nominally a Spencer for gods sake


        1. Yeah, it’s obvious that there’s a familial relationship between the Goldsmiths and Lady Di. Whether she was herself a Goldsmith is yet to be seen, but it’s definitely within the realm of probability. Hence the physical resemblances.

          As for Diana being a “commoner”, I wouldn’t say that’s the case. When she was born, the Goldsmith dynasty in Britain was already ennobled as members of the nobility. And I suspect the family has actually always been wealthy (Jewish) aristocrats, they simply moved from place-to-place and changed names, like what Mathis suggested happened to the Rothschilds.


        1. Normally I’m very suspicious of anyone getting a lot of media attention however in this case I don’t think the media attention is cause for suspicion. They are having their fun with Julian.

          To me there is no doubt that he is very unwell when he is taken from the Ecuadorian embassy, I don’t think there’s any acting involved and I have no doubt whatsoever that Julian is not an agent, rather he has been massively taken for a ride.

          The perps love having him lumped in with Chelsea and Edward – what a chortle they will have over that statue in Berlin. There will be those who think incorrectly that all three are heroes, those who think incorrectly all three are agents and those who don’t think about it way or the other.

          How many will get the truth? Chelsea and Edward agents, Julian not? The truth is generally the least believed thing when it comes to psyops. They’re clever that way. They push the truth in our faces underneath the propaganda and yet still they have most of us believing the wrong thing.


        2. As for Julian Arrange “not” being an agent, I beg to differ. No one gets to be so famous and influential without being an agent or actor on the world stage, and Assange is obviously no exception. His unsavory connections, the 24/7 media coverage he receives, and his background (he was connected to ‘The Family’ cult growing up in Australia, and he’s a Hawnkins, a Carelton, and a Shipton – at least two are Peerage names). I wouldn’t give him that benefit of the doubt if I were you.


          1. Harry, I’m afraid I have zero doubt that Julian is not an agent. Zero. Which isn’t to say he’s done “deals” of some kind because if he isn’t an agent he’s obviously in a weak position and they have control.

            Whichever side of the conspiracy fence, I think people don’t do due diligence in arguing for their belief. Just like in a courtroom you need a case. You need to line up every piece of evidence and choose the hypothesis – when ALL the evidence is under consideration – that fits best.

            Like you, when someone is pushed forward and seems to have a lot of attention I tend to suspect they’re one of them but that isn’t necessarily always the case.

            Let’s take the hypothesis that Julian isn’t an agent and see if there’s a single piece of evidence that doesn’t fit:

            — Collateral Murder is faked and Chelsea is an agent – perfect method of infiltration

            — He looks terrible when he is taken from the Ecuadorian embassy while Chelsea couldn’t look more beatific after her alleged jail sentence – rubbing it in our faces

            — Stella Moris’s named was changed for which we are given no good reason and it was changed to a name one letter different from Stella Maris, Star of the Sea, symbol of the luring sirens and babysnatchers … thus Stella is also an agent – who it seems has even had children with Julian – and we know this happens with agents.

            — They love EVERYONE getting it wrong – those who tend to believe them and those who don’t – so having people believe that Julian is either a hero or an agent rather than simply a bit of a dupe suits them ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY. They would have a chortle over that statue in Berlin with Chelsea, Edward and Julian, that would really give them a chortle. You might argue that if all three were agents it would give them the same degree of chortle but I think 1 of the 3 being genuine is what would give them a bigger kick so the fact of lots of publicity doesn’t automatically mean he’s an agent – you have to consider WHY he’s getting lots of publicity. If they want people on both sides to get it wrong, publicity works perfectly.

            You need to be so very, very wary of how they target those of us who don’t believe them – they need to have us get it wrong too, they’re not happy only having the masses get it wrong – they want us to get it wrong too.

            How do you fit all the evidence against the hypothesis that Julian is an agent? How do you make your case?


            1. “How do you fit all the evidence against the hypothesis that Julian is an agent? How do you make your case?”

              I believe the evidence I have posted in previous comments here speak for themselves. Anyone who has done any research into this guy should know that he’s not trustworthy.

              And even if he’s not an “agent” (as we understand the term), that doesn’t mean that he’s acting on his own discretion or isn’t being used in some manner by those above him. It’s obvious that there are people behind the scenes who are crafting his public image and his every move in front of their cameras, and I suspect, considering what he knows, that he’s aware of it and playing along. He’s not a child.

              He’s also one of them, as I have shown. His online genealogy is scrubbed past one or two generations, which in itself is telling. For any person as famous as Assange, that should always be a huge red-flag. But what is visible are indicators of his possible blood ties to the Families.


              1. OK, Harry, do you think Julian is in on the fakery of Collateral Murder and Chelsea being an agent? If so, what are your reasons? I think we can assume that Edward and Chelsea knows who the other is, right? So if Julian isn’t in on either of them that puts him in quite a different category.


          2. Let’s consider David Ray Griffin – he pushes the second-level propaganda “inside job people killed” right? As far as we know though he’s genuine. They’ve had him interviewed on TV – remember Sean Hannity rubbishing him so rudely? So they push him forward a little at least – not too much but at least a little. They will push genuine people … when it suits them … and I think it’s perfectly fair to say it suits them to push Julian as genuine.


  14. Assange is the honey in the honey pot drawing “underground” hackers from every corner of the world into the five-eyes surveillance net. So many fish headed from the hinterland to the net, and on to the fish market to make cat food.


      1. while i think that petra, due to her knowing julian personally MIGHT be blinding herself to the obvious, she has embedded a larger more important point in her recent posts which should be THE case in point here, and those who are opposed to it are still under the hypnosis of MM, who believes ABSOLUTLEY ANYONE, say with a name that appears in the peerage is a piece of duplicitous piece of shit, and it is simply not that black and white; people are duped, even a few that are in the public eye…not many i admit but some…
        it is so difficult in some cases to know who only appears to be guilty by association because the whole limelight is colored a disgusting color…in other words, any one who is known to the public will seem guilty by association but we do not really know all the ins and outs of the situation and of their hearts; cause and effect is not a linear progression


        1. Godfly, I only met Julian briefly once but I know his dad pretty well, however, I recognise that people might even be married to agents and wouldn’t have a clue. I’m not some blindly loyal type person, I’m just not that type of person and I think my case for Julian not being an agent is based purely on the evidence available to everyone.

          Sure, my own personal experience makes me think that John is genuine in his belief in Chelsea’s genuineness and I very much doubt that Julian would be in on Chelsea being an agent but not tell his dad, however, what I put forward for my case is purely of an objective nature that is there for everyone to see.


    1. Yes but witting or unwitting? They push out loads of agents propagating their controlled opposition propaganda but nothing gives them more pleasure than genuine people doing their work for them. Sure, they can push out Steve Jones and the rest of the 9/11 controlled opposition crew but what they really like is genuine truthers such as David Ray Griffin pushing their propaganda for them.

      They want the genuine people all caught up and pushing their crap so, of course, they’d use someone genuine like Julian if they could and … it seems they so very easily can. Hubris is a very easy failing to target and unfortunately for him I think Julian suffers rather from that failing.


      1. For goodness’ sake, Pete, can’t you see how they target those who don’t believe them as much as those who do. The disbelievers cannot seem to get that.

        “As much as the mainstream is likely to admit.”

        Give me a break! Why believe a single word they say? If there was an intelligence budget how do we know what it was used for? Don’t grab onto things that suit your narrative. You need to be ruthless with the evidence.

        No one has presented a case laying out the the evidence that favours the hypothesis that Julian is an agent over the hypothesis that he isn’t.

        No one has done that and that is what needs to be done if you wish to subscribe to the “Julian is an agent” hypothesis. You need a case that favours he is over he isn’t. If you haven’t got it then you have no good reason to subscribe to it. You need to believe things according to the evidence, not according to whatever narrative “resonates” with you.


    2. Steve, Assange being a honeypot, that is the only proposition on this page now devoted to discredit Assange that makes half-way sense, but if you take a closer look then it falls apart as well.

      Not sure what you mean by “hackers”, but neither Snowden nor Manning qualify in my opinion. Snowden simply wrote scripts to automize data gathering from various internal sources and then exfiltrated the lot on SD cards. Manning appears to have access to video material which he somehow posted to Wikileaks.

      In both cases, there was no requirement for intrusion as everything was accessible and unencrypted. This betrays an attitude of carelessness. US military and intelligence operate from the safety of impunity.

      If Assange were a honeypot than not for “hackers” but for people inside those organizations with security clearances.


      1. “Manning appears to have access to video material which he somehow posted to Wikileaks.”

        Lumi, you still seem attached to the idea that Chelsea isn’t an agent – in fact, she was put forward as an agent in the first place who supposedly had turned whistleblower ex-agent – the oldest trick in the book. As I recall hearing from a YouTuber, “There’s no such thing as ex-CIA, there’s no ex.” Everyone on POM knows to take the “whistleblower” identity as being highly suspicious at the outset surely. With regard to psyops, so far I’m not sure I’ve ever come across a genuine whistleblower – except in this pandemic – many nursing staff and a few others are clearly genuine while a few are not. Has anyone else?

        There are a number of golden rules to critical thinking that most people don’t follow, a couple of them being:

        — When your beliefs are challenged, the first thing to do is go through your mental database which you think favours the hypothesis you currently support and see if the information contained therein can be switched to support the challenging hypothesis.

        — Do due diligence, don’t try to explain single items with an alternative explanation, do proper due diligence on all items and look at any evidence put forward claiming support for the challenging hypothesis. Which one is favoured? Which one explains the evidence with the fewest assumptions and questions raised?

        — If the challenging hypothesis is that a psyop is involved, apply the psyop lens, that is, look for the obvious clues being the signs of their always-adhered-to – absolutely always scrupulously adhered-to – “hidden in plain sight” / “revelation of the method” MO.

        So I put forward a couple of items that support her being an agent:

        — Her unconvincing highly-packaged interview with Juju Chang (member of the Council on Foreign Relations) – actually, I have to thank you for pointing out it wasn’t a straight interview but a collection of snippets, I missed that … so much the easier for rehearsal and scripting, no? I mean it couldn’t be more packaged, could it?

        — Signs of fakery in the Collateral Murder video.

        The thing is I wouldn’t have been able to pick either Chelsea as being an agent or the video as being faked except for the BLARING “HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT”/ “REVELATION OF THE METHOD” signals. If they hadn’t conducted the very unconvincing interview with Chelsea on an MSM news channel (and told us in Wikipedia that she’d downloaded 400,000 files in one day onto CDs all labelled “Lady Ga Ga” to smuggle them through security – the first clear sign that alerted me) and if they’d faked the targeting of the soldiers with convincing footage instead of snippets of genuine audio stitched together and mismatched to the visuals I would have been none the wiser, I don’t know a THING about warfare. If they’d done the fakery carefully, an expert may have worked out it was fake but not someone like me, however, they didn’t do it carefully, not at all, anyone can work it out. The fakery is right there hidden in plain sight … as it always is. They never let us down in that regard, we have to give them that.

        The interesting thing is that as I’m not an expert I thought I’d try to get help from an expert with regard to the film and I contacted Vince Emanuele, an alleged Veteran for Peace, who I saw speak so movingly in Sydney in 2013, however, I worked out that good ‘ol Vince is an agent too! Can’t get away from these people. This is our exchange using Messenger where I accuse him of being an agent and where his response clearly indicates he is!

        The power elite rely very heavily on our inclinations to believe things one way or another, eg, to always believe the government or to never believe the government … and then once we believe something, our ensconcement, our fossilisation in that belief. These two phenomena make us easy prey and it’s something we need to always be on high alert for within ourselves – are we believing because of our inclinations to believe one way or another/ensconcement in the belief or are we scrupulously examining the evidence to ensure our belief is correct?

        When you believe that Chelsea is not an agent what you’re doing Lumi is showing ZERO respect for the evidence … because the perps have shown us very, very clearly that she is and that the Collateral Murder video is faked. They have bent over backwards, in fact, in that endeavour.


  15. your psychology does not seem wrong, quite subtle actually, and i will toss out the idea that you are blinded by having met him and his dad; yet my real point is that there is just too many variables for you to be so absolutely certain, and thus it does seem as if your absolute certainty must be from feelings.

    you have spoken recently alot of “evidence” and “facts” and that i what is troubling;
    for me everything is psychological which means everything in contextual and character and everything is moving and cause and effect is an artificial stopping of the flow one one point ..on one issue;
    let me give you an example:
    you want to teach your child the importance of chores, but how you will teach them; your manner will be different if you yourself grew up with chores or if you did not; also the inborn character of the child determines how they will receive the training; the reasons for the outcome is different with each child and each parent and the combination thereof; you will tell me that this has nothing to do with facts and evidence but you choose to see what you want and cannot even be aware of what you do not see. Most cause and effect is invisible and needs to be interpreted. Not to mention that most of your data is coming from second hand info.
    You seem absolutely certain that julian distress while being pulled out of the embassy is real. Bullshit! there is no way you can be certain.
    That al0ne tells me that your ideal as you stated in a posting above “not to care what the truth is but only to want to know the truth” is just that…an ideal. You cannot live by it.


    1. Godfly, it’s interesting that you speak of my certainty because this was brought up on OffGuardian. I was derided for my certainty over there and told that certainty is a feeling. Sure, certainty is a feeling but my certainty is based on what I believe to be objective facts. I get your point about context but even so if everyone’s unanimously agreed on something then I think we can call it objective fact.

      You strawman me a little, Godfly, I think. I’m not absolutely certain that Julian’s distress is real, however, what would be needed to make me doubt it is identification of something that indicates it isn’t – or alternatively another good reason to believe it may be fake – because I think the best approach is to consider purported evidence to be valid unless identification of signs of fakery can be made or there other good reasons to doubt it – Occam’s Razor. I think that is the best approach. So far, no one has identified a sign of fakery or a good reason to doubt its authenticity so I take it to be genuine for those reasons.

      My identical twin and I argue to the point of insanity and beyond because she is so very fond of saying, “could be faked,” as if that’s a valid argument. “Could be faked” doesn’t work as an argument unless there is something to back it up. Sure, I’m happy to say that all or virtually all the alleged deaths on 9/11 are faked because there is masses of evidence from a number of angles indicating fakery every which way, I don’t believe it’s necessary to check every single person named as having died. In that situation “could all be faked” is perfectly reasonable because there is simply no reason to think that any were real as far as we know.

      I have put forward a case for significant evidence favouring Julian not being an agent … and unfortunately really being a bit of a stooge, a situation which I think has been led to considerably by his own doing. If anyone can put forward a case for significant evidence favouring the opposing hypothesis or refute my case in any way I’m all ears. Otherwise, I stick to my belief which I don’t think has anything to do with my connection to Julian – it’s not as if I think he’s some great hero or anything. I read Andrew O’Hagan’s profile of him and I have to say it was not very flattering and I don’t think it was written from a particularly biased perspective.


  16. What surprises me is that people still seem to follow ANY of those clowns. Assange with his Wikileaks, Snowden with his ultracringe Citizen Four “documentary”, Velikovsky with his unproven and unprovable madness and up to that Manning character (which may be even fake), ALL of them and their narratives are created to make people crazy and not focused on that what is important; our OWN futures, away and detached from that whole Clownworld.

    The proof is in the comments. Instead of even bothering with those carnies, we should form our own ecos nomos and by that making that whole created carny show disappear (make them NPC).

    None of them should play ANY role in your lives.

    You all have been brainwashed by thinking those idiots are important. They have 0 importance for our lives.


    1. Why throw Velikovsky in this mix other than to snap at me? Have you read his work? Do you know that our planet experiences an encounter with a foreign body on average every 300 years? Some big, some little.

      Anyway, make your comments, but do not attack or make insinuations, openly or passive aggressively, against writers and other commenters. Capeesh?


      1. I perfectly understand that addicts do not want to hear them called addicts, but it doesn’t change the facts.

        ALL of them are clowns presented to us, NONE of them have any relevance to our lives and are only there to keep the masses busy, just like TV, organized religions and other carnyshows made to lose track of that what is important, namely our own future, where none of those clowns play any role in. Apart from Petra meeting Assange, all of them are just TV characters; carnies, who should just stay that; TV characters, nothing more.

        None of them are important and the mad ramblings of Velikovsky even less. Why do you feel personally attacked for taking down an iconoclast of you? Mark Twain was right, again.


      2. Do you know that our planet experiences an encounter with a foreign body on average every 300 years? Some big, some little.

        Eh, no, I don’t know that. And neither do you, or Immanuel, or anyone. The things I know are the things I have experienced, all the rest I can at most speculate about, estimate, guess, imply, consider, model, imagine, etc.

        And here is where fellow Soviet Russian Anatoly Fomenko comes in. Because if the standard chronology is wrong, every conclusion based upon that faulty chronology is wrong. Hence my Newspeak word Prenaissance, indicating that everything before the Renaissance is murky at best or outright invented (the classical Greeks, the Roman Empire, the pharaohs) at worst. His New Chronology therefore is not as strong as his debunking of the old, common chronology, so it becomes useless to stick to those eras, and especially wrong to propose wild hypotheses (like Velikovsky’s Venus flytrap) about times that are already wrong.

