Moondoggie: Nobody went anywhere

This post concerns the work of Dave McGowan, author several books including of Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon and of Programmed to Kill, both of which I have read.

Weird Scenes is about the rock and roll scene in Los Angeles in the late sixties. McGowan exposes the military roots of most of the musicians of that era, interspersed with chapters on their deaths. Other than a cautionary word about Jim Morrison, he accepted every death as real. He did no interviews for the book, and did not even do the most elementary research into their deaths, such as checking to see if they were listed in the Social Security Death Index. Even I did that. The one photograph in the book, tellingly, is of Jim Morrison as a youth on board a naval ship with his admiral father, and it is fake.

Only a sparse few deaths are in SSDI. Sharon Tate was once there, her Social Security number listed as 452-74-4733. If you know how to read spook, that translates as 11-11-11-33. She is gone from there now. Others had spooky numbers too, but most were just missing. I regard McGowan’s work as a limited hangout, as he exposes enough material to make it a book worth writing and reading, but leaves out far, far more.

Programmed to Kill, which I long ago gave away, is a look at various serial killers, from Son of Sam to, as I recall, Ted Bundy and other notables, with a chapter on JonBenet Ramsey. Again, nothing sends up red flags in the mind of Mr. McGowan. If it is reported as so, it is as so. This book is also, in my view, a limited hangout. McGowan is a spook.

I say “is” a spook, as he is said to have died on 11/22/15. That’s a spook date. Circumstances are, however, suspicious. I cannot locate them now, as they are not available anywhere. So rely on my memory, such as it is, and at your own risk. Prior to his death, maybe as early as 2014, he was doing interviews in which he chain smoked. In one, kind of bizarre, he was wearing a bathrobe and kneeling. Later he announced he had lung cancer and was going to die. I view his heavy smoking as probably of TV cigarettes, even as he could do the real ones and still, death might easily elude him. Most people who smoke die of other stuff, respiratory issues, and also lung cancer.  Just smoking, however, is not a death sentence. The whole McGowan weird scene strikes me as predictive programming. I guess it is fitting the the author of Weird Scenes fakes his own death, along with most everyone else in that book.

McGowan, who is sporting what I think of as a shit-eating grin in the photo above, ran a website called Center for an Informed America, or CIA for short. No comment. In it he writes on a few subjects, including the Lincoln Assassination, the Boston Marathon Bombings, and, of course, Laurel Canyon, the rock scene in the late 60s and early 70s.

With Lincoln he took us partway there, and Miles Mathis maybe the rest of the way, with Mathis claiming that the assassination was a hoax. (Link.) Again, from this point of view, McGowan is a limited hangout. I’ve come around to thinking that the American presidency, which in our time is a role for actors selected long before election, has long been held by men under control of others, people of high finance and intrigue. Abraham Lincoln never split a rail, but so the story goes, just as our Donald Trump is supposedly a billionaire business tycoon. As with JFK’s PT109, it is all what in Hollywood they call “backstory”, none of these men being anything like their public images.

With the Boston Marathon, we had a weird situation. For those who rely on regular news coverage, it was the usual water skipper treatment, nothing investigative even hinted at. At the same time, a large number of high quality photos of the event, supposedly taken from a second floor window above, showed massive hoaxing going on, fake victims, blood syringes and the like. Those photos were meant to be seen. It could be no accident. It was as if the people behind the event wanted two narratives, one for normal people, another for skeptics, feeding each. What I am suggesting is parallel realities, both fake, with McGowan taking the lead on the conspiratorial side. Again, a spook in the works.


Wagging the Moondoggies

McGowan’s most extensive work at CIA was about the moon landings being faked. There are fourteen parts to it, and maybe three hours of reading, that is if you are slow, like me. I read them at the time they were published, and again over the last two days (Link). In truth I was trying to get up to speed, as we’ve had a long exchange under the Noam’s Guarding the Cave post. In it I was constantly searching my memory for details of the moon hoax, having for a long time not having thought about that topic. In the debate I tried to make a couple of salient points, one of which was that the skies on the moon could not be black as portrayed in the film and photos of the event. Having no atmosphere, starlight, amazing starlight, would illuminate the whole place. I was told that no, because of the moon’s albedo, light is reflected up and ergo, the sky black. That is not the real reason that NASA  says there are no stars, by the way, just what I was told. More later.

In fact, the sky is black above the moon, as there is no atmosphere to colorize it. And in fact, interspersed in that black sky would be thousands of stars. In fact, NASA knew this, at least in 1963 when they used the following promotional picture to show the state-of-the-art LEM (lunar excursion module), at that time hard-sided.

As I see it, stars had to be avoided in the fake moon landings. They would have had to have been placed correctly, as thousands of astronomers, professional and amateur, would have been checking up on them, speaking up if things were out of place. In addition, they would have to move in concert with the moon itself rotating on its axis, giving a different backdrop for every photo or movie. Given 1960s technology, and yes, I am aware of the irony of that statement, it was not possible, so NASA had to say it was due to small camera apertures that left the sky pitch black up above. Then, until now, they have stonewalled.

Below I am going to briefly recap each of the 14 parts of the Moondoggie series, with the following notes:

1) McGowan is a very good writer. His words have a nice flow to them, and he has a Wiley sense of humor. It is not hard reading.

2) He deals extensively with debunkers, who have been hard at work trying to make it all fit together ever since the 1990s. NASA itself is not in the debunking game, or only peripherally,  but has hired apparatchiks, one of them Phil Plait, who runs the Bad Astrology blog. McGowan has unkind words for him.

3) I am aware of my statements above that McGowan is a spook who faked his death, and much of his other work has been limited hangout. So too must the Moondoggie series be so, but I am yet to understand its purpose. I even imagined as I read along, this: What if NASA, which is saddled with the fake moon landings, has within it smart people who know it was fake, and that they get tired of having to defend this indefensible nonsense. What if they hired McGowan to use him as a way to vent. What if the Moondoggie series, which seems to have McGowan’s writer’s voice, was a NASA script, and McGowan a hire? Pure speculation.

That’s the best I can make of it. I urge that you read the McGowan essays yourself, but if not, here is a brief recap. (The subject at hand may change within a paragraph. I am re-skimming what I have read, selectively grabbing this and that. Again, reading the material for yourself would take about three hours, and McGowan is a good writer with a wicked sense of humor.)

PART I: The trigger for the series, he says, is the Dutch moon rock. If you are not familiar, NASA gave moon rocks to many countries and museums, and the Dutch proudly displayed theirs until it was pointed out to them that the rock was petrified wood of earthly origin. Anyway, McGowan says he was warned by a few people not to venture into Moondoggie territory, as he would be branded a kook. He has an advantage, he says. He doesn’t care. I am like that, and not a spook. Anyway, as I have noticed, even though it is a giant lie, Apollo was a benign lie. If anything, it lifted people up. McGowan mentions 911, of course buying the official story of 3,000 deaths used to launch illegal wars. People, he says, cling to the moon landings out of fear, knowing that if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything. That is true.

PART II: Moon rocks prove nothing. In fact, the Earth is pelted with such rocks from many places. Antarctica seems the best place to gather them, and indeed Werner van Braun led a mission there prior to Apollo 11. Ever since launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we’ve been promised images of the machinery left behind by the Apollo missions. It has not happened. Others have promised to try to find the landing sites, but none have delivered. Laser targets were allegedly left behind by Apollo astronauts so that signals could be bounced from earth. But that had been going on long before, no targets needed. The Lunar Excursion Module is a flimsy contraption, basically held together by tin foil. The upper half of LEM was more solid, as it had to take off from the moon and find the command module. Communications equipment of the time would not have allowed such a feat. (The Lunar Module, by the way, weighed 33,000 pounds. Just sayin’.) McGowan describes in detail what it would have had to carry. He says the spaceship was so overloaded that they needed to add a roof rack. Without making any changes to the lunar landing, they later added a dune buggy. By the way, NASA launched six lunar modules off the moon, and each docked with the command module. All of this technology was completely untested.

PART III: McGowan believes (and I cannot prove him wrong) that during the Cold War the US and the USSR were really enemies, and that the moon race was real. However, at the time of Apollo landings, perhaps 30% of the American public thought they were fake. That number at the time of McGowan’s writing (2009) was still 25%. (I read somewhere long ago that the two groups most likely to disbelieve the landings were real were blacks and gays, which makes sense as at that time both groups were alienated from normal society.) McGowan lays a lot of the blame for the hoax on Richard Nixon, saying he needed distraction from the Vietnam War. That would indicate that Nixon was really in charge of events, which I doubt, but cannot disprove. McGowan thinks that the entire Apollo program offered a nice diversion from all of the major events of that time, from Mai Lai to the invasion of Cambodia to the Pentagon Papers. I doubt it. We can multitask. Apollo 13 comes up for the first time here in Part III, the mission that got away from them, piloted by Tom Hanks and with Mission Control overseen by Ron Howard. McGowan thinks that Apollo was used to funnel money to the Vietnam effort.  NASA today says that for a return trip to the moon, astronauts will have to be protected for the entire trip. But really, don’t they merely have to consult the 1969 playbook? McGowan imparts a good understanding of the Van Allen belts, very useful.