        The same position I have with 9/11; nobody knows what did happen, but we can derive what didn’t happen, or with JFK; none of us can prove anything about what happened that day, simply because the only footage we can base our ideas on has been released 11 years after the alleged events and that is a long time to fabricate anything.

        “Conspiracy theory” is just as much a rabbithole as “the news”, or “politics” or any other constructed narrative; it is timewasting crap meant to drag us in and keep us busy with.

        And that is why I encourage anyone to stop poisoning yourself with this and focus your time and energy on what life is about; detachment from false narratives, false authorities and false institutions and build your own, based on philosophy, not ideology.


        1. “The same position I have with 9/11; nobody knows what did happen, but we can derive what didn’t happen, or with JFK.”

          I beg to differ for 9/11 while I’m with you for JFK.

          In the case of 9/11, the evidence overwhelmingly tells us it was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills (many of which they told us about but a crucial few they didn’t) pushed out as a real event where the only physical reality was damage to and destruction of buildings. Where do you find any doubt in that hypothesis?


          1. If you put it in such generic terms, it is indeed hard to argue with, but I was more talking about the mechanical, physical side of things.

            If the only footage available to us is faked (as September Clues oulined), we cannot derive conclusions on what physically happened that day, like how most of us, I reckon I was not the only one here, looked for “answers” like given by Judy Wood, or the Russian thermonuclear proposal.

            And staying with 9/11; that day in itself was far less important than the outcomes; the Patriot Act, the monitoring, the villification of groups of people, the water bottles and shoe tests on airports.


            1. The outcomes, of course, are more important but it’s good to be able to identify the MO because it helps to understand how it fits on the continuum of psyops and what to expect for the next one. My five years’ of study of 9/11 culminating in what I think is a very clear understanding – at least at a basic level – meant that when this alleged pandemic rolled around I was able to go bang, bang, bang and predict reasonably well how it would unfold. What I learnt from 9/11:

              — For big psyops they will often have two very clearly delineated propaganda streams, one targeted at the believers and one at the anticipated disbelievers.

              [9/11: Props 1 and 2: Terrorist attack with deaths/injuries; US govt with deaths/injuries vs Reality: complete psyop, staged deaths/injuries]

              Pandemic: Props 1 and 2: Virus and response required; virus but response inappropriate vs Reality: no virus]

              — They do what they want for real (and ONLY what they want for real) and fake the rest. They didn’t want to kill people on 9/11 so they didn’t, it’s all about making us believe things, they always want to make it about making us believe, not doing it for real. They obviously are very happy to maim and kill people in this psyop and I’m not sure why that is.

              [I knew INSTANTLY that there wouldn’t be a virus because I knew they wouldn’t want a virus, they’d just want us to believe in a virus and I also knew a real virus wouldn’t work for their narrative. I have to admit I had no idea they would be maiming and killing people with the jab – that I didn’t predict from 9/11.]

              — They can be utterly shameless, so utterly, utterly shameless with the truth. WTC-7’s collapse was 100% deliberate and showcased, it was not the “smoking gun” – they wanted the focus away from the much more revealing faked planes/failure of defence and to make it all about the buildings.

              I’ve done a page on the 9/11 / covid parallels if anyone’s interested with a link also to the video presentation by controlled opposition agent, Kevin Ryan, on the parallels – does a good job even if he is controlled opposition.


              1. In more words you describe and see the same as I did, but in my case I detached already in October 2019, when I foresaw what was gonna happen (not “predicted”, as Ab said, that is waayyy too much credit).

                On several occasions I used my tagline “the Myth of the Invisible Monster” to refer to “Corona” and indeed the parallels with 9/11, but especially the Holocaust Story are undeniably there.

                I am happy to say I endured poverty and hunger for a while and not gave in to comments like “why don’t you “get a job” and prostitute yourself to the Animal Farmers” that many have made to me. Only by standing my ground, socializing with good humans and staying strong, I managed to get the palacemate who now lives with me; the 63 year old lady is a terrain theorist !! who shares my stance on vaccines; “the only vaccine I will take is called bullet” and we work together combining my own organic home bakery and her street coffee selling business.

                The Dutch saying eerlijk duurt het langst, roughly translating to sincerity/honesty takes the longest very much applies.

                Liked by 1 person

                  1. Nice. Even funnier was the follow up question by one of my dog walking friends;

                    “from which manufacturer is that one?”

                    so I made a pistol sign to my head, and only then he understood it, hahaha. Followed by “I have quite some family members who also don’t want vaccinations”.

                    That is how I connect with people, I talk openly about what I think, and that opens up conversations (or leads to blank stares, but even those I can enjoy).


            2. Gaia, about 9/11 in your comment from November 14, 2021 at 9:09 pm:

              September Clues & Simon Shack are not the real deal. It apparently has a lot of the truth but then drives you over the top by explaining that everything is fake. This is not so.

              Phil Jayhan & Larry McWilliams are the real deal. They have exposed so many aspects of 9/11 in 2010/11 that I’d say they solved the entire thing. Their old forum went down but Phil has mounted a new version.


              I have been lucky enough not to ever have wasted any time with Judy Woods or Khalezov’s nukes or even Simon Shack. I discovered LRF by accident (well, by hitting gold in Google) in 2015. The first thing I read was LoopDLoop’s airplane stories, but that’s not the core of the thing and maybe just a good story.

              Large conspiracies work like shady corporations – with money and contracts that will reward or punish you based on your cooperation. Unsurprisingly, people will opt almost exclusively for money and reward.


    2. Hey Gaia, welcome back! I agree that the clowns shouldn’t play any role in our lives, but as the saying goes, even if you’re not interested in war, war is interested in you, and the current war is largely a misinformational war on the mind. So if nobody cared nobody would be reading and writing on this blog and everybody would spend their free time gardening, fishing or what not.

      I agree with Mark that it is unfair to lump Velikovsky together with contemporary (real or fake) dissident personalities. Velikovsky has inspired a lot of people (such as Heribert Illig) although most of his ideas, from what I have read, have turned out to be wrong. It’s the new and creative approach that broke the dogmatic establishment view and earned him both vilification by the establishment and admiration by outsiders.


      1. Thank you for the rewelcome, thing is my laptop broke down, so now using the only remaining tech tool I have, but that didn’t stop me from working, see the photos of the written things on good ol’fashioned paper in my Discord.

        I will try to illustrate my point with an analogy.

        There is, given/presented to us, Coca Cola (red) and Pepsi (blue).
        the normies who stick to “official narratives” will defend either “side”, just like CNN (red) vs FOX (blue). The conspies will defend an alternative, not less given to us, like Big Cola (here) or Panda Cola or something like that, still dependent on others (carnies) who present those “alternatives” to us.

        A recluse/hermit would propose to stop drinking any cola nut based drinks (cf. completely detach from society altogether)

        My proposal is different; let us gather, bounce bright brains and come up with the best practice ways (philos sophos; loving wisdom, embracing that what works) to cultivate our own cola nuts and build our own recipe database to make our own detached, organic and natural version of what the mainstream has corrupted for us for centuries. And that attracts others towards us, not pushing it into others faces, like the mainstream and alternatives work. So I am definitely not advocating the recluse stance but also want to steer us away from the mainstream AND alternatives (or “alternatives”) presented to us.

        Only by actively changing your stance towards the presented options, we can do better. Keeping ourselves busy with debating which Panda Cola is the best (conspie debates like happen here) or complaining about how bad Coca and Pepsi Cola are (the classic tinfoil hat attitude) is non- and even counterproductive, because every second spent on either of those reactive ways is no energy spent on the proactive way out; philos sophos for our ecos nomos; loving wisdom for the subsistence of our dwelling, or our livelihood.


    3. ” … up to that Manning character (which may be even fake)”

      Gaia, can you please give me a single, solitary piece of evidence or any reason whatsoever not to think that Chelsea is indeed an infiltrator of Wikileaks/Julian Assange?


      1. haha…petra you are just missing the whole point of gaia post:
        he does not give a shit about manning character… and evidence…evidence manning; really who gives a shit?

        but gaia, the world has need of recluses and hermits…(me!)
        and we also need proactives like you who want to replace the fake narrarives with the real thing…ha! good luck my friend; i venture to say that the moment you say “us” you are screwed


        1. Thanks for the first part, you nailled it.

          On the second; quite the contrary, because thanks to my unplanned online detachment of the broken laptop and headphones, putting Eye am Eye Radio on standby, I have connected with many new real life people and the “us” part is the key; the Jedem dass Seine way is part of the conspiracy/brainwashing; no matter how our twistory panned out, all of us come from tribal shamanist origins, where people organically, ungoverned by kings, queens or queers, worked together.

          On your own you can achieve limited things, but together we matter. And to gather, we matter.

          In my book; by connecting to others here on this blog you make yourself not a recluse, then it would be staying away completely and nobody would know about “Godfly”. Or analogously in real life terms; you may live your life reclusively most of the time, but reacting here is like going into town every now and then and hang out with the others in a bar.


          1. Extra question because you live in Australia:

            Take any mine in the Pilbara and up to dozens of unique minerals are found there that do not occur anywhere else on Earth.

            How come the, according to the mainstream narrative 4,500,000,000 year isolated, Moon has provided 0 unique minerals that were not later identified on Earth or can be synthetically made from other minerals?

            That makes 0 selenological (lunar geological) sense. In 378 kg of rocks, regolith and cores.


          2. and you have nailed it also in part: i work my land a few hours and then come in for a rest, work and rest and work and too far to go to a cafe, where i would have to smell people besides , and there are no more used bookstores around and so, i do sometimes deeply enjoy communicating with others here…

            on the other hand the only “us” i am now willing to utter really is my family us…my children and wife…i do not mind “achieving limited things”…set my childrens head on straight before i die sounds good enough to me… a feat i do not have total confidence about but am trying my best, and know it cannot be worse than if i handed them over to the school system….i still insist, since people are not of the quality that they once were (myself included) “us” is out of the question for me…


        2. Godfly, OK, the thing is my schtick isn’t 100% conspiracy although God knows my focus is mainly on psyops, my schtick really is more critical thinking, for example, I am at odds with everyone on POM I think on what I believe about the moon landings – I think the evidence clearly shows astronauts landed on the moon and in the sea of lies the moon landings are an astonishing achievement.

          What drives me crazy about people is that I feel they WANT to believe certain things rather than judge by the evidence and they will stick with their beliefs no matter how much you shove the evidence under their noses or explain that what they’re using in their argument has no validity.

          How crazy-making is this? I have an identical twin who firmly believes we didn’t go to the moon – just like most/all? people here – and it doesn’t matter how many times we argue over it she doesn’t convince me and I don’t convince her. I HATE that people cannot argue their way to the truth of the matter. Obviously, astronauts either went or they didn’t and there’s absolutely mountains of evidence so how can it be that two people who have all the time in the world to argue the subject and have the same genes and the same upbringing cannot come to agreement?

          What alienates me more from people is not quite so much that they refuse to recognise psyops but that they will not stick to reasonable argument which means I generally feel alienated from everyone because even those of us on the same side of the psyop fence together disagree, right, as is extremely evident on this thread.

          Perhaps I should just let it go, right? Agree to disagree … but I find that very difficult when to me the truth is so clear – in certain cases at least – if you apply the right kind of reasoning.


          1. By “moonlandings” you mean solely the Apollo 11-17 missions, or do you include the Soviet Luna and Zond programs in that?

            In case of the latter; how did mankind achieve such amazing feat 5 years before the invention of the microprocessor??
            In case of the former; anything that was achievable 50+ years ago, should be much easier, cheaper, less risky and better achieved today. Why are there no moonbases now, like people imagined for the “magical year 2000” in the 1960s?

            The “For All Mankind” Hollywood show was my awakening into psyops, and as much time as you have spent on 9/11, I did on the faked (and even impossibility of) space travel, so we can have lengthy debates on this, which former me would have liked, but now I see is just as useless to D-bait as anything else steering our attention away from solutions.

            Still the three questions are not unfair to ask (yourself)…


            1. Gaia, When there is a wealth of evidence I focus on things that I can understand and can see the answers for. This is what I’ve found in my study of the moon landings:

              — Those who say we did go to the moon show themselves to be much more knowledgeable about the moon and space generally and always have a ready answer to any claims of debunking. A person who doesn’t reveal his name has written responses to Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon, and Dave McGowan’s, Wagging the Moondoggie, which I find extremely impressive – you will see a couple of answers to your questions in those responses. You can see links to these at the bottom of my page on the moon landings here:

              — Three conditions on the moon alien to the earth (low gravity, no atmosphere and black sky against sunlit surface) are always reflected in the images we see (where relevant) … and there are masses of images of the moon landings. Every single image shows these conditions and we see things we wouldn’t expect in fakery such as a tiny number of particles in the mylar wrinkles on the landing pads which can only be seen when you zoom right into the high-res photos – that’s not how they fake things in psyops – nothing could be further from psyop fakery than tiny amounts of particles in mylar wrinkles that can only be seen by zooming in. Psyop fakery is in-your-face, not incredibly subtle so you can hardly see it. My sister’s argument is that they don’t do psyops all the same. Yes they do! I have NEVER seen a psyop where they don’t make it obvious, where they don’t do the “hidden in plain sight” thing. They always, always do it. So are you going to tell me that they just didn’t do it for the moon landings? That they faked them as realistically as they possibly could?

              — There’s nothing psyoppy about the evidence put forward for the moon landings … except in two people who claim we didn’t go Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan. In the case of Bill Kaysing, at least, he has psyop written all over him in great big capital letters … and you need to ask yourself, Gaia, why did none of the moon-hoaxer psyop analysts pick that up? Why has no one picked it up?

              What we see of the moon landings is EXACTLY what would be expected according to the alien conditions (which I think would be incredibly difficult to fake, especially in a multitude of images) and I don’t think there’s any way you could fake what is expected with foresight. In hindsight we can see it but I don’t think you could anticipate every little thing that would need to conform to the alien lunar conditions.


              1. The black sky as presented by photos and movies of the Apollo landings (as with the ability to take such photos and movies with 1960s technology) has an easy explanation. In reality, the moon, with no atmosphere, would be a light show of starlight. The hoaxers, however, had a huge problem – they could indeed place lights in the ceilings of the movie studio where the landings were filmed, but even amateur astronomers would quickly notice that they were not accurate and did not show any changes as the moon rotated and moved in the sky. So they opted for black. To believe that the moon has a black sky is highly credulous.

                Another aspect is the leapfrog aspect, astronauts just pop up on the lunar surface, no landing crater or massive dust bowl. That too requires credulity. The appearance of the moon buggies, the same – they just show up. One guy did photographic comparisons showing that the dimensions of the buggies were exactly that as a Willy’s jeep, probably what the buggies were in reality, modified jeeps. [Footage since removed from view, but I know what I saw.]

                The idea that on first landing, everything just went right, is so highly improbable as to be absurd, new and untested technologies do not work like that. Again, incredible credulity.

                Dave McGowan was (is) an Intel agent, in my view, and his work was limited hangout. He did a book on the military connections of rock stars of the 60s and early 70s, and in so doing failed to question the reality of the deaths of the 60 or 70 who supposedly died young (were reassigned). He faked his death on 11/22/15, note the date. (11 +22 =33, and 11/22 is the 326th day of the year, one of the reasons why this date is so popular in hoaxes (3 + 2 + 6=11 – these people are superstitious beyond belief).

                An interesting aspect of the Apollo 11 launch is the footage of the rocket taking off. There is no continuous footage of the event, takeoff to out of sight. It is always spliced footage. There is a reason for that. A guy named Phil Pollacia, who like you believed the event to be real, used a Super 8 camera to film the entire launch sequence, beginning to end. Here are the findings of two Russian scientists based on the Super 8 footage, which they went to great lengths to analyze as a complete and intact view of the launch:

                Therefore, based on the results of this study, it is experimentally established that:

                1) at the 105th second into the flight the rocket was three times behind the stated ascent rate;
                2) at the same time (or more accurately, in the interval of 107-109 sec) the rocket traveled nine times slower than it should have done, according to the NASA record.

                Did this Saturn V rocket get to the Moon? Based on these experimental results, it must be concluded that such a slow rocket most likely ended up in the waters of the Atlantic. Moreover, it carried no space craft, and had no astronauts aboard.

                Based on the launch footage, the strongest evidence I have seen that the event was a hoax, I conclude that cased closed, something went somewhere, but not to the moon. Your allowance that skeptics indeed make a good case but that the landings were real is a feint, misdirection, as the evidence against the landings being real is massive and comes from many, many sources.

                Apollo 11: Something went somewhere


                1. “In reality, the moon, with no atmosphere, would be a light show of starlight.”

                  I think what we see is the sunlight reflected on the surface, Mark, so yes there is the light of the sun star very clearly lighting the surface … unless, of course, it’s not the light of the sun in which case evidence for artificial light needs to be explained and how that artificial light shows no spotlighting effect across a vast expanse.

                  “… no landing crater.”
                  It’s been amply explained why there is no crater.

                  What we see is EXACTLY what we would expect: black sky, brightly lit surface, virtually no crater, astronauts walking funnily, tiny amounts of particles in the mylar wrinkles.

                  How much have you looked at the debunking, Mark? You need to follow the debunking trail back and forth.


                  1. I have not paid a lot of attention, as the post I wrote, Apollo 11, Something Went Somewhere, linked above, gave me what I long sought, hard core evidence of fakery. The rocket was underpowered, and was ditched in the Atlantic, no lander, no astronauts on board. Did you happen to read that?

                    My eyes could see the photos were faked, maybe even not even created until the rise of the Internet. I knew photographic equipment would not work in that environment. I knew their Platex suits would not protect them. I knew the camera left behind to shoot the takeoff and return of the Rover to the Command Capsule was childishly fake, Buck Rogers so. But I was deeply immersed in skepticism about many events, so the Moon landings unraveled easily. Most people, including a younger me, do not see with their own eyes, but rather with the eyes of others, authority figures dictate their opinions.


                    1. Mark, I just had a look at your blog post now. To me, what is discussed is of a highly technical nature that I don’t understand and am in no position to judge one way or the other. I focus on what I can understand and when what I can understand – assuming there’s enough evidence involved – all lines up with my chosen hypothesis that is sufficient because the nature of reality is that there cannot be a lot of evidence supporting an hypothesis where it proves to be wrong – you don’t have to be able to explain every single detail – if there is sufficient evidence favouring one hypothesis over the opposing hypothesis that is the hypothesis you choose.

                      Focusing on highly-technical details outside your field of expertise is not the right approach in my opinion. Focus on what’s agreed-upon and easily understood first.

                      Brightly-lit surface with black sky
                      Virtually no signs of a blast crater (but very subtle signs)
                      Virtually no particles of regolith on the landing pads (but a tiny amount)
                      Moon-walking style
                      Many other very subtle details that massively favour real over fake, eg, the lack of visibility of the flame of the lunar module as it leaves the moon.

                      Subtle details are actually very compelling in favouring “real”. You don’t expect subtle details in fakery … and there are many subtle details that correspond with lunar conditions.

                      Mark, look at the explanation below for why the flame isn’t visible, a question posed in Mazzucco’s, American Moon. Do you have that kind of technical expertise? Can you respect that this person knows what they’re talking about? Can you identify anything wrong with the explanation?

                      10. 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.

                      There is no visible flame when the LEM lifts off on the moon because the fuels it used don’t produce a visible flame in a vacuum.

                      The narrator disputes this explanation by pointing out that the LEM engine was “hypergolic” and saying that “hypergolic fuels produce a clearly visible flame”, even in a vacuum. Clips of other hypergolic rockets, with visible flames, are shown. The narrator says “This is a Draco engine, which uses hypergolic fuel”, and “The space shuttle also uses hypergolic fuel”. The way the narrator speaks, you would naturally assume that all the rockets shown use the same fuel–hypergolic fuel. But they don’t, because “hypergolic” isn’t a single fuel but a class of fuels, and there is no reason why one hypergolic rocket has to use the same fuel as another. As it turns out, the actual fuel used by the LEM ascent engine is different to the fuels used by the other rockets shown.

                      To be specific, the ascent engine used a 50:50 mix of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) with an N₂0₄ oxidizer. The Draco engine and the space shuttle orientation rockets both use monomethylhydrazine with N₂0₄, while the Soyuz orientation rockets use UDMH (without added hydrazine) with N₂0₄. To make a fair comparison with the ascent engine we should look at a rocket using the exact same fuel, not just a similar kind of fuel. It turns out that the Delta II second stage rocket uses the same fuel as the LEM ascent engine. And if we look at videos of these rockets firing in the vacuum of space, we see that their exhaust plumes are completely invisible. The only way you can tell they are firing is the sudden increase in the speed with which the first stage recedes.

                      The narrator also asks why the LEM’s ascent engine produced a visible plume when it was tested on Earth. The reason is actually quite complicated, though it relies on the fact that 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).

                      This video shows that outside the area of the shock diamonds, the exhaust plume from a rocket using the same fuel as the ascent engine is invisible even on Earth. It’s fascinating to see this rocket rising on an almost invisible plume. (More footage here).

                      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.

                      What would be required for me to have an opinion is for your post to be given to a person who seems expert on Apollo and get their response. Can they respond to the claims?

                      What I suggest is doing due diligence on the debunking, Mark. Look at the debunking and see if you agree with it? If not, why not?

                      I highly recommend


                    2. You seem impervious to observation of basic facts of life, that the moon landings were done in a time when technology would not allow such an achievement, and so had to be faked. (True today as well.) I believed the whole scenario to be real in my youth, but maturity allowed me to step back. Back in the 90s when the first photos spread out over the Internet, it was easy for me to see fakery, but most people are not equipped to think for themselves, so that just as with Covid and Climate Alarmism, they rely on “experts,” a term widely used in the media, and excuse not to think properly.

                      I once dealt (before being banned) with a man deeply steeped in Randianism and the Austrian School. He could hit us with deep dissertations and cite intellectuals with ease. What I noticed and shared with him was (this was in the wake of the California electrical deregulation crisis) was that implementation of his philosophy usually led to disaster, so that no matter how deeply reasoned and studied in theory, reality screwed him over. I was banned.

                      With the moon landings, it wasn’t just this or that, but a host of complications that made the feat impossible, not the least of which was the Van Allen Belt. But I could make a list that would be long and involved, just one item of scores, the backdrop hills in photos being identical for different Apollo missions! But people do not observe with their own eyes or think with their own brains., which is why to this day most people think it was all real. (JFK must have known in 1961 that his killing of the king ritual lay in store when he made his “by the end of this decade” announcement. He, like the rest of us, watched the faked event on TV.)

                      The Pollacio footage gave me what I needed to close the book on this disgraceful chapter of our lives, hard-rock evidence of fakery. It is not beyond your technical ability to grasp. I think you turn around and walk away from it because it defies all your other thoughts and writings. It is just as I discovered with Rand and the Austrian School, it just doesn’t work. All you need do is understand one concept, escape velocity, the amount of energy needed for a large rocket ship to escape earth’s gravity. It is not complicated. NASA provided a record of the rocket takeoff and its altitude at various intervals, but offered no full photographic view of the takeoff, instead splicing various film sequences. The Pollacio film is a hard record of the event, and the cirrostratus cloud level unimpeachable evidence that the rocket was not where it was supposed to be, in fact, was so far below that that it would not achieve escape velocity so that its only path was to ditch in the Atlantic Ocean. There was no lunar lander aboard, no astronauts. We know this because the astronauts were still with us afterwards.

                      None of this is beyond your grasp. Let’s stop now. You’ve laid down long tracts, everyone knows your outlook. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.

                      At any rate, I am done.


                    3. If you’re done so be it, Mark, but as you can see I don’t simply believe experts. I don’t believe them on covid – that is for sure – and I don’t simply believe them on other things. Also, as you can see I’ve even worked out psyops myself – some that no one else seems to have worked out such as the faking of Collateral Murder.

                      I am not a believer, Mark, no way am I a believer – but nor am I a disbeliever. I am not like the other deniers of psyops – I recognise most of those spoken of on POM, it’s only the moon landings which I don’t recognise as a psyop.

                      This my approach:

                      — Judge the evidence first and foremost and focus on the pieces of evidence that can be agreed upon

                      — Follow the debunking trail where my knowledge is limited

                      If A says, “It’s X,” and B says “No, it’s Y because Z,” I look at what A comes back with – if anything – and then what B comes back with if anything and so on.

                      You bring up the Van Allen belts but the belts have been perfectly well explained. You can choose not to believe the explanation but then it’s just your belief against the explanation. How are you knowledgeable enough to judge whether the Van Allen belts could have been gone through or not? I avoid items where it’s one person saying, “They couldn’t” and another says “Yes, they could” and focus on items that are more tangible.

                      It seems you’ve spent all your time in the moon-hoaxer material without consulting the material that debunks the hoax material. Your research is biased through the “hoax” lens, you haven’t given the alternative hypothesis due consideration.


                2. In addition to the very pertinent points made by Mark, we can recognize the Apollo moon landings as null and void fakery by thinking about atmospheric reentry. To maintain Low Earth Orbit, a body must move at approximately 8 km/s. There is no fuel on board to slow down, thus no way to safely descend and avoid additional acceleration by gravity’s pull. Due to heat resulting from high speed air friction, the body will disintegrate in the mesosphere or upper stratosphere. This pulls out the rug not only from under the Apollo moon landings, but from under the entirety of manned space travel. Yes, you can bring men into space – but you cannot bring them back on Earth. (Actually, sounds like a reasonable solution for a whole lot of politicians and other public figures.)

                  I have to say this bizarre attempt at resurrecting the Moon Landings feels like Flat Earth Talk to me.


                  1. When something makes something null and void such as, say, the 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7, everything will line up with that thing that makes it null and void. If it doesn’t then we need to consider that perhaps what we believe to make something null and void doesn’t in fact make it null and void, for example, perhaps we don’t have the technical expertise to make our claim.

                    Everything else lines up with 2.25 seconds of freefall, it all lines up.
                    It doesn’t all line up for Apollo fakery, not at all.


                    1. My claim about non-destructive reentry being impossible does line up with the physical reality of shooting stars and meteorites, and also with the narratives about the special magical abrasive ceramics heatshields they plaster the bottoms of their shuttles and reentry cone capsules with, all of which are fake and none of which have ever been brought into space.

                      The entire reentry saga is a modern adaptation of Baron Münchhausen’s ride on the cannonball.


                    2. “The entire reentry saga is a modern adaptation of Baron Münchhausen’s ride on the cannonball.”

                      Exactly, and the whole space saga propulsion is a modern adaptation of Baron Münchhausen’s pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.


                    3. Ayokera Kimura, that’s a really witty and fitting reply! 🙂

                      But if propulsion in space didn’t work how would satellites be brought into orbit, especially higher orbits such as geostationary? TV and Telco satellites do exist and have to be explained.


                    4. “But if propulsion in space didn’t work how would satellites be brought into orbit, especially higher orbits such as geostationary? TV and Telco satellites do exist and have to be explained.”

                      That seems backwards reasoning to me: since I “know” something is up there, then propulsion in space must work somehow.

                      1) How do we “know” something is up there? At best we can make inferences.
                      Do inferences on satellites stand scrutiny? Nope, actually the opposite is true, if you ask me.
                      Do we need satellites for GPS? TV? Telco? Weather monitoring? Nope, for those tasks a ground based system would obviously be much more efficient, reliable and cost effective. In other words, just from a basic technical point of view satellites are a stupid solution. They’re irrational.
                      Do we need satellites for aerial photographs? Why not good ol’ planes instead?
                      Then what about those bright dots whizzing in the night sky?
                      Do we have solid evidences they’re man made satellites? Just for a single quick remark, if they’re satellites orbiting at 300 km from the earth surface, how is it they can be seen shining in the heat of the night amidst the earth umbra? Shouldn’t they be much farther than that to catch the sun light?
                      What about the ISS? NASA kindly tells you when and where you can see it with your naked eyes. Don’t you crazy conspiracy nuts even believe your own eyes?
                      I hope we all agree the bunch of merry floating clowns we see on video are not in space. If nobody is on the ISS, what’s the purpose of having a big empty tin shell orbiting the earth? To give credence to the ISS narrative? But if they can build a real space station and put it actually in orbit for everybody to see and any amateur stargazer to take pictures of, why the need to have a fake narrative in the first place?
                      Do they have the technology to simulate a bright dot moving in the sky, or some other techno-trick? I dunno, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Is it a case that the first NASA space program was named after the trickster god?

                      2) “Somehow it must work” is not good enough for me, I want to know exactly how it works. The problem is that every time I ask how it works I invariably get as an explanation, including from the horse’s mouth itself, the silly tripe about medicine balls, skateboards, wheelchairs, rifle bullets or other incarnations of the same kind.
                      Where’s the problem dude, are you retarded? To propel a rocket in space is just like moving a boat throwing bricks offboard!
                      No it’s not, I’ve already explained here why, and I don’t want to go again into boring details, unless someone is interested in debating further this topic.
                      In a nutshell, it’s a false analogy, they want you to think the man in the boat is the rocket and the bricks represent the gas expelled off the rocket. The truth is the man provide the force that push (accelerate) the brick away (and for reaction/recoil the boat forward). The expanding arms of the man in the act of pushing the brick represent the expanding gas in the rocket. The brick is the EXTERNAL RESISTANCE to the man’s force. In space there is no ambient pressure hence no external resistance to the expanding gas.
                      The correct analogy for a rocket in space is a man in a boat without any brick to throw away. He can wave his arms back and forth until the cows come home but he is not going to move the boat an inch.
                      It goes without saying that Baron Münchhausen would have had no problem at all cruising the seven seas on a boat by pulling his own hairs.


                    5. Ayokera Kimura:

                      1) Okay, so you think there are no man-made satellites. I’ve had this discussion with Gaia back in April (as Michael), buried in another article suffering from comment overload, search for “Elon Musk” if you want to read it.


                      I’ve seen satellites vanish into Earth’s shadow. They’re not necessarily at 300 km but can be much higher and have excentrical orbits. And there’s a lot of them, a real issue in astronomical photography. I’ve also seen an Iridium flare, very hard to explain by assuming a rock.

                      The purpose of the ISS satellite is to support the ISS narrative. Man cannot launch or man a real space station. There are too many unsurmountable technical issues.

                      2) The boat/brick comparison you cite for illustrating how propulsion works is not appropriate, in my opinion. It seems contrived and deliberately construed to appear ridiculous. We all know from experience that this cannot work to move the boat with any decent efficiency. You seem to agree the comparison is inappropriate but then you still use it to try and explain how propulsion does not work instead of simply discarding it as a caricature designed to mislead.

                      Propulsion works, in space as in air or water, by generating pressure inside the inflexible combustion chamber which is allowed to escape in one direction through the nozzle but acts against the craft’s inertia in the other direction, thus propelling it. External ambient pressure is irrelevant and an external medium is not required as a repellent. An external medium both carries and slows down the craft. In space, there is no carrying and no slowing down.


                    6. Ok, I see we are not going to change each other mind, moreover this kind of exchanges can easily get excruciatingly tiresome and above all supremely boring for all the good people here with no specific interest (I guess the majority). Ready to cut it if is going to become a pain in the ass.

                      “The boat/brick comparison you cite for illustrating how propulsion works is not appropriate, in my opinion. It seems contrived and deliberately construed to appear ridiculous. We all know from experience that this cannot work to move the boat with any decent efficiency.”

                      Actually I borrowed the boat/brick example from an online physics lesson centered about conservation of momentum, and the comparison was meant exactly to explain how rockets work.
                      The efficiency only depends on the bricks/boat weight ratio and on how fast you can throw the bricks (m1a1=m2a2). The example describes perfectly the newtonian principle of action-reaction and how it works.
                      We can replace the boat with a skateboard and the brick with a bowling ball, if that seems to you more appropriate, but where’s the difference?
                      It’s not clear to me if your point is that only the boat/brick comparison is ridicolous whereas the skateboard/bowling ball makes sense, or that they’re all inappropriate. In the former case you should clarify why you think that, in the latter case you should explain why that very same example is widely used to illustrate how rockets work, including by NASA on it’s site:
                      “Why Does a Rocket Work?
                      In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton’s third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.
                      This rule can be seen on Earth. Imagine a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that person throwing a bowling ball. The ball will go forward. The person on the skateboard will move, too. The person will move backward. Because the person is heavier, the bowling ball will move farther.”
                      Is it clear to you that in this analogy the bowling ball is meant to be the exhaust and the person is meant to be the rocket?

                      “You seem to agree the comparison is inappropriate but then you still use it to try and explain how propulsion does not work instead of simply discarding it as a caricature designed to mislead.”

                      The comparison is inappropriate not because you cannot move a boat/skateboard throwing bricks/bowling balls, but because a free expanding gas has nothing to do with throwing bricks. A brick and a gas molecule have both mass but opposite inertia.

                      “Propulsion works, in space as in air or water, by generating pressure inside the inflexible combustion chamber which is allowed to escape in one direction through the nozzle but acts against the craft’s inertia in the other direction, thus propelling it. External ambient pressure is irrelevant and an external medium is not required as a repellent.”

                      The “pressure imbalance” explanation is what I call the Baron Munchausen’s effect.
                      Firstly, as you see, now we have shifted from newtonian solid bodies physics to thermodynamics, so my first question is: if how rockets work relates to thermodynamics, why does NASA&Co. keep talking about skateboards and bowling balls, that have nothing to do with thermodynamics?
                      A pressure imbalance is conceptually the opposite of Newton 3 Law, which deals precisely with pairs of balancing forces: action=reaction, so, again, assuming you are right, isn’t all that blabbering about skateboards and bowling balls completely misleading and, as you say “inappropriate? If so, doesn’t it mean that NASA is oblivious of how rockets actually work?
                      NASA inform us that “The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.”, whereas according to you the exhaust is “allowed to escape” in order to create a pressure imbalance. “Pushing” and “allowing to escape” are completely different concepts and have vastly different implications (incidentally, nothing is “pushing” a free expanding gas, so your “allowed to escape” is actually a correct definition).
                      NASA is saying it is the force of pushing the exhaust backwards that cause the rocket to recoil forward and that is false but at least consistent with their essentially newtonian view.
                      In your version there is no force pushing backwards and no recoiling, it’s the gas internally generated in the rocket that directly pushes the rocket forward (AKA the Baron Munchausen’s effect).
                      In the NASA newtonian scenario the rocket (person) is pushing the gas (bowling ball), generating a recoil.
                      In your thermodynamics scenario the gas is pushing the rocket and no recoil is involved.
                      You and NASA are in two different worlds. You can’t be both right.
                      Actually you’re both wrong, but my point here is that you think NASA’s rockets are real but at the same time you think the explanation they give of how they work is “inappropriate”.
                      Does it make sense to you?

                      the pressure imbalance propulsion can also be shown to be a fallacy as it violates Boyle’s law, but I’m not going to delve in it now.