PART IV: This part deals with the official NASA photographs. With all of the work I have done with photos, I have come to realize that people do not see with their own eyes, but rather those of authority figures, so this part was of least interest to me. Anyway, I seriously doubt any film (or astronaut) could have withstood the temperatures up there. But to run the mission without photos would leave the audience feeling gypped. So they shot them on earth. I was told that if stuff like film is in a vacuum, even in a hostile environment, that the temperatures do not transmit into that vacuum … which was why the photos are real. I do not believe that. I believe temperature, which is the absence or presence of heat, affects everything. Because there is no atmosphere to filter light, on the moon when the sun shines it is very bright, but only lights objects directly in its path. There is no secondary lighting going on. It is white and black. Most of the moon photos have secondary lighting. NASA’s official explanation for black skies is that the camera apertures had to be set to capture dazzling astronaut uniforms and the Apollo equipment, so that star light faded into the nether. At least they admit there was starlight. As to secondary lighting, they ain’t got shit.

PART V: McGowan here deals with the absence of craters under the lunar modules after allegedly hitting the surface with thousands of pounds of thrust. It is as if the landers were merely moved there by a crane. (They were.) There has been a lot of back and forth on this matter between skeptics and debunkers. Obviously, there should have been blast craters under the landers. The moon walking suits worn by the astronauts were made by Playtex, the same people who make bras and panties. They needed to be able to control the climate inside the suits, where outside temperature could vary by extremes of 590 degrees. They needed to switch from warm to cool in a heartbeat. They also needed to withstand high levels of radiation and microparticles hurtling at 5,000 mph, any one of which would kill the human inside the suit. NASA does not talk about the particle bombardment because they have no answer other than to claim it does not exist. But actual moon rocks prove otherwise, peppered with tiny craters from meteor impacts. If you are looking for actual double-down proof that we never went to the moon, this is it. As for a return trip to the moon, as proposed by President George W. Bush, not gonna happen. Cancel culture got them.

PART VI: NASA (in recent years) had sent a three-stage rocket to crash into a crater on the moon that never sees sunlight. There were to be three explosions, the first one spectacular. Media was on hyper alert, there was a large celebration to be had at the Ames Research Center and many other locations. Pffft. Forty years after five successful moon landings and return, crashing a rocket into it, a one-way trip, was the best NASA could manage. The objective was to see if there is a core of water under the surface, which at -400° F would surely be easy to put to use.

PART VII: No news outlet has ever allowed any skepticism about the lunar landings escape from the mouth of any talking head. McGowan, however, spent quite a few hours viewing documentaries which, of course, reinforce the notion that the landings were real (and spectacular). The Science Channel piped in, as did Nova. (I noticed years ago that Nova’s documentaries were very much the stuff of tabloids, littered with fake history and science. I quit watching them.) At the time of JFK’s announcement that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, the United States had a total of 15 minutes of LEO experience, that of Allan Shepard’s Mercury ride. In the meantime the Soviets, we are told, were chapters ahead of us in this story. McGowan lists 26 Soviet accomplishments that all trumped anything the US had done. My question is if their space program, like ours, was real or fake? Another thought I had – was real research being done jointly by the Soviets and NASA, with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo just a sideshow? That would explain the tawdry and cheep nature of US accomplishments, usually fake. The Soviets were said, by the way, to have landed and operated a robotic vehicle on the moon, a far cry ahead of the Willies Jeep vehicles that the US worked over to drive in the indoor studios. McGowan acts as if JFK was really in charge of anything at all, saying that he panicked after Gagarin’s orbiting flight around earth. That’s why, he says, that Kennedy made his historic announcement. I doubt it. By the way, debunkers say that it really doesn’t take much fuel to get to the moon once you escape earth’s orbit. I think they overlook something – the moon is held in Earth’s orbit. That takes some gravitational muscle. In 1962 Werner von Braun accepted what would later become the final plan to go to the moon, surprising everyone. Here I agree with McGowan: von Braun finally got the memo. No one was going anywhere. NASA at one time considered shaving astronauts head to toe, but ditched the idea, probably because they would look like aliens.