                    7. The boat/man/brick example is flawed because the human body is a laughably inefficient thrust translator and throwing bricks in the water has nothing to do with the thrust generated by hot gas under pressure escaping from the combustion chamber. Same story for the skateboard/man/ball example.

                      If this is not obvious then we have a problem. But it sounds like it is obvious to you. So we don’t need to talk about these examples.

                      I have no idea why anyone would use such inappropriate examples to explain how rockets work. I looked up a few pages in German and no such ridiculous examples were fielded.

                      There are a lot of space documentaries on TV in which you can see a lot of NASA people being interviewed. Most of them appear like rather clueless clowns who have nothing intelligent to say. Maybe the boat and skateboard examples are a way to recruit such clowns into NASA. Needless to say, they cannot have anything to do with the actual rocket engineering and spaceflight endeavours.

                      There is a strongly exothermic chemical reaction, resulting in heat and pressure, escaping through the nozzle and generating thrust in the opposite direction, so there is movement. There are many aspects of physics involved. Why limit ourselves to one particular aspect? Also, try approaching it from the more practical engineering side.

                      “A pressure imbalance is conceptually the opposite of Newton 3 Law […] You and NASA are in two different worlds. You can’t be both right.”

                      In this entire passage, I’ve got the feeling that you deliberately misconstrue what I say and what NASA says.

                      “” Actually you’re both wrong, but my point here is that you think NASA’s rockets are real but at the same time you think the explanation they give of how they work is “inappropriate”. “”

                      The silly examples are unrelated to the rockets that are engineered to actually work. To suggest otherwise is contrived thinking on your part.

                      “Does it make sense to you?”

                      You don’t seem to be focused on how rockets work but on substituting silly examples for the real thing. As a consequence, the discussion is more rhetorical than technical.


                    8. Lumi911

                      But if propulsion in space didn’t work how would satellites be brought into orbit, especially higher orbits such as geostationary?

                      That is the point, there are no man-made satellites and geostationary or geosynchronous orbits cannot even exist according to the same model of space provided to us (hint: the Earth-Moon system).

                      Believing in 1969 space flight is crazy (and Petra’s refusal to answer my simple questions, even though she maintains “100 % of the moonlandings can be explained”, so debunking herself in the same post, underlines that), but believing in 1957-68 spaceflight is just as crazy. Especially because the microprocessor wasn’t invented till ’64.

                      The same reason why the Earth cannot be flat is why space travel will always be impossible; too many spheres that cannot be overcome.


                    9. “Petra’s refusal to answer my simple questions”

                      I cannot even pretend to answer loads of questions, Gaia, OK? and I’m not interested in trying to answer every single seeming anomaly. As far as I’m concerned the topics of space, travelling to the moon, etc present loads of questions I cannot answer … but but my rationale is I don’t need to because when you have a certain amount of evidence … and especially evidence of a particular kind that really hugs an hypothesis very, very closely such as the plume from the specific hypergolic fuel powering the LEM being visible in reaction with the landing gear after which it becomes invisible in ascent and minute amounts of virtually invisible regolith particles in the mylar wrinkles of the landing pads which make no sense for fakery … you can determine the correct hypothesis without being able to respond to every question.

                      If someone asked YOU why the plume of one rocket powered by a hypergolic fuel was visible while another wasn’t you wouldn’t have a clue how to explain it, would you, Gaia? Not a clue. But someone who says we went to the moon can. Too many anomalies have been explained for us not to have gone to the moon – loads and loads of seeming anomalies have been explained. Sure, you can come up with yet another one not responded to so far but so what? The moon, space, rockets are all pretty alien to us so we can always find questions but just because there’s a question unanswered doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

                      What is abundantly clear, Gaia, so abundantly clear is the moon landers know way, way more about the moon landings and space, rockets, etc in general than the moon hoaxers. How much time have you spent looking at the debunking arguments? You need to immerse yourself in the debunking arguments and get a sense of where the knowledge lies. I also highly recommend the series, Moon Machines. You really need to approach with an open mind, if you all you’re doing is looking for things to confirm your hypothesis we didn’t go … well, nothing could be easier, could it?

                      Moon machines

                      As I’ve said already a number of times, everything I see accords with the unique conditions on the moon and I see zero evidence of fakery. Moreover, I see no fakery in the audio. From every angle I see the “real” hypothesis supported and favoured. Occam’s Razor says we went. We only have to cast a sideways glance at the fakery in most psyops to recognise it as such.


              2. Petra, from your site:

                Occam’s Razor
                “Occam’s Razor is a principle that states that the simplest explanation to fit the evidence is generally the correct one. The razor is a device used to illustrate the point that among competing hypotheses one should choose the one involving the fewest complexities and assumptions….My approach is to think in terms of questions and assumptions. What hypothesis does the piece of evidence in question fit with the fewest assumptions and questions.”

                Then a flag is seen moving in one of the purported video taken on the lunar surface.

                My version of Occam’s razor:
                It was a silly charade filmed in some Hollywood basement, some guy inadvertently opened a door or moved some prop off screen causing the flag to wave a little.

                Your version of Occam’s razor (your recommended expert for “debunking American Moon”):
                “This question refers to the moment captured on video during the Apollo 15 moon landing when the astronaut David Scott bounced past a flag and the flag started to move. It has been suggested that Scott touched the flag with his elbow (see the entry at 148:57:15). However, this 3d recreation indicates that he was too far from the flag to touch it. It is possible, however, that the movement was caused by a static charge that Scott was carrying on the surface of his suit.
                According to this slideshow by a NASA scientist (slides 7 and 8), static charges dissipate on the moon in milliseconds, which would make it hard to see how Scott could have been carrying a charge when he passed the flag. The reason for the fast dissipation is the solar wind, which bombards the moon with electrons and protons and creates a “plasma sheath” of electrons around the moon. These ambient electrons act as a ground to any positive charge and dissipate it. Interestingly, though, a negative charge takes slightly longer to dissipate, because it is dissipated by the ions in the solar wind, which are less numerous than the electrons in the moon’s plasma sheath. I found an interesting paper, “Concerning the dissipation of electrically charged objects in the shadowed lunar polar regions”, which gives a formula for the amount of time it takes for a static charge to dissipate on the moon.
                The most interesting fact is that the time taken for the charge to dissipate is inversely proportional to the area that the charge covers. This is because the larger the area, the more ions will come into contact with the charged surface, and the quicker the charge will be dissipated. So if the charge is concentrated in a small area, it takes longer to dissipate. The example given in the paper is of an astronaut’s spacesuit, with an area of 10 square metres. They say a negative charge would dissipate from a spacesuit in 0.003 seconds. But for an astronaut’s boot, which is only 1m², the charge would take ten times longer (0.03 seconds) to dissipate. Using the formula given we can calculate that a negative charge that covered only 80cm² would take 3.5 seconds to dissipate, which would have given Scott time to receive the charge off-camera and to move past the flag while still charged, making the flag move.
                Using the Quickfield electric field simulation software I set up a 3D scene where an astronaut is one metre from a flag, and set an 80cm² area on the astronaut’s arm to be charged to -10,000 volts. The result showed that the presence of the charge on the astronaut produced a force of 0.000002 Newtons on a selected 9.3cm² area in the corner of the flag. Using the procedure outlined here I tried to calculate the effect this force would have on the flag. Assume that the force was applied for 1 second, which is about the amount of time it took the astronaut to pass. 0.000002 Newtons for one second is an impulse of 0.000002 Newton-seconds. Since impulse/mass = final velocity – initial velocity, and since the initial velocity is zero, it’s just necessary to divide this impulse by the mass of the small flag section to find the velocity in meters per second that the flag section would end up with.
                This flag is the same size as the one used on the moon (3′ by 5′) and according to the linked web page it weighs .55 lbs, which is 249 grams. 9.3cm² is 0.00067 times smaller than the full flag, so reduce the weight by the same factor to find the weight of the piece of flag we are looking at. This works out as 0.167 grams, or 0.000167 kilograms. 0.000002Ns / 0.000167kg = 0.01 metres per second, or 1cm per second. So according to this, the 9.3cm² area of flag would have been moving at 1cm per second after the astronaut passed.
                This is the speed the flag piece would be moving if the electrostatic force was applied in the opposite direction to the Moon’s gravity. It’s possible the piece would move faster in a direction perpendicular to the direction of gravity. If the astronaut had a static charge on his arm, it would not stay constant during the one second it took him to pass the flag. We can suppose that the charge was higher when the astronaut initially received it, and decreased as he passed the flag, but was still high enough to produce the movement observed in the flag.
                There is also the complicating factor that the piece of flag we are doing calculations for was not floating freely, but was attached to the surrounding flag material, which would have created drag. However, the surrounding material would also have had a force acting on it from the static charge, pushing it in a similar direction to the piece of flag we are looking at, reducing the drag.
                These calculations prove that it’s possible for a static charge to have caused the flag to move, despite the solar wind and its tendency to dissipate static charges. The astronauts’ suits were coated with Teflon, which is notable for being very electronegative, which means it has a high tendency to acquire electrons from other materials, creating a negative static charge. The astronaut must have touched something offscreen to cause this–perhaps a piece of metal equipment.
                The narrator says the because the flag in the video starts moving “before the astronaut passes by” that it can’t be due to static. This is wrong, a repulsive static charge would cause the flag to move in advance of the astronaut. The narrator also says “the only plausible explanation for the waving of the flag seems to be a displacement of air caused by the astronaut walking by.” This explanation is not actually plausible, because the flag starts moving before Scott reaches it. As this video shows, when an object moves through air it causes very little disturbance to the air ahead of it. Almost all disturbance is caused in the wake of a moving object, meaning if Scott had caused the flag to move by air pressure, it would not have started moving before he reached it. Only a repulsive static charge would have caused this.”

                Petra, if after this “Occam’s Razor” explanation your Bullshit Detector hasn’t reached full scale and then has blown up I don’t know what to say.

                Final question: If it was all a Hollywood style hoax, why didn’t NASA even bother to cut out those kind of potentially compromising scenes?

                A: because
                “Listen to me, the two-legged creatures will believe anything, and the more preposterous the better. Whales speak french at the bottom of the sea. The horses of Arabia have silver wings. Pygmies mate with elephants in darkest Africa. I have sold all those propositions.”


                1. The simplest doesn’t always mean simple. I mean, of course, you can say the simplest explanation is that it was terrestrial wind but when you take into consideration all the other elements, terrestrial wind doesn’t fit.


                2. Just to add, on my hoax site I include in the definition of Occam’s Razor (that comes from pioneering 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren, whom I greatly admire and am very sorry died before I got a clue about anything in 2010 from a brain tumour):

                  “in the absence of evidence to the contrary”

                  This is really implicit in the definition but it’s good to make it explicit, thus:

                  Occam’s Razor is a principle that states that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation to fit the evidence is generally the correct one.

                  There is a great deal of evidence that supports the landings on the moon and contradicts the fake hypothesis so to simply grab at the “simplest” explanation is not following Occam’s Razor at all, it needs to fit with the rest of the evidence and not contradict any evidence.


          2. i am sorry petra; but as i get older, i have more and more problem with those kind of words: “reasonable”, “evidence”, “truth” and so on; If i were to read all your posts very carefully, i am sure i could show you that you are victim to the very things that you yourself accuse others of, so yes, i would just agree to disagree and move on. I will admit that i also feel amazed at times that people cannot see what i consider the absolute truth; i was a terror about this in my 20s and 30s but you got to let it go…and in fact i do not need to read all your posts because i have said things to you which seems to have just gone over your head, not because they were too profound or anything, but simply that we all tend, to varying degrees , to hear what we want to hear.

            i also understand that you are not so deeply caring about the psyhops themselves; rather you are flexing a muscle that was atrophied for the first 50 years of your life…so it seems, for as you said, you just began getting into this 10 years ago and it tickles you to think..flex that muscle…abit…go for it… but perhaps something closer to home and perhaps something that can be resolved…that which you are chewing on will never quite be digested fully; you cannot ever totally know the truth, so in a sense you are knocking your head against a wall..


            1. “… and in fact i do not need to read all your posts because i have said things to you which seems to have just gone over your head, not because they were too profound or anything, but simply that we all tend, to varying degrees , to hear what we want to hear.”

              Actually, Godfly, you said I was totally committed to Julian’s leaving of the embassy not being faked and I said you strawmanned me a little because I wasn’t, however, I noticed later I did say quite vehemently that I didn’t believe it was faked … the thing is though while my denial and claim of slight strawmanning was wrong I followed by saying that no one has identified any fakery nor given a good reason to suggest it was. If that’s what you’re referring to I will readily admit I was in error but my reason for my belief that it wasn’t faked is perfectly legitimate. I honestly think that I do not “hear what I want to hear” … or if I do I’m perfectly willing to consider that that is what I have done, I think I’m ALWAYS ready to admit error and adjust my thinking accordingly.

              If there’s anything you can pull up where you think my thinking is governed by wanting to believe something please let me know because I never want to do that.


              1. I am 99% sure”
                “I am 100% sure”
                what a world of difference!! No?

                yes you gave some statement which indicated being 100% sure that julians distress was real, but actually i was not referring to that; did not even think of it, and i do not have to; all i have to think about is that you are human and it is impossible that you do not filter: you could say we are the filtering animals,
                …… and we should be grateful for that!

                i am reminded of something scott said a few weeks ago which did not get much play time; he spoke of so much of our behaviour was motivated by the need to be right; i would not put it that way exactly …i would speak of a will to power but it comes to the same thing;

                look in the mirror and repeat five times daily: “I am often wrong and that is ok”
                ha..ha..forgive me..a little tongue in cheek


                1. Oh, I readily admit I’m often wrong, Godfly, but being wrong and THEN being able to see where you’re wrong when it is pointed out is a whole different kettle of fish from persisting with a belief after it is challenged with good reason – they are two entirely different kettles of fish. When someone challenges me I take that challenge by the horns and give it due consideration … most people don’t do that and they also don’t put the evidence in the highest regard, they prioritise their own beliefs about things and speculations over the actual evidence.

                  My sister justifies her belief we didn’t go to the moon in her belief that they couldn’t develop rockets because they’re discarded each time they’re tested. She’s happy to wave away all the evidence of rockets as fakery. That’s not how you reason. You cannot simply wave away purported evidence as fakery, you need to be able to identify the fakery … especially when there’s so very much evidence. I mean, she’s just ridiculous. She doesn’t know the first thing about rockets but she’s 100% convinced that they simply couldn’t be developed – too costly – so she doesn’t bat an eyelid over all the evidence. Her belief in her own rightness is prioritised over the purported evidence.

                  The thing about reality is that if your hypothesis is correct, all the evidence will line up nicely. You can’t have it be 50% favouring one hypothesis, 50% the other – it all must line up to support the correct hypothesis.


              2. p.s i did just think of something where your thinking is governed by the desire to believe something:
                you desire to BE RIGHT.
                and if you deny that, then you would by implication mean that you desire to be wrong; is not this situation that black and white?
                if you say that you only desire the truth, even if that means being wrong, then once you know that you have been wrong, you once again then feel you are right by virtue of admitting that you have been wrong….and so on


                1. I’m a little confused. Are you making a distinction between wanting to be right and desiring the truth? If so, I’d say I desire the truth more than wanting to be right and also – I desire to use the right method to determine the truth and that’s what I’d like to guide other people in – using the right method. If we use the right method as much as we’re able then we still may end up being wrong, however, if we use the wrong method the chances of being right are much lower. One major problem I see in people’s reasoning is that they don’t accord evidence the respect it deserves (yes, I repeat myself). Evidence rules! … which doesn’t say at all that it can’t be faked, of course, – in which case we have evidence of fakery – or somehow misleading but it must always be considered first.

                  I subscribe to the words of Jonathan Swift:

                  “You should never be ashamed to admit you have been wrong. It only proves you are wiser today than yesterday.”


                  1. my wife wants to use the computer tonight and so tomorrow i will try again to explain my problem with your terminology: just one thing: the right method depends on the context of the situation; there is no one right method for every situation; and as for “evidence” waaa! where to begin? If we are seeking evidence through second hand information and even third hand information then we must find another word, or qualify the word “evidence” in any number of ways…
                    lets continue tomorrow….and isn it not interesting that you filtered out the jewish question? filtering is not just missing or overlooking something; it is also deciding not to recognize or acknowledge something, and much more besides….


                    1. I’m not Jewish and perfectly happy to answer that question – I would be either way but I’m not and I’m very curious to know why you would even suspect I might be Jewish.

                      Yes, the right way may depend on circumstances – so be it. The thing is often the evidence is agreed upon, it’s just not recognised as what should be guiding the argument, eg, no one has identified any fakery in the hours of audio between the astronauts and mission control – agreed-upon fact! but moon-hoaxers wave away that fact with, “could be faked”! No, you need to identify the fakery.

                      You only have to look at Collateral Murder for about a minute to at least get an inkling that it might well be faked. That’s the thing with psyops – you can tell pretty damn quickly. When someone told me Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked, “I’m like, wow! that’s a pretty big lie!” but in about 2 minutes you can certainly recognise the possibility that it was faked and then in about 5 you can really see it. Psyops are generally very easy to recognise because of the “hidden in plain sight” factor if for no other reason.


                2. ok petra my last two cents;
                  Nietzsche said that everything personal is a little comical;
                  the more you reveal yourself, the funnier this will become;
                  it is funny because the more you insist on your “method” and “evidence” and “right procedure” and “objective facts” and “hypothesis” so on and so on, the more sloppy you are becoming;

                  even the fact that you do not quite understand what i was saying about one wanting to be be right and the truth….i believe it is easily understandable but in fact you are mentally blocked and so claim to feel “confused”

                  even the fact that it seems insincere to me to pretend you are “perfectly happy” to answer my question about being jewish, but you did not do it the first time;
                  did you forget? well that would be the filtering process again , a process that makes all the words you use suspect….

                  but do not misunderstand: i believe there is a right and wrong and i believe one can use certain methods of reasoning and logic and analysis to get to a general truth of a situation….but….but, here is the big bad but:

                  it depends on the situation …and the information that you have of that situation, and from what sources you get your information from…

                  i told you that you are banging your head against the wall and that you now just want to be right….( to feel wrong is a small death)
                  and the more you talk the more silly you seem so lets move on to something else…

                  i prefer you do not answer me if you plan to say the same things again


      2. Like I said, I have 0 interest in any of those characters, as I see them all as part of the same puppet show.

        Just today in a Discord chat I came up with “Tali Bane vs. the bat men”, answering to a friend who recognized the same puppet show with the Taliban vs the Great American Dream of World Domination (he didn’t use that last term).

        But what I remember from past times when I was still a conspie junkie is that there are doubts about Manning even being real, or just another “Adam Lanza” (of Sandy Hook fame).

        or take Joe Biden, a role played by different characters too (cf. Saddam Houssein, Dolfy H. and others using doppelgänger to present someone to us), if someone says “Joe Biden did/said X”, the logical question would be; which of the many “Joe Bidens”?

        All those examples only strengthen my proposal; don’t make any of those TV characters part of your life, and instead focus on how you in relation with your real, unique and verifiable people around you organize your life, especially future life.


  17. Petra, like I said, I am not going to debate you. And even though I asked simple direct questions you managed to not answer anything.

    But what you displayed says a lot, you started talking about people (Kaysing, McGowan and others). The (in)validity of “the moonlandings” does not depend on people, it depends on arguments. Even if all the people you mention are “shills” or “spooks” or whatever label you stick on them, that doesn’t make the moonlandings real.

    And your constant twisting and turning, repetitions and pile of fallacies prove godfly’s assessment of your ways of working right.

    You claim “to know how psyops work”, which is an impossible claim to make. Even if you would have 50 years experience working for ASCO (Australian Society of Conspiracy Organisation), yes an invented name, you cannot possibly claim to know how psyops are organized.

    And the organizational aspects are all irrelevant, this is about physics and chemistry.

    And for that Mark has answered you above. The moon landings STORY does not even fit the Moon(landings) MODEL. And that is the key point; if a certain model is presented as real, then everything has to fit that model, one cannot just pretend the model doesn’t apply because it doesn’t fit the story at that moment. That is NASA’s dishonesty that you copy and perpetrate.

    The sentence “I believe in objective facts” alone says enough, that you don’t care about the meaning of the very words you use.

    Go on a fieldtrip to Western Australia and explain the lack of unique minerals on the freakin’ Moon and we can talk further. Till then: good luck winding people around crooked fingers, your tricks may work on others, Godfly sees right through them and Mark and me have tried with arguments but you choose to stay deaf to them.


    1. “You claim “to know how psyops work”.”

      Huh? I thought we all did on POM. Hidden in plain sight, no? The signs are there for everyone to see – most people choose not to though. And they are there in every single psyop I’ve seen. Are you going to tell me that you don’t recognise “hidden in plain sight” characteristics in every single psyop you know of including in Bill Kaysing where we are told he has a nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, a professor of xenobiology (alien studies) – are they having a laugh or what? – and who says ludicrously, despite being head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, there should have been a massive crater when the LEM landed?

      I don’t answer your questions because I don’t know the answers but there is overwhelming evidence available to all of us to consult online and that is sufficient. I don’t go down unnecessary rabbit holes. You don’t need to leave your computer to work out psyops, generally speaking and at least to know they’re a psyop, and nor do you need to leave it to work out that the moon landings were real.

      Everything we see in the visuals of the moon landings is what we expect according to the lunar conditions and there are many subtle things we see that no one, no one would ever dream of faking and wouldn’t know to how if they did. No one is going to fake an exhaust plume that is initially visible when it’s in contact with the descent stage of the LEM but then becomes invisible as it leaves the surface because the particular hypergolic fuel is invisible in a vacuum. How on earth (ha ha) would anyone think of faking the ascent of the LEM in such a manner?


      1. “You claim “to know how psyops work”.”

        Huh? I thought we all did on POM.

        No, you are literally the only one.

        I don’t answer your questions because I don’t know the answers


        Everything [means 100%, clown] we see [speak for yourself] in the visuals of the moon landings is what we expect [x2] according to the lunar conditions

        Nobody knows the lunar conditions, so another impossible claim.

        What is provided to us, is a model of the Moon presented to us. And that is exactly what I did; compare the claimed conditions to the story and where it fails.

        Because the story needs to fit the model, and if there is a mismatch either the story is wrong, or the modelis wrong, or both. What cannot be true is that both are true.

        The claimed conditions of the Moon (selection):
        1 – temps jn the Sun of +250 C, temps in the shade of -250 C
        2 – 1/6th gravity w.r.t. Earth conditions, the only conditions that can be verified
        3 – occurrence of micrometeorites traveling with 27,000 km/h
        4 – no or negligible atmosphere
        5 – on average 360,000 km away from Earth

        just these 5 basic conditions prove the story wrong:

        1 – the suits were said to be designed for +250 C to -250 F (! Fahrenheit, so about -160 C), meaning that the first remark by Armstrong (photographed by a camera placed on the Moon by aliens, else he could not have been the first to step on the lunar surface) should have been “Buzz, I am freezing my ass off here, quick, get me a warm overcoat because I am suffering -90 C temps here!”
        2 – the behavior of especially the sand thrown up by the lunar rover and falling down does not show that; any object thrown upwards should go 6x higher than on Earth and every sand grain should fall down 6x slower towards the lunar surface w.r.t. Earth conditions.
        3 – using NASA’s own micrometeorite risk assessment, the astronots and the LEM and anything else should have been perforated by dozens of these micrometeorites, rendering any seal useless and leading to instant death.
        4 – meaning there is no transient effect between sun-lit and shade conditions and a 500 degree Celsius difference between front and backside of the suits, LEM or anything else on the Moon (or in space in general).
        5 – which means that even if assuming signals travel with the speed of light, every communcation between Houston and Moon takes 2.4 seconds at the very minimum, no exceptions possible.

        You see what a silly psyop you keep defending against all odds?

        Of course you don’t, because you lack even the most basic understanding of physics, no higher degrees needed than lower grade highschool physics education (or common sense).

        If you want to maintain any credibility, drop your beliefs in the easiest to debunk lie and admit you have been duped.


        1. OK, I’d like to address things one at a time.

          Hidden in plain sight / revelation of the method
          Let’s just be clear. I don’t claim I know exactly how psyops work but what I do claim (and would think everyone on POM was onboard with) is that everyone single one I’ve looked at shows signs of “hidden in plain sight” / “revelation of the method”, that is, there are signs of sloppiness in the fakery, over-the-top ridiculousness, telling of the truth (or a distorted telling) etc. I learnt this two years into my study of psyops from Ole Dammegard (haven’t quite worked out if he’s controlled opposition or not but even if he is – very grateful for that wonderful tidbit) and embraced it to my bosom as a great analytic tool. And we get the same types of clues in many psyops, eg, the smiling grievers. When the pandemic hit as soon as we saw the people falling flat on their faces – bingo!

          — Sandy Hook parents notably Robbie Parker working himself up
          — Larry Silverstein’s “pull it”
          — Hani Hanjour’s flight instructor saying he cried when asked to attempt steep turns and stalls
          — Loads of people standing around one person at Pearl Harbour with the person tending to him casually smoking a cigarette
          — The ridiculous “miracle survivor stories” that we see at Pearl Harbour, 9/11, covid, Christchurch, Las Vegas … and other events
          — The obvious stitching together of genuine snippets of the audio in the Collateral Murder video
          — The claim that Chelsea Manning downloaded 400,000 files in one day onto rewritable CDs and labelled them Lady Ga Ga

          This psyop element allows us to work out psyops without leaving our computers. Sure, many psyops give themselves away in the basic narrative but some might be much harder to work out if they faked them as realistically as possible, eg, the Collateral Murder video.

          Just checking with you, Gaia, that you know what I’m talking about and that it is also your experience when you look at psyops that you see those clear signals.


          1. it not enough to know that we are being lied to in order that you distrust everything in the media?
            If a friend you have, lies to you once, you may still learn to trust him again, but if he lies to you repeatedly, soon you will just close your mind to the idea that he is telling the truth, and you will act accordingly. Or will you spend the rest of your life discovering his other lies?

            i like your idea that there is always one or two things in every event which so clearly shows it is a psyhop but the things you mention above are issues that might be justified in other ways;
            you must find things that have absolutely no other explanation; for instance, the fact that we have not gone to the moon again in 40 years proves we never went to the moon, BUT maybe…just maybe, they are lying to us and they have gone to the moon again and are telling us;
            the fact that some grievers smiled does not prove that their children did not die.
            Get it?
            You must find something that is absolutely incontrovertible…and the coronavirus hoax is incontrovertibly fake ;
            we know that by first hand experience and not because some of the videos at the beginning show people in china falling over;
            sure that is impossible but perhaps some kids were playing a gag and the media went with it;
            nothing is too far fetched to consider when you are looking for total certainty.

            Miracle survivor stores? Possible. I know people …my wifes great grandmother who said vegtables were grown in nagasaki the same year that the bombs were dropped and so we could say that if vegetables were grown in that soil, then there could not have been a nuclear bomb…
            but even this is second hand information and maybe this 102 year old woman remembered incorrectly..
            .do you see what i am saying? this is the difficulty that self consciousness and thus rational argument entails: THERE CAN ALWAYS BE A SEEMINGLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION unless you experience it first hand. That is the gold standard and the safest way to not error.


            1. “i like your idea that there is always one or two things in every event which so clearly shows it is a psyhop but the things you mention above are issues that might be justified in other ways”

              One or two? No, generally there are way, way, way more than one or two Godfly. The notion of one or two is rather laughable when it comes to an event such as 9/11 – I mean on top of the many extra gratuitous clues the basic narrative is so preposterous as to be a clue of itself. For their terror story they only needed planes into the twin towers (very low on credibility in the first place) – but no, no – they weren’t satisfied with just that – they over-egged the omelette by having a plane into Defence Headquarters – I mean surely for some slight credibility they could’ve left that one out. Perhaps there was some special reason they had a plane into Defence HQ, I don’t know – but it certainly wasn’t to add credibility, was it? Did the headlines say:

              “World’s mightiest Defence HQ penetrated by passenger airliner”

              No, the headlines did not say that at all, of course, they said “America’s darkest day”, “Act of war”, the expected nonsense.

              Similarly, they certainly didn’t need to bring down WTC-7 in a perfect implosion and showcase it from at least seven vantage points. How utterly shameless can you get? While I can’t see a reason for the Pentagon plane other than gratuitous anomaly although no doubt it’s not just that, I can see possible reasons for WTC’s shamelessly showcased collapse – they wanted to move the focus of the anticipated disbelievers away from the much more revealing planes and onto the buildings (faked planes means faked deaths – slippery slope to all deaths – and controlled demolition automatically / planes highlight impossible failure of defence).

              WTC-7 was NOT the smoking gun the controlled opposition propagandists have been pushing it as, WTC-7’s collapse on 9/11 (especially when WTCs 3-6 came down later with no fanfare) was in-your-face directed to the anticipated disbelievers with the perps perfectly confident in the belief that only that small percentage of disbelievers would pay the slightest attention … and of the believers of the story who paid attention … they’d still be persuaded it was a collapse by fire! Un-fucking-believable!

              And no, no, no, no, emphatically, no these are very, very obvious gratuitous clues – they CANNOT have credible alternative explanations at least in many cases – they are in your face deliberate anomalies. A man who’s just lost his 6 yo daughter is not going to give a 17-minute press conference the following day and walk up to the microphone with a big smile on his face – that doesn’t happen in reality. “Revelation of the method” is not my idea, Godfly, I learnt it from Ole but despite any seeming counterintuitiveness of the notion of deliberately giving themselves away, I didn’t question in for a nanosecond because it explained all those things that had previously puzzled me such as the things listed in my previous comment. Power rubs itself in our faces, that’s part of the MO. The Mafia uses the same technique. It simply works better.

              Gerard Holmgren, the 9/11 analyst I most admire, said of 9/11:
              “The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep one’s intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works.”

              Gerard didn’t know about “revelation of the method” as far as I’m aware (he died in 2010) nor I’d say was he familiar with the quote from my last comment about the purpose of propaganda being to humiliate so the less reality the better, however, he got it. He understood that making things ridiculous actually works better.

              I recognise that we can’t judge the pandemic to be fake simply by the people falling over but it’s a very good indicator. Of course, we need to look at the proper evidence beyond the gratuitous anomalies but the fact is they are always, always, always present in every single psyop. If you can name one where they aren’t please do.


            2. Just to add: while there certainly has been a reasonable amount of attention on the planes what we can see is a gradual shift away from them. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is defunct now while Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is going gangbusters. 60 aeronautical engineers have signed onto A&E – NOT to talk about the faked planes, no, no, no but to say how planes cannot bring down buildings.


            3. Some more comment:

              “the fact that some grievers smiled does not prove that their children did not die”

              No, of course, it doesn’t, but you know what, Godfly, while I learnt of “revelation of the method” from Ole Dammegard there’s something I’ve observed myself that I haven’t seen anyone else identify:

              The perps are scrupulous. In addition to giving us gratuitous anomalies they NEVER fake anything so well that someone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. They are scrupulous in this, if we can use that word in this context.

              So while Robbie Parker doesn’t PROVE Sandy Hook was a hoax you won’t find a single, solitary thing that suggests in any credible way that it was real. That’s why my Occam’s Razor challenge works like a charm. I put forward 10 points that favour fake over real for a number of events and put out a challenge for the believers of the official stories to put forward 10 points with favouring reversed. No one can come up with a single point let alone 10! That’s the irony, they never give us a convincing dead or injured body or a particularly convincing relative or whatever. There is simply nothing to grab onto for the reality of their psyops.

              “We have not gone to the moon again in 40 years proves we never went to the moon”

              No, it doesn’t. Interestingly, before I cottoned onto psyops and knew anything about critical thinking my sister tried to convince me we didn’t go to the moon. At that point, I didn’t have strong feelings one way or the other but the thing was I didn’t find her arguments compelling including the one above. I didn’t identify it at the time as an example of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum, or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, I just instinctively felt it wasn’t a compelling argument.

              “If we’d gone to the moon …” is of the same ilk as Chomsky’s “If the US govt had done 9/11, they would have chosen Iraqi terrorists …” What tells us that we went to the moon isn’t whether we went again, it’s the evidence that we went, not going again or not, similarly what tells us the US govt did 9/11 is the evidence, not the nationality of the alleged terrorists.

              If you want an explanation for why we haven’t been to the moon again here’s one here. It mostly boils down to the fact that its motivation was political not scientific and once that political reason was over, there simply hasn’t been a pressing reason to go again. No doubt, it will happen at some point.


              1. if you want to convince people of something you will have to find evidence that cannot be weaseled out of; because the common man being what he is, there is no talking any sense to him: we all know that.

                as for those who can think, like some here at POM, it is still basically the same idea: you must find another way to convince them that your point of view is the truth…if convincing others is what you want to do..

                take for example your last comment above: we did not go to the moon again in these 40 years because there was no political reason…it being political the first time and not scientific….
                that is weak….really a weak argument, and you need not try to convince me it is a strong argument because many things can be done for scientific reasons alone….while in my opinion the real reasons are never exactly either political or scientific…they are existential and ontological…


                1. It doesn’t really matter how weak or strong you think the argument is, Godfly, the fact that we haven’t gone again doesn’t mean we didn’t go. The evidence of going or not will speak for itself. Astronauts were not OBLIGED to go again. Nothing says they had to so it is simply an argument that doesn’t prove anything. The political argument is not really mine, I don’t care why we haven’t been again, I simply put a link to someone putting that forward but I guess you didn’t even look, did you?

                  Oh my goodness, Godfly, it does pain me to be thought of as weaseling out of something. If I can’t defend my argument it means I need to change it not weasel out, I do not weasel out of arguments. As far as I’m concerned there simply isn’t “a reason” we haven’t been again yet. How can reasons be determined for not doing something again? Maybe it was all planned at one time and fell over – there can be so very many reasons all operating at different times.