PART VIII: If you’ve ever stopped to gaze at a lunar lander in a museum, or pictures taken of it during the historic landings, you will notice it is draped in gold Mylar. It is paper thin. I guess if you believe this you’ll believe all the other stuff too. It is kind of like Covid and Climate Change, where the white lab coat cancels out natural skepticism. But no, that Mylar craft did not go to the moon. By the way, we have film and sound of the historic moon landing of 11, where the astronauts are sitting atop a column of thrust. I assume the Mylar also acted as a sound barrier. There were two engines aboard the Lunar Lander, one to land, one to take off. I urge that you watch the takeoff of The Eagle as it bolts into space on its mission to find the command module, which is flying around at 17,000 mph. I now know that it was not Grumman that designed it. It was Mrs. Orser’s second grade class. By the way, the LEM after return to Command Module had used up its engines. It was a one-shot deal, as they could not be reused. This meant that such an engine used on 11 could not be tested. NASA was concerned about sunlight and combustible fuels, but not about radiation. That’s odd. NASA used a simulator to teach the astronauts to land on the moon, but it turned out to be “unstable and dangerous.” Ergo, NASA did the logical next thing, to let them land a LEM on the moon, where it would probably perform perfectly. McGowan goes into detail about Apollo 13, the Tom Hanks-led mission. He is doubtful that that mission was real. Hanks is, after all, an actor. But wait! Am I talking about the movie or the real thing? Turns out they are interchangeable. By the way, footage of Mission Control in Houston had rows and rows of TV screens, each having its own operator. What on earth were they doing? It is hard to know. Pong was yet to be invented. The whole array had the computing power of one modern laptop. The spaceship that took them to the moon and back had total memory capacity of 72 kilobytes, or enough to hold one photograph.

PART IX: I have noticed that the two guys who host Mythbusters are clowns. But my noticing this came from watching them go to great effort (with the help of special effects) to debunk 911 critics. I was not aware they also debunked moon landing skeptics. They took the five “most common claims” of conspiracy theorists and debunked them. I won’t list them here, but suffice it to say that McGowan concluded that the guys did a pretty good job of debunking the myth that humans had actually walked on the moon. But TV shows like this are not subjected to real critiques. It is all in  house, a softball tournament. Eight aerospace companies had bid to make the suits that the astronauts would use on the moon. International Latex Corporation won out. It was not aerospace, but rather bras and panties. They submitted suits in 1963, but were so hot inside that NASA rejected them, demanding that ILC come up with a cooling system. They had not thought of that before? Well, no. Boobs can get hot and sweaty on a hot day, but no one ever demanded an air conditioned brassier. On June 3, 1965, Astronaut Ed White performed the first American space walk as part of Gemini. Amazingly, he did this before space suits were available for use. He must have used an Elvis impersonation costume. The spacesuits, by the way, had “sanitation management.” They contained urine bags attached to the astronauts’ penises. As to number two, NASA does not say. The Command modules used had to reenter Earth’s atmosphere traveling 25,000 mph. They had not propulsion or steering capability, having shed all that stuff in preparation. If they hit atmosphere too flat, they would bounce off into space. If they hit it too directly, they would burn up. All nine of them hit it just right. (You might think that Houston would be able to make course adjustments. Not so.) [Adding this later, a day after publishing: Reentry into Earth’s atmosphere could not be done! There was no perfect angle. There was no way to avoid being bounced or incinerated. Face palm.] Apollo 1 was the one that burned up with Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White on board, killing all three. Here again, no red flags go up for McGowan. I have a different theory on the matter. I don’t think anyone died, and that all three were shipped off to Santa Catarina to live out their lives. I think the fire, while real, was a hoax done to convince us, in NASA’a usually misdirected way, that the space capsule was loaded with sophisticated equipment that was going to take them to the moon and back. Not so, in my view. It was an empty can. That was the whole point, to burn it up to get us to ask the wrong question. There would follow eighteen months and over 100 design changes … to an empty can? How many times can they change the wallpaper? New seat covers? A new set of dice to hang from the rear view mirror? On Apollo 13 the astronauts describe a return journey with perspiration and breathing creating a maze of water droplets on the walls of the capsule. NASA blew it again. They were in space. The droplets should have been airborne.