                  A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, Godfly, or don’t you respect logical fallacies as my sister doesn’t? “If we’d gone to the moon we would have gone again,” is a logical fallacy of the type argumentum ad speculum and is simply invalid as an argument against the reality of the moon landings.


                  1. “How can reasons be determined for not doing something again?” you say now but in your previous post you state emphatically it was a political decision.

                    Given what we know of modern mans mindset, it does seem quite logical to assume that once made made it to the moon, he would want to return again and again…
                    reread the above sentence and get my full meaning and then respond please only to this one thing: do you really believe that man, having reached the moon, would not want to return again and again?

                    But maybe the astronauts ran into the natives of the moon and were told not to return or else, earth would be destroyed; this is a possibility also. I do not say this in jest…we do not really know anything except ourselves and knowing ourselves… that is man and his propensities, it seems to me highly unlikely that we would not go again and again to the moon.
                    I am thus convinced that we did not go to the moon, and if we did:
                    WHO FUCKING CARES?
                    It would be much more useful and humane to learn first how to plant a potato.


        2. I forgot to mention the purpose of “revelation of the method”.

          Supposedly, the power elite believe that by making it very obvious that they are the ones responsible they push the onus onto us to call them out and if we don’t then it’s our fault and they are spared karmic repercussions. Yeah, we’re responsible for not calling them out.

          Ole Dammegard said he heard this from an insider who was quite emphatic on the point of karmic repercussions (it could be Ole himself who’s the insider, of course, but whatever).

          But then this could also be a good reason, too, right?

          “The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
          Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist.


          1. Just to add:

            David Ray Griffin wrote a debunking of the debunking of the 9/11 “conspiracy theories” and the authors of an article exposing the scientific fraud of this pandemic rebutted a “debunking” of their article …

            … but no moon hoaxer has written a debunking of the debunking of the moon landings as far as I know … and we really have to wonder why that is.

            I dare a moon hoaxer to give it a try.


        3. “Of course you don’t, because you lack even the most basic understanding of physics, no higher degrees needed than lower grade highschool physics education (or common sense).”

          Gaia, I won’t disagree with you about my lack of the most basic understanding of physics, however, I will disagree about common sense. In a way, it’s an advantage to not have physics understanding because it means it keeps me very humble. I don’t start getting inflated ideas about what I think I know which I’m afraid a lot of moon-hoaxers do – they seem to go where angels fear to tread.

          What I always do is go between the pro and against arguments but I see no evidence of moon-hoaxers doing that. There seems to be an arrogance where they don’t feel the need to see what those who have a great interest in the subject have to say on it. I won’t address everything you say but have you looked at any anything at all with regard to the debunking of what you put forward? If you have, then you would have much greater credibility if you addressed what is said that debunks it and say why it is wrong.

          You act as though no one’s addressed the temperature issue, the micrometeorites, etc. These have all been addressed! Every time I come across a moon hoax argument I look up the debunking and it stands strong … unlike 9/11, covid, all the other BS psyop debunking.

          “Nobody knows the lunar conditions, so another impossible claim.”

          In the absence of evidence to the contrary or any reason to not think the conditions are as stated then I think it is perfectly scientific to accept that the conditions on the moon are:
          Brightly-lit surface with black sky
          1/6th earth’s gravity
          No atmosphere

          From my observation of all the evidence presented, these conditions are always reflected, there is zero sign of fakery. The same applies to the audio between the astronauts and mission control – hours and hours and hours. You only need one minute of looking at the Collateral Murder audio to recognise it is fake … but hours and hours of astronauts/mission control zero sign of fakery.

          To say that we can’t know that they are the conditions I think the onus is on you to say how those conditions cannot be known. How did scientists work out these conditions and what was wrong with the method they used?


  18. OK, I’m simply going to put this as a separate comment that is not in reply to anyone specific but is related to comments being made.

    I think that moon-hoaxers undermine the cause of truth.

    I’m on board with just about any psyop anyone cares to mention but not the moon landings – I’ve cottoned onto a few by myself, eg, Collateral Murder, Chelsea, Pearl Harbour, post-9/11 anthrax attacks, Bologna station 1980, Massacre at Porta della Ginestra 1947 and small events in Australia no one’s ever heard of – sure others worked out Pearl Harbour way before I did and I know someone else worked out Bologna station, no doubt people worked out the post-9/11 anthrax attacks before me too, but regardless of who else worked those events out before me, I worked them out independently.

    Is that cos I’m specially smart? Not at all – they’re so damn easy. All you have to do is apply the psyop lens, look for the typical hallmarks, the “hidden in plain sight” style. It’s an absolute DODDLE cos it’s all hidden in plain sight. We can work out in a flash that the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a psyop four centuries later because there are intelligence agents “curating” the “hidden in plain sight” style still in Wikipedia – what is said about the hanging of Guy Fawkes does not add up in any shape or form. I cannot get over how they do it in that way and get away with it every single time.

    The moon landings do not fit the psyop lens in any shape or form.

    The moon landings have none of the characteristics of a psyop – which obviously follow a very strict MO in giving themselves away “hidden in plain sight” style – and in every possible way display what would be anticipated according to lunar conditions which are so very, very different from terrestrial conditions. On the other hand, two people who say we DIDN’T go to the moon, Bill Kaysing (especially) and Dave McGowan perfectly fit psyop. And we have to ask the question: why do those two fit the psyop lens perfectly while the moon landings themselves don’t? You should be also asking the question: why has no moon-hoaxer worked out that Bill Kaysing was an agent? Why?

    I think people divide into different “inclination to believe” profiles and, unfortunately, while those who are inclined to disbelieve the government are right so very, very often (at least in determining the government has lied – obviously there is great disagreement about in exactly what way), they’re not right all the time, the moon landings being really about the only case I can think of but nevertheless an important one.

    The power elite want to control everyone’s minds – the minds of those who believe them and those who don’t – they want total control – and so what better way to control the minds of those who don’t believe them than by pushing out people encouraging them not to believe in the moon landings. What better way?! They lie all the time so it’s a rare opportunity to control the minds of the disbelievers, very rare, and the moon landings couldn’t be more perfect. They’re so implausible, aren’t they? They really shouldn’t have happened but somehow they did.

    Golden rules for critical thinking:

    — Focus on the agreed-upon facts first, eg, in hours and hours of audio between the astronauts and mission control not a single identification of fakery has been found whereas when you look at the audio for Collateral Murder immediately the signs of stitching together of snippets of genuine audio are apparent

    — Avoid speculation about scientific areas you are not sufficiently expert in

    — Ensure every piece of evidence FAVOURS your chosen hypothesis over competing hypotheses

    — Follow the debunking trail – if you believe something to be true, what do the debunkers say?


  19. How, and where, NASA faked the lunar landing, and lunar lift off.

    Then, among the wise and high-minded people who in self-respecting and genuine fashion strive earnestly for peace, there are foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it — the men who form the lunatic fringe in all reform movements. [Theodore Roosevelt, autobiography, 1913].


    1. A foolish fanatic, Jackie. That’s what you think I am, a foolish fanatic.

      I am a bit of a fanatic, that’s true, and I think I’m also a foolish fanatic in certain ways, yes, I’ll agree with you on that point too, however, I think how I think I’m a foolish fanatic is vastly different from how you think I’m a foolish fanatic.

      I forgot my golden nugget of critical thinking from Kary Mullis, the Nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR technique, fraudulently being used to test for the BS virus. He said:

      “The scientist tries to prove his hypothesis wrong.”

      When I heard that I recognised that that’s what I do. I go back and forth, back and forth and canvass as much argument as I can to determine what’s correct. If Person A says X I ensure if Person B says no, not X, Y I look at what Person B says and then if Person A has something in response, see what they say, and if they don’t have a response then I make that fact, combined with my own analysis, mean what it must mean! By rigorously looking out there in the world to check where the debunking trail ends that’s how I determine what’s correct. And I don’t think you can fault that as the correct method. If you want to fault it, please do.

      How moon hoaxers do not apply critical thinking:

      — Moon hoaxers do not try to prove their hypothesis wrong.
      They aren’t out there checking all the debunking arguments to see if there’s anything to debunk their beliefs which is very evident from the arguments they put out that have very clearly been debunked. What this shows is that moon hoaxers do not have an open mind, they are led by their belief that the moon landings must be fake presumably because they’re seemingly so implausible and because everything else is a lie. I agree that everything else is a lie … and then some … but it’s just everything else, not the moon landings. The fact that moon hoaxers are perfectly OK with the fact that there’s so many debunking of the moon hoax arguments out there unresponded to by them is highly significant. How can moon hoaxers have any credibility when the web is awash with debunking of hoax arguments unresponded to … and about which they display no concern?

      — Moon hoaxers put far too much store in their ability to work out the science of rocketry, space, the moon, etc.
      Moon hoaxers aren’t INTERESTED in space, the moon, rockets, etc, they have no genuine interest, their only interest is proving astronauts didn’t go to the moon. This is not a good basis to be arguing from. If you don’t have a genuine interest in the subject you immediately should start to treat with respect those who have a genuine interest. It is painfully obvious that those who have a genuine interest know far more than moon hoaxers. The moon landings is not like 9/11. Ordinary people aren’t interested in controlled demolition or plane crashes, generally speaking, but in the case of space, the moon, rockets, there’s lots of enthusiasts out there, loads and loads, and they display far more knowledge than moon hoaxers which is only natural, of course. Sure, the enthusiasts might swallow the Challenger disaster while moon hoaxers are right on that being a hoax but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish from the moon landings. Moon hoaxers seem to have no sense of the massive gap between their knowledge and that of the enthusiasts. I recognise both that I’m not really interested in the moon and have little understanding … but my aim, certainly at the beginning, was not to prove we did or didn’t go, I approached both hypotheses with a completely open mind. And even now, it’s not so much I want to prove we did go, I want people to use the correct critical thinking approach and I don’t like moon hoaxers undermining themselves and other psyop analysts when we try to get the truth out about real psyops.

      — Moon hoaxers cherry pick and display confirmation bias
      Moon hoaxers take obscure, highly scientific elements that seem anomalous to them and put them forward as items proving we didn’t go – and, of course, never run these elements by the enthusiasts to check what they have to say. When you are not an expert you don’t focus on things that require expert knowledge, you focus on things that don’t. What I worked out was that everything we see is perfectly consistent with the conditions on the moon – brightly-lit surface with black sky, low gravity, no atmosphere – and it’s consistent in very subtle details in a way that is completely inconsistent with what is expected from fakery. Unsurprisingly, when I say that, the argument I get from moon hoaxers – EVERY SINGLE TIME – is, “we don’t know what the conditions on the moon are.” This is a fallacious argument. We are always working things out, scientists or not, without “being there”. You don’t have to “be there” to work certain things out and and quite often “being there” is not a better guarantee that you’ll work things out. Back in 1605 no doubt most people in England thought Guy Fawkes really was hung whereas four centuries later in a country that wasn’t even discovered by white man at the time I can work out in a minute from psyop clues in Wikipedia that the so-named Guy Fawkes wasn’t hung – or hazard a very, very good guess that he wasn’t.

      — Moon hoaxers are OK with logical fallacies
      I told Godfly that “If we’d gone we would have gone again,” is a logical fallacy and is invalid in argument … but he keeps coming back and arguing it, not recognising that you simply cannot use a logical fallacy in argument. End of. A logical fallacy cannot be used in argument. End of. My sister uses the logical fallacy, “argument from incredulity,” in her argument that I’m embarrassed to even write here, “rockets are simply impossible because they’re discarded each time they go up for testing and would be too expensive,” but I can’t persuade her that she’s using a logical fallacy. She doesn’t care. And she’s perfectly fine to wave her hand over the mountains of evidence of rockets and say, “could be faked.” It’s truly remarkable.

      — Moon hoaxers don’t really get psyop MO
      If moon hoaxers understood psyop MO they would see that the moon landings have nothing in common with psyops. They don’t bear the “revelation of the method” signs that we see all over psyops. They can’t see that the moon landings have nothing in common with psyops … except, of course, in the case of Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan, two people who said we didn’t go to the moon – Bill, at least, fits psyop MO absolutely PERFECTLY. Hours and hours of audio between astronauts and mission control with no sign of fakery would never, ever feature in a psyop. The contrast between that audio and the audio in Collateral Murder which you can work out in about a minute is fake is so utterly enormous. And what are moon hoaxers going to tell me? That the moon landings were a psyop but of a totally different kind from every other psyop ever known to man?

      Anyway, thanks everyone for helping me clarify my thoughts.


        1. Jackie, you’re the one who’s been fooled. The perps WANT people not to believe in the moon landings so they will undermine themselves when they call out the real psyops.

          That’s why they pushed out agents Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan … and several others.


  20. Excellent contributions from everyone. I can see good points on both sides of the moon landing. The debunkers certainly are impressive, as in Petra’s link a little above – though as Godfly says, plausible explanations can be found for absolutely anything, if one is clever enough. But I agree with Petra too – since they offer these elaborate “debunkings,” then the hoax-camp needs to step up and debunk the debunkings…

    For myself, it’s a bit too large a field of study to get into at the moment, and I’m content to view it more through a layperson lens – based on such points as “why haven’t we gone back” or “why does the lunar lander look like a 5th-grade class project”… I will have to concede ignorance on the finer points of space physics, vacuums, heat, Van Allen belts, and whatnot. But I can wonder and muse at just what it all signifies.


    1. “… as Godfly says, plausible explanations can be found for absolutely anything”

      I strenuously deny this claim. It utterly astounds me how those on my side of the conspiracy fence do not embrace the extremely salient psyop feature, “revelation of the method,” to their bosom as I did the instant I was informed of it. An OffG editor actually wrote an article rubbishing me – I mean seriously! Of course, Catte didn’t actually provide an instance where an obvious clue might have an alternative explanation. No, no, no. She didn’t give an actual example. She strawmanned me by saying that I claimed the power elite were infallible and so therefore any screwup must be deliberate. Of course, I didn’t say any such a thing. All I say is they give us the clues loud and clear – and the thing is if a screwup was genuine it wouldn’t make any difference – something I’m sure the power elite learned many centuries ago – the punters will swallow it up, genuine screwup or deliberate and if the punters DIDN’T swallow it up, their obvious clues wouldn’t be part of the MO, would they? They wouldn’t be able to do it. If all the punters went, “Hey, that’s ridiculous, we’re not buying that,” the power elite wouldn’t be able to feed us such humiliating, insulting nonsense … but the punters do swallow and swallow hard. I swallowed myself till the age of 53 though I will say in my defence it was never with any great enthusiasm.

      Unsurprisingly, just like Catte at OffG, Godfly hasn’t given an instance of a “plausible explanation” either. So how about it, Godfly, got any plausible explanations for Larry’s “pull it”? I think it’s fair to infer that the building didn’t come down at his command so I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue it was a slip of the tongue – he never would have actually said it but perhaps you have another “plausible explanation” or if not for “pull it” some other clue they’ve pushed out. Got one?

      The only way I would have embraced it so readily is that the evidence of it is so clear because at first sight it seems counterintuitive, doesn’t it? We normally think of crime being done stealthily when you factor power into the equation everything changes. With power, a part of the normal MO of crime – stealth – turns into the exact opposite! It’s pretty amazing, isn’t it, how when you introduce power into the equation a significant part of crime MO does a complete turnaround.


      1. you have not seen mark zuckerberg saying “I really despise niggers and Jews”
        I saw it a few years back when i was researching a bit about new technology; he looked very very natural as he was saying that ….which doesn’t mean i think all media has got to that point, as for instance i watched the jordan peterson video recently…. but you get my point i hope;

        basically i will not debate with you on that level petra; i will however continue to debate with you about what we can know firsthand (to the extent possible since the whole idea of space travel is second hand to begin with)

        I believe i have presented you with a very valid question and it seems you can give me as simple an answer as a yes or no and then we can go from there:
        “do you believe that man, having reached the moon, would not want to return again and again?”

        also, while you might accused me rightfully so of an anti scientific bias , you have yet to show me any flagrant contradictions in my position, while i have have caught you out in two flagrant contradictions;
        do you not think that despite my subjectivist over personal approach to these matters, it would be fair of me to request that you address your contradictions; i mean that is the basis of any sort of conversation.


        1. Godfly, If you want to persuade me that Mark Zuckerberg said what you claim you’d need to present evidence. It seems he was raised Jewish for a start.

          I am happy to respond to the two contradictions but first I just want to be clear on what you’re referring to so I’m not second-guessing.

          “do you believe that man, having reached the moon, would not want to return again and again?”

          I’m sure loads of people want to go to the moon, it just hasn’t happened.

          I think it’s interesting that while to you it seems such a compelling argument it doesn’t to me and didn’t even before I had any strong sense of whether we went to the moon or not or that I knew “If we’d gone we would have gone again,” is of the logical fallacy type, argumentum ad speculum. To me it seems likely that a number of projects would have been embarked on to whatever degree but simply not come to fruition … but ultimately, it’s all speculation.

          Bottom line, Godfly, bottom line:
          You cannot use a logical fallacy in argument. If you don’t abandon that argument you are persisting with a logical fallacy and if you’re OK with that, so be it. I certainly strive to eschew logical fallacy in my argument. When my sister first told me about 9/11 I rejected her claim with, “They wouldn’t have had the confidence to think they could get away with it.” – How little I knew, right? How utterly ignorant. Then after watching from JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick and being persuaded the US government was , in fact, responsible I realised that my argument was a logical fallacy of the type – you guessed it – argumentum ad speculum and also argument from incredulity. When I realised that I thought, “Never use that type of argument again. Always judge by the evidence, not what you think possible/impossible, plausible/implausible.”


          1. petra:
            is it my writing style? Am i assuming too much? I mean that my comment about zuckerberg has nothing to do with him being jewish but with the present state of technological development; it seems that it is now possible to make someone on the computer say exactly what they want, and make it look real; i cannot remember where i saw it but i did see him giving a lecture and saying “I despise niggers and jews” NOT because he really said it but because we have the technology to make it seem as if he did say it

            also i assumed that you understood by a desire to go to the moon again, i was not thinking of the masses but of TPTB who, once having achieved such a feat would want to go again and again for the obvious reasons that TPTB do anything: to gain more power and wealth,( and really since the reasons are more existential and ontological, they would develop things just to have something to keep busy with and feel their own power)

            to answer my question with : “It just hasn’t not happened” is well…
            what do you call that? I mean is that an answer? That is like asking a child why he hit his little brother, and she answers, “Just because”

            there seems no logical fallacy because i have not said “since we went once we would go again”
            what i have asked is, giving our knowledge of mans propensities to keep moving forward after success, does it not seem odd that TPTB never once in 50 years went again to the moon?
            i NEVER insisted that we would have gone again if we had gone the first time.
            I do believe that, but since i can imagine many other scenarios, like for instance we are going to the moon now but we are not being told….i have been presenting it as a question…a question by the way, you have not answered yet


            1. you say “it is all speculation”
              Do you think so?
              what is this “All?”
              because you have not been speaking here as if it is all speculation.
              you mean only about why we did not go to the moon again? or everything here is speculation

              incidentally, yes, for me, this issue of why we have not gone again to the moon is pivotal and central to understanding the whole affair on a truly logical basis, a basis that would not depend on second hand data which could be false; given everything we do know about TPTB, (and human nature in general) it seems logical that we would be going again and again…but as i said earlier: who gives a flying fuck really? the moon?!
              the whole idea in fact, i must admit, seems disgusting… disgustingly external and shallow. Have you ever even considered the stupidity and uselessness of going to the moon?


            2. Sorry, Godfly, I see what you mean about the technology to make it seem as though people have said something when they haven’t. But so what, Godfly? The clues have been there since time immemorial. They are putting the clues in Wikipedia for events that happened four hundred years ago. The clues are absolutely undeniable and you haven’t given me a single example of “alternative explanation” for one of them.

              Are you going to? Put up or shut up on the subject.

              They’ve sent unmanned spaceships to the moon so in a sense we have gone to the moon again. I wasn’t thinking of the masses but of astronauts rather than TPTB. Quite honestly, I don’t necessarily think that TPTB would have a great desire to go again. I really do not know.

              The point is it’s all speculation so my point is “if we’d gone, we would have gone again” is a logical fallacy and cannot be used as an argument against going. That is all. When I say “all” speculation I mean about why they would have wanted to go, why they didn’t go – all speculation and while I initially put forward “moon landings were political” it seemed like a good PROBABLE explanation but it came from someone else and while I think he may well be right, the explanation was really coming from him without a great deal of thought on my part and my own feeling is more that there could be so many reasons popping up and stymying efforts to go as they’re made along the way. Bottom line: speculation.

              It seems a lot of technology was developed on the back of going to the moon so it served that purpose if the development of technology is seen as a good thing. Yes, I cannot really see a great deal of purpose in going to the moon in many ways except that I think it was amazing to achieve it at that time and the collaborative effort is something to be in awe of.

              What concerns me now is that I think moon hoaxers do not apply the correct critical thinking with regard to their arguments calling them fake. I think the evidence overwhelmingly says we went and there is not a skerrick of doubt about it and you can see my criticism of moon hoaxers’ critical thinking in my post Nov 17 8:26 if you haven’t already. I also think it’s worth recognising the psyops have a characteristic MO which is not seen in the moon landings … though it is seen very, very clearly in one of the people who said we didn’t go, Bill Kaysing.


                1. Indeed. Petri, please move on. You are intractable and stubborn, and seemingly unable to comprehend basic science. This thread, originally about Noam Chomsky’s now apparent fascist nature, has gone off the tracks. It was interesting at first, but now borders on silly.


                  1. If everyone else wishes to stop discussing it fine but I think the accusation of intractable and stubborn is unfair, Mark. Are you any less intractable and stubborn on the moon landings? Are you any less confirmed in your belief than I am?

                    I’ve brought up a few points that I don’t think have been considered before:

                    — Psyop MO includes “revelation of the method” clues or, indeed, we might think the whole psyop is ROTM, eg, 9/11. The entire narrative is completely preposterous … but there are also very obvious clues beyond the basic narrative such as Larry’s “pull it”, Hani Hanjour crying when asked to attempt steep turns and stalls, pre-announcement of WTC-7’s collapse, the flagrant display of its collapse, etc.

                    — The moon landings do not exhibit ROTM clues … except in the case of the agents telling us the moon landings didn’t happen.

                    — Kary Mullis says the scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong. What we see are a great deal of debunking of the moon hoax arguments that languish unresponded to. Moon hoaxers do not care about their arguments being debunked which is a very unscientific attitude to take. Not checking what the debunkers are saying and ensuring you are able to respond to them is not doing due diligence.

                    Happy to leave it there.


                    1. I doubt you are ever going to “leave it there”. I can easily see via mechanical and other aspects (escape velocity, everything going right first try, the need for an Apollo 13, dark sky, photographic chicanery, no repetition of successful technology in over fifty years, NASA’s admission that they do not now possess the technology, etc.) that it was all a hoax. What would it take to convince me it was real? There is a huge hurdle there, which you have not come close to overcoming. You keep repeating that there’s been no effort to debunk the debunkers … not a large public effort, but NASA has done a great effort to do so, kind of in a “we must not stoop to this” manner, with elaborate technobabble justifications of every aspect of the landings. But I reached a point where I realized it is all nonsense, a psyop. The issue that sealed it for me was the Pollicanio (sp) film, which bounced off you, made no impression, as you were predisposed to not be able to see it, saying you do not trust experts. Hardly the point. I do not trust experts. I only trust my own brain, and my own brain told me “There it is, solid evidence.” That whole matter was suppressed, censored, never repeated, as real debunking is not allowed. People do not know how to think, they trust experts, but when something real surfaces, it is swept aside, ignored, as you did. Our media is controlled, in case you have not noticed, the only opposition allowed being of the controlled variety. We have to know how to think. You have not demonstrated this ability. You have merely repeated endlessly a mantra, “they’ve not debunked the debunkers,” nonsensical, as they have attempted to do so time and again, but they hold such control over the public mind that they don’t do much publicly, just as now in the current hoax you will see no discussion on the existence of a virus or viruses, the boundaries of “debate” severely limited and under control. Censorship around us is thorough, deep and pervasive, with the moon landings, with AIDS, with viruses, PCR, the whole of our consciousness,

                      You’ve had your say, you are repetitive, endlessly. You’ve not swayed my views or anyone else’s. You might want to leave it there.

                      But you won’t. Goodness this is tiresome.


                    2. I’m always happy to continue, Mark, I just said I’d leave it there because that’s what others want to do. I can’t continue on my own.

                      I’m sorry, somehow I missed the Pollicanio film. Would you mind providing a link?


                    3. [sigh]

                      Apollo 11: Something went somewhere

                      [There is an extended discussion of this matter if you follow the links (within the article which you obviously did not read) in which a NASA spokesman (or hire) attempts to discredit the Pollacia film, saying that he switched to slo-mo during the sequence. That discussion is much longer than the entire article I wrote or that in the Walsh article (behind a pay wall that I referenced). NASA is doing exactly what you say they do not do, attempting to debunk skeptics. I have a very hard time as it is impossible to reach people who do not read or concentrate on matters, making you … what’s the word I used … impenetrable.]


                    4. OK, Mark, I found this comment on a YouTube of the Phil Pollacia video that seems to make a good case for the video being slowed and having been tampered with. What is your response in particular to the visible flame at second stage ignition that is not seen in the live broadcast?

                      I’m afraid I can’t determine a change of flame at second stage ignition or where that even takes place and that is why I would never use this piece of evidence to have an opinion one way or another. I avoid pieces of evidence where there’s controversy and I cannot be sure myself.

                      This is the live broadcast video – liftoff at about 4:19

                      The alleged Pollacia video liftoff at about 3:47

                      @Steve Willis You can compare the Pollacio video to the live coverage broadcast by NBC and CBS. That coverage is consistent with the mission transcripts, and also matches other NASA documentation on AS506 performance.

                      Now suppose the Pollacio video was NOT slowed down. In that case, the live broadcast would have shown events before they actually happened, right? How can that possibly have happened?

                      Next: staging occurs at about the same time both in Pallacio’s video and the live broadcast. But compare the second stage ignition. The live broadcast shows an invisible flame, as would have to be expected from burning hydrogen and oxygen. And that was also observed by the public that witnessed the launch. But the Pollacio video does show visible flames of exactly the same color as the S-I-C, which used kerosene as propellant, and which gives a bright orange flame.

                      Pollacio’s original super-8 material might be authentic, but what we’re seeing here is not.

                      Some comments on the best approach to determining the truth.

                      Basing opinion on single isolated items
                      The thing about the reality of whether an event is staged or real is that ultimately EVERYTHING presented in relation to it will support and favour the correct hypothesis one way or another. Cherry-picking single items and “going with” an interpretation that seems credible is not the best approach because there’s always the possibility that that interpretation is incorrect. However, when you canvass widely and find a pattern of things chiming together you have a much better case for your chosen hypothesis.

                      Following the debunking trail to the end
                      I just want to make it clear that while I don’t “trust” experts or anyone and nor do I think anyone else should either when it comes to determining the truth of a matter that isn’t the whole story. It’s not about “trust” because anyone can be wrong, it’s always a possibility. However, that isn’t to say that we can’t respect and appreciate people who know way more than we do on a subject … and I don’t see that respect with the moon hoaxers. Sure you don’t simply trust but if you cannot appreciate and respect others’ superior knowledge and if you favour your own opinions based on limited understanding that is a very dangerous way to judge. We all still need humility. The thing is I believe that by canvassing widely you will always come up with the right answer because as I said already – everything ultimately will support the correct hypothesis so when there’s a whole lot of evidence supporting one hypothesis with a few pieces seeming to support the opposing hypothesis the reality will be that those pieces don’t – there is some mistake in interpretation because 100% of pieces must support the correct hypothesis.

                      When you follow the debunking trail to the end with rigour and scruple you cannot – absolutely cannot – come to the conclusion the moon landings were faked. It is impossible. However, if you cherry-pick isolated items that seem to support fake then yes it’s easy, it’s very, very easy to be guided to the wrong conclusion.


                    5. Did you notice the splice in the NASA footage? Anyway, I see no evidence that the Pollacia footage has been slowed, and the Russian men who reviewed it made sure it was correctly calibrated, using the launch tower as a gauge to see that both it and NASA footage agrees, which they did, at least for that small part. I think we can safely assume that the NASA footage at that time (and prior to the splice) is undoctored. I am wondering now if you are yet to review the narrative provided on the Pollacia matter, or if you just went looking for debunking, failing to do your due diligence.

                      The preponderance of evidence suggests a hoax. Just the use of cameras using film in such a hostile climate would suggest this. Your mind is made up, and you are engaged in confirmation bias, that is, assiduously seeking evidence that you are right and ignoring anything to the contrary. Just the fact that we never went back or improved on the technology ought to tell you something. And you are yet to address the Van Allen belt matter.

                      I have long come to conclude that the moon landings were hoaxed, having been 19 years old at the time and naively believing everything I saw on TV. I do not know at what age the scales fell from my eyes, probably after 911 and seeing the giant hoaxes they were capable of doing and the general naïveté of the public and ignorance of science. Massive volumes have now been written on the many aspects of the hoax. To deal with all that evidence would consume this blog. Can we just put you down as a true believer and let it go at that? This is so tiresome!


                    6. About Phil Pollacia video and the flaming second stage.
                      Here again I offer my Occam’s Razor explanation:

                      Being space travels scientifically impossible (I hate to repeat myself), the mighty Saturn V (like all the other space saga contraptions) was basically a movie prop meant to have the gullible public standing in awe. It was designed to rumble, puff a lot of smoke and make a short roaring fly until out of sight, then plunge into the Atlantic to keep company to the other NASA/Disney props already littering the ocean’s bottom.
                      Given all that, Occam’s razor tells me that the simplest, safest and most reliable option to put up the firework show would have been to use only one kind of engine design, namely, the good old and long tested jet airplanes kerosene burning engine structural design. Therefore I expect to see flames in all visible stages, if I don’t, my first assumption tend to lean, until otherwise proven, towards official video having been tampered with by serial hoaxter NASA.
                      I take an independent video showing flames as an indication I’m on the right track.

                      Petra, here is your reply, so you don’t have to waste time writing:

                      AK, you don’t seem to grasp the meaning of Occam’s Razor, you’re using it simply to justify the explanation that best fit your unsupported opinion.
                      It also seems to me logic is not your forte, given that you lack the ability to spot even a basic logical fallacy: your premise that space travels are impossible is ungrounded, untenable and frankly, no offence, a bit silly, so all the rest is a non sequitur. That’s logic 101. Try again, it’s not rocket science (pun intended).
                      Actually, I don’t understand why you keep being so obsessed with your pet “impossible space travels” theory, in the face of the fact that no single expert in the world even remotely share that truly outlandish idea. Do you really think you know better than all the experts in the world? We all still need humility.
                      In any case, your focusing only on a single point that happens to seem relevant to you is cherry-picking, incidentally the same convenient mistake you moon hoaxers keep repeating over and over again.
                      But what about hours and hours of communication recordings and not a single sign of fakery? How do you explain that? There is no conceivable way to explain that, admit it.
                      You happen to note a flag fluttering on the moon and immediately rush to the wrong conclusion. All because you know nothing about electrostatic charge, you ignorant fools.
                      Since on earth, as we all know, it’s absolutely impossible to have perfectly marked footprints and tireprints on totally dry sand, you naively assume earth sand is the same as moon’s regolith, a unique grainy compound that experts say have special texture and special chemicals bonding and special static charge and what’s not that even with zero moisture allow beautifully shaped bootprints to be marked, photographed and conveniently put onto magazine covers, you ignorant fools.
                      Just quit cherry-picking, acknowledge that the whole of the facts and evidences perfectly fit into the puzzle, and finally see how it becomes crystal clear we went to the moon, Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan were agents and the moon hoaxers are a bunch of deluded, arrogant, self-appointed experts.


                    7. “Just the use of cameras using film in such a hostile climate would suggest this. Your mind is made up, and you are engaged in confirmation bias, that is, assiduously seeking evidence that you are right and ignoring anything to the contrary.”

                      Do you seriously think I wouldn’t have looked up the ubiquitous moon hoax camera claim? Seriously, Mark? Of course, I looked that up … but it seems you didn’t and if you did then I wonder why you persist with the impossible temperature myth. Why do ignore the clear debunking of that myth?

                      I didn’t look up the Pollacia claim before because I hadn’t encountered it until I saw it from you and … yes, I will admit quite openly that by the time I came to it I had made my mind up. My mind is absolutely 100% made up that astronauts landed on the moon … but I have done my due diligence very, very thoroughly. I looked up loads and loads and loads of loads of moon hoax claims such as the camera temperature problem … but every single claim I saw is debunked resoundingly! … and then from my own observation what I see is clear consistency with expectations. Everything we see is consistent with the unique conditions on the moon – and I emphatically reject the utterly lame claim “we don’t know the conditions on the moon”. Unless there is the slightest reason to doubt the conditions as told to us then we accept them as given … besides the idea of faking things to meet such alien conditions and faking those conditions too is ludicrous in the extreme. We must accept things as true unless there is reason to doubt them. You don’t doubt things without a reason, that’s just silly.

                      So my due diligence:
                      — Looking up EVERY SINGLE MOON HOAX CLAIM I encountered over a number of years and checking to see if it was debunked properly (obviously, the mere claim of debunking means nothing as in the cases of 9/11 and covid). Tick.

                      — Checking to see if everything accords with expectations as much as I can understand them. Occam’s Razor – hundreds of images are perfectly consistent with expectations of the alien lunar conditions. Occam’s Razor – no identification of fakery in hours and hours of incredibly boring audio (unless you were there, of course). Additionally, there are subtleties that are completely alien to fakery (especially psyop fakery), such as minute amounts of particles of regolith in the mylar wrinkles on the landing pads that can only be seen at intense magnification.

                      Your lack of due diligence
                      Not researching the impossible temperatures myth.

                      Your lack of understanding of psyop MO
                      If you really understood psyop MO you would see that the moon landings don’t fit. Every other event perfectly meets the “revelation of the method” MO while the moon landings does not fit the MO in any shape or form. Hours and hours of audio with no signs of fakery is so utterly ALIEN to psyop MO. But Bill Kaysing, why yes, ‘ol Billy fits psyop MO absolutely perfectly.

                      It’s you who’ve been duped, Mark, with the moon landings. Billy’s duped you. They’ve duped you all. They know there are those who don’t believe a word they say and they play to it … and wasn’t the most unlikely phenomenon of all time – the moon landings, the perfect phenomenon to dupe you all with. Unfortunately, moon hoaxers undermine themselves and more objective analysts like myself because when you call out all the other events the government really has staged you are undermined by your completely invalid moon hoax claims.


                    8. Did you notice the splice in the NASA footage of the launch? Do you see its importance? How do you respond to Akoyera’s suggestion that the rocket stage separation and the flames associated with it are merely kerosene and a tin can headed out to sea? In fact, if you read the entirety of the writing in the links of the Pollacia matter, you’ll come to understand that they had huge problems up to and including Apollo 6, which was flaming out, and then as if by miracle fixed them all by Apollo 8. In the real world, that does not happen. Since they gave themselves an artificial deadline with JFK’s scripted comment, they had to do quick fixes. But in reality I think it was understood even by JFK when he read his lines in 1961 that no one was going anywhere. Rocket technology had (perhaps) by that time achieved the ability to pop in and out of LOE, unmanned, where there is still atmosphere so that thrust has an effect. Von Braun made it clear that a rocket capable of going to the moon would have to be as tall as the Empire State Building. Then there is the Van Allen belts, which you’ve yet to address, the need to shield humans with lead, thereby increasing the payload, making the journey even more unlikely. There was no reason to risk human lives in this venture, as tragedy would have the opposite of the intended effect. So they did the opposite, shot the footage in advance, shot a tin can into the Atlantic, and pretended the whole thing was real. That took years all by itself.

                      By the way, if you search this blog, somewhere I make the case that Grissom and White’s and that other guy’s death was a planned catastrophe, no one dying, just as with the Shuttle disaster. NASA is in the movie business, using expensive props. I suspect they did that to convince us that inside the space capsule existed real technology. It was an empty can.

                      The cameras and film, the “debunker” makes it seem as though the moon is not hostile, that having machinery there is just a cake walk, that the absence of atmosphere and heat means that everything in a vacuum (including the astronauts) will work hunky dory. Someone in the comments made the point that our own atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and that while we do not need it, we use it to keep oue bodies in balance with the atmosphere. The presence of sunlight uninterrupted by atmosphere means everything in its path will de destroyed unless shielded. But we all know, from JFK to the moon to 911 to Climate to Covid to Snopes that professional debunkers have the liberty of just making shit up, as people (you as well) do not know how to use their own brains and so rely on authority figures. That’s all that is going on with you and the moon, you using other people’s brains hard at work. You’re not skeptical, you’re doing low resolution high verbiage thinking. You’re not convincing.

                      Dve McGowan was/is an Intel agent who faked his death on 11/22/15, note the date, but his Moondoggie series, which was nothing more than a compilation of all of the work of skeptics till that time, was solid. I suggest you debunk all of his work, probably in reality the work of a Langley Committee. I believe he opens with the most obvious tell, that NASA itself admits that we do not possess the technology at this time go to the moon. And, did you know, that NASA had a storage house of tapes, so they say, that had on it all of the technical data for the moon journeys, and that they either tossed them, or wrote over them, I forget which. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

                      I suspect that if we do another fake moon landing (we are, due to Van Allen, on a prison planet) it will center around Elon Musk and SpaceX. I have watched his exhibitions and thought “Man, people are even stupider now than in 1969.” His automobile floating through space was a colossal hoax, but people ate it up. His rocket taking off and landing, interrupted, of course, by recording glitches at critical intervals, are an absurd proposition too far-fetched for all but school children, which is where the bulk of Americans exist. Musk is a front man, taking the heat off NASA and because he is a fake genius he is allowed to say or do anything and people eat it up. We are not going to Mars, or even to the moon, or even leaving LOE, but such feats of science stir people making their lives more rich and full. That is one difference between the moon hoax and other psyops, that it was meant to lift us up, inspire us, where other hoaxes like 911, JKK, Columbine, etc., were meant to frighten us and destroy hope.

                      You are not thinking, not using proper skepticism, and are childishly enamored with 1960s technology. You have not impressed me a whit, and with each post, including the one that will follow this, I think more and more that you are simply not worth the time and effort, certainly not worthy of the attention you demand. You’re a hack.


                    9. Mark,

                      When we do due diligence and have checked sufficient evidence to be sure of the correct hypothesis then the case is closed. There is no possible evidence that can be provided now that says 9/11 was really the work of terrorists. Not only is there sufficient evidence to show that it was an “inside job” but more specifically the evidence shows it was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises where the only physical reality was damage to and destruction of buildings, including eventually the destruction of all the WTC buildings.

                      What’s so very interesting is that while “inside job” is understood by a significant minority very few get the actual nature of that “inside job” or know that the whole of the WTC was destroyed. And it’s also interesting that most disbelievers of the official story believe WTC-7’s collapse to be the “smoking gun” when its collapse was, in fact, showcased from at least seven perspectives by the perps to mislead the disbelievers away from the essential truth of “exercise”.

                      Mind control: they fool the believers and the disbelievers alike – and this is so very fundamental to understand.

                      Unlike you, Mark, I have done due diligence. Scandalously, absolutely scandalously, you didn’t even check the camera/temperature myth – that is how little time you’ve spent in the debunking arena – you didn’t even check that myth. What you do is cherry-pick seeming anomalies and make them mean we didn’t go to the moon … and you don’t even check for an explanation of the most common seeming anomalies from people who know a little about the subject.

                      What is the significance of so many moon hoaxers putting forward seeming anomalies that say we didn’t go to the moon … which are easily debunked? What does it mean?

                      It means that moon hoaxers judge from their lesser understanding of the moon, space, rockets, etc. Moon hoaxers arrogantly put their knowledge and experience on a par with the knowledge of those who have a genuine interest in the subject and obviously know far, far, far, far more. Moon hoaxers are so blind they cannot recognise that there are people out there much more knowledgeable. They much prefer to argue from their own tiny font of knowledge and experience that misleads them.

                      Moon hoaxers have no sense at all that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

                      As predicted by the perps, moon hoaxers do not recognise Bill Kaysing as an agent and then when it’s pointed out that he clearly is an agent and that the perps went all out to make fun of moon hoaxers by making him so obvious – allegedly Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne while saying the lunar module would have made a huge crater that it fell into and who has an alien scientist nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen – they really do have a chortle – they cannot see they have been made fun of.

                      As your tag says, Mark, it’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

                      I’ve done due diligence, Mark, and I am not going to address any more seeming anomalies – I recognise I don’t have sufficient knowledge to explain every seeming anomaly and I know I’ve done sufficient research to establish the truth. If you had any real interest, if you were genuinely interested to learn the truth, you would address those anomalies to enthusiasts on Quora, reddit, etc. I invite you to do that. I asked my sister to do the same on her ludicrous “rockets can’t exist” belief and what did she do? She asked the question somewhere in a very derisive tone, exposing herself as a moon hoaxer which certainly disinclined anyone to answer. And, of course, what did she take the lack of response to mean? There was no answer and thus rockets don’t exist.

                      This is my case for the reality of the moon landings:

                      — Dozens of seeming anomalies have been explained by people exhibiting possession of far greater knowledge than moon hoaxers on a number of debunking sites and there isn’t an anomaly I’ve seen that hasn’t been explained that needs to be in my opinion, for example, the explanation for the Pollacia video is that it was slowed down which seems perfectly reasonable and I see no reason to go all out trying to determine if it was or not. In any case, I know I’ve done due diligence – I know any further anomalies must have some kind of explanation.

                      Reality isn’t such that a massive amount of evidence supports and favours an hypothesis which then proves to be incorrect. That isn’t the way reality works. Once you have a certain amount of evidence supporting an hypothesis any anomalies will simply be that – anomalies that can be explained somehow even if you personally cannot explain them.

                      Just as no one can come along and prove that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, no one can come along and say we didn’t go to the moon – there’s too much evidence and seeming anomalies can all be explained. You make not the slightest effort, Mark, to check anomalies that have been explained many times.

                      — Everything I see perfectly accords with expectations according to the lunar conditions of black sky against a brightly-sunlit moon surface, 1/6th gravity and no atmosphere. And it accords with it in subtle ways completely unexpected in fakery such as virtually invisible amounts of regolith particles in the mylar wrinkles on the landing pads.

                      Another example is the ascent of the LEM in Apollo 17. It is simply LUDICROUS to think that the plume made by the particular hypergolic fuel used would be faked to be initially obvious in its reaction with flammable material before it leaves the moon’s surface and then to become invisible when there is no more contact with flammable material. It is utterly LUDICROUS to think that that would be faked. The idea is simply absurd. See Point 10 for full explanation of this seeming anomaly – the film-maker Mazzucco suffers greatly from “a little learning” in his lack of understanding that hypergolic fuel is a class of fuel rather than a mere type, misleading him to believe that all hypergolic fuels have a visible flame and so he perceives an anomaly where there isn’t one in the fact of no visible flame in the LEM’s ascent. Not only is there no anomaly, the explanation for it so resoundingly favours “real” in the sophistication of the detail.

                      OK, I definitely will leave it here now because I’m now perfectly satisfied I’ve said all I have to say. I accept, unfortunately though, that what I say won’t make the slightest difference but I’m grateful to you, Mark, for helping me clarify my thoughts for myself at least.


  21. Btw, Godfly you said Petra filters and responds to what she chooses… But I noticed she asked you why you thought she was Jewish, and you filtered that out… ; )


  22. …and leave it to TIMR to mention that since he is , as i have mentioned before, a very careful reader. I like that so much. I wish people would nail me more often; that is the whole fun of this computer game

    for those curious why i considered that maybe petra liverani is jewish one reason is that i had a jewish friend while living in galicia whose name was vieira, which is a variant of liverani, but mainly because she is that certain stubbornness that can often be associated with jewishness; i decided to filter it out because really it is a weak argument ,isnt it, to assume that just because someone is stubborn they are a jew. The fact is everyone is stubborn on some point or another.


  23. “Hidden in plain sight”, “revelation of the method”, “they give us the clues” – allegedly “saliient psyop features”.

    Not so. There is no more need for the organizers or executors of psyops to leave clues than for dog-owners to put LED collars around their pet’s neck.

    The so-called clues are entirely accidental and not substantial in any way.

    What’s more, many of the examples given for alleged clues are entirely dependent on the observer’s interpreation. They are perceptive phenomena rather than real ones.

    And please, no more trawmanning, or rather strawsistering.


    1. Seriously, Lumi. Seriously?

      What your argument lacks is rigour. You make claims with no back up. When I pointed out the highly anomalous 13 call signs in the Collateral Murder video you said it was “nitpicking”. No, 13 call signs needs to be explained when there are only two Apaches who aren’t even in contact with their ground crew.

      You simply make claims, you don’t back them up. I’ve presented a list of what I’d call deliberate clues. What you need to do is take those clues and give them another explanation.

      Please back your argument, don’t simply make claims.


  24. I know this has nothing to do with the main topic of the above article, but with regard to the moon’s climate and temperature conditions, I am curious to know how NASA and the “scientific” space community knows exactly what the conditions are there? How did they deduce or conclude what the conditions are on the moon?

    Just asking questions.


    1. I recall while in high school, late sixties, that an explorer of some kind landed on the lunar surface and did some testing. I was laying on the cou8ch asleep and woke up to see it on TV, unreal. Of course, that footage could have been shot at Langley or Lookout Mountain, now that I think of it. Silly me. Why would they send a probe when there were no plans to go there? For scientific research?


    2. It is questionable that anyone on Earth knows the exact thermal conditions on the moon. I read a discussion (in German) on a physics board, and the following items will have to be factored in:

      Stefan-Boltzmann law
      albedo (diffuse radiation in visible spectrum)
      geometry (solar energy absorbed per surface unit, dependent on location)
      physical properties of the moon surface (thermal conductivity and capacity)

      In addition, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) space probe orbiting the Moon might be real and have gathered actual measurements via its onboard Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment (DLRE):

      So, perhaps, contrary to what I claimed initially, we do know the thermal conditions on the Moon with at least decent exactitude, and earlier estimates, including the Apollo “measurements”, using S-B law and assorted parameters were not too bad.

      The global surface temperatures of the Moon as measured by the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment – February 2017


  25. now you have to have “rigour” young man and look at all the “hypothesis” and see the “revelation of the method” and weed out this “theory” from that theory; trust those that know more than us (not all experts are mere “experts”) It is all “hidden in plain sight” and i have “zero doubt” that we can know the temperature conditions on the moon but first learn to be humble before those that know better, and i am clever enough to know who knows better and although i do not know how psycops work, i have “zero doubt” that the moon landing is not a psycop


    1. “… trust those that know more than us (not all experts are mere “experts”) It is all “hidden in plain sight” and i have “zero doubt” that we can know the temperature conditions on the moon but first learn to be humble before those that know better”

      Mark says that cameras wouldn’t have worked on the moon because of the extreme temperatures. How does Mark know about the extreme temperatures? Where did he get that information from? Did he go to the moon himself to work it out perhaps?

      Experts readily acknowledge the extreme temperatures (those people perhaps from whom Mark ascertained there are extreme temperatures in the first place??) but due to their more DETAILED knowledge they explain that the time of lunar day meant not so extreme temperatures blah, blah, blah.

      It could all be BS about the extreme temperatures but if so then neither Mark nor the experts are correct about the camera/temperature situation, are they?

      I state quite categorically that we don’t “trust” experts simply because they are experts, except perhaps when we’re on the operating table as we simply have no choice … and even there we might suddenly recognise the wrong thing is about to happen, however, if we cannot recognise superior knowledge, if we always put our knowledge and experience on a par with that of others who exhibit greater understanding of the subject then we are simply arrogant fools.

      No one has to be clever enough to know who knows better … all one has to do is follow the debunking trails. Where do the debunking trails end? They end with the moon landers not the moon hoaxers … just as, on the other hand, the debunking trails end with the debunkers of the official story of 9/11 and the covid pandemic BS … and all the other psyops – so easy for psyops because of “revelation of the method”. They rub it in our faces loud and clear – experts aren’t really essential to debunk psyops, although, in some cases, it certainly does help to have them to refer to I must admit.

      If anyone can show me a debunking trail that ends with the moon hoaxers please let me know.

      Also, if anyone can provide a clear anomaly for which the hypothesis “accidental screwup” is favoured over “revelation of the method” in any psyop you care to mention, please let me know. If you cannot do that, please do not hang onto the ludicrous idea that “revelation of the method” is not a distinct hallmark of psyop MO. I simply do not have any understanding how anyone who recognises events as being psyops in the first place doesn’t accept “revelation of the method” as being part of the MO. It is so obvious and – not only is it obvious – it totally accords with the nature of power. Power PUSHES ITSELF IN OUR FACES AND SAYS “YEAH, WE’RE DOING THIS TO YOU AND WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?”

      What people arguing on this thread exhibit is attachment to belief which undermines their ability to reason properly. My sister did way, way better in maths and science at school than I did but her attachment to her belief in the moon landings being a hoax turns her into an idiot on the subject.


      1. “It could all be BS about the extreme temperatures but if so then neither Mark nor the experts are correct about the camera/temperature situation, are they?”

        This betrays a lack of basic domain knowledge and sound reasoning, and a bizarre preference for considerations that have nothing to do with the subject matter that you are pretending to care about, considerations such as “revelation of the method” and “debunking trail”, as if it were all a mind game with no physical reality.

        We can see with our naked eyes, and even better with binoculars, that our Moon has no atmosphere. Hence, there is nothing to temper the heat of the Sun and the chill of Space, which means that temperatures are bound to be extreme relative to Earth as both bodies are in the same orbit around the Sun.

        The question is simply to lay out the methods to exactly determine these extreme temperatures. See my comment on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which I believe to be real.


      2. Your comments have gotten longer and more strident with time. All will be answered in a couple of days in a post designed to capture the whole of this debate. It would require that you do extensive reading, and frankly, most people cannot, will not read anything they are predisposed to disagree with. I’ve seen this in you, confirmation bias writ large. It took days and repeated efforts to get you to look at the Pollacia matter, and there I presume you did nothing but skim.

        “There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.”
        (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)


  26. in my tounge in cheek “petra gadfly” post above i forgot the scare quotes in the:
    ” i do not know how psychops work”
    since you have stated that a few times…
    come on now, you have begun speaking of “rigour” but your posts lack rigour very rigorously..
    ….if you do not know how psyhops work, anything you say means nothing, and every sentence here in your latest post can be torn apart and shown to be self nullifying …and Stephers just spoke of the high quality of thinking going on here at POM; I agree that there are some pretty sharp cookies here but i am sorry to say that you do not show yourself to be one of them…maybe you are, but it is not coming through in your posts…you do realize you are making yourself look abit foolish, don’t you?
    lastly i would agree with you that mark seems to trust those graphs and statistics and people that suit him, but there is your “filtering animal” again; and the difference is mark is constantly showing true humility by admitting mistakes and you are only giving lip service to admitting that you might be mistaken….


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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