PART X: Apollo 8 was a marvelous mission that overcame every problem of the previous missions, including that of Apollo six, which saw stages flaming out. I so remember it, as the Command Module orbited the moon on Christmas Eve (US time) while the astronauts read scripture. I do not read scripture, but love the sound of it, just as I love the quieting peaceful sound of Gregorian chant. No doubt this was a calculated move by NASA, and the boys performed well from their underground bunker, or wherever they were kept when they were supposed to be in space. By the way, this was the first manned test of the Saturn V rocket, and should have been done in low earth orbit. Instead, they took it all the way to the moon! Eyebrows up, anyone? I have this memory of laying on our couch asleep as a high school student, and then waking up to the moonscape, as a vehicle had just landed there, the Surveyor. I don’t know if that part is real, as here in the 21st century we can only smash rockets into the moon. But NASA had two unmanned programs, the Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter, all designed to collect and return data on the moon and its surface. People have wondered how NASA knew so much about the moon’s surface. This, if real, would be how. Otherwise, they just got what they needed from the Soviets, who had landed their own probe. McGowan wonders at the paucity of photos sent back by the Orbiter program, only 3,000. He suspects that NASA held back on film and footage in order to be able to use that footage for the Apollo moon landings. I’ll buy that. McGowan treats the LEO adventures of NASA, the Mercury and Gemini programs, as the real deal. That is troubling to me, perhaps his limited hangout self butting in again. He notes that Gemini astronauts came back down looking haggard and worn out, The Apollo 11 astronauts on return look fresh, as if they had been to the senior prom, maybe even getting lucky. By the way, McGowan shows a comparative image of the rockets used in Mercury and Gemini and Apollo. The latter is so much bigger that all the others could all easily fit inside. A Saturn V rocket was 363 feet tall, 6,000,000 pounds and had either 6 or 9 million parts. A few too many 3’s and 3-derivatives for my taste, spooky. Did I mention that the Lunar Lander weighed 33,000 pounds? McGowan, a spook, would surely see this. By the way, debunkers say that going the first 200 miles to the moon is heavy lifting, the rest a cake walk. Indeed.

PART XI: The US was entering weird times in the 1960s, the (fake) Zodiac killer, the (fake) Tate-Manson affair, the (fake) moon landing – McGowan wants to tie all this together, and since he is McGowan, he does not use the word “fake” for anything but the Moondoggies. The moon buggy did not appear until Apollo 15, and were was no modifications made to the Lunar Lander. Once they got there, it just appeared on the scene, no idea how they unloaded it. On the moon, cameras were placed on the astronauts chest, no viewfinder in use. In those days they had to adjust the aperture for light and focus manually. They had no idea where the camera was pointing. But man, they took some amazing photographs. By the way, does anyone who follows spook markers like 8 and 33 note that the first moon landing was Apollo 11? I notice this kind of stuff, just as I note that the Twin Towers looked an awful lot like an architectural 11. The story of development of the Lunar Rover is covered in this section. I know people who traveled Europe on folding bicycles, so I am totally on board with the Rover. It is said that the Soviets spent ten years researching and building their own Rover, and that the Americans merely stole (or bought) it. This sounds like misdirection. I cannot get it out of my head that the Lunar Rover was actually a modified Willies Jeep.

PART XII:  There was this thing called the Constellation Program, promoted by President George W. Bush (I was tempted to call it his brain child, but thought better). It was a fifteen year program to put us (back) on the moon by last year, 2020. It was an $11.5 billion dollar boondoggle, or should I say moondoggle. By the time the program was cancelled, deployment day had been pushed back to 2028. Man, how did they pull that off in the 1960s? There are plans to go to Mars, only an additional 33 million miles. I mean, as long as we are not going to the moon … just keep on going. The moon was to be a stopover on the way to Mars, but one has to wonder, why stop on the moon? Just go to Mars! That mission will be led, of course, by Matt Damon, as Tom Hanks is tied up. But wait – in this day and age, the Mars crew will have to have a strong woman commander, a gay, a transgender, a black, an Asian mathematician, a school teacher, and a virologist and a climate scientist. There is a nice photo series of the evolution of the American space suit in this part of McGowan’s series. Bill Kaysing, another skeptic and possibly controlled opposition, thinks that NASA’s first contract award to MIT without any bidding was done because MIT was able to show NASA how to simulate a fake moon program. Allegedly, MIT was to develop the navigation system to use to go there. Incidentally, there is a silent German film released in 1929 called Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon) that shows procedures to get to the moon that are remarkably similar to 1969. McGowan, I suspect, does not think this a coincidence, since the whole of the NASA saga is nothing but a movie.

PART XIII: Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong left, we are told, fecal bags on the surface of the moon. The State of California some time back declared those bags “historical resources.” Imagine the fun McGowan has with this. Moving on. He discusses theories about aliens and flying saucers. I find that all a bit outlandish, aware of the irony of that statement. It is rabbit-hole type stuff meant to distract us from the overarching point: Nobody went anywhere. (There is also a theory that Apollo was just a cover story for a real moon landing done in secret. I’ve heard this one, the idea being that if they screwed up and got people killed, no one would find out. This theory has just a wee bit more plausibility, but still, nobody went anywhere.) In addition, these theories operate to blackwash genuine and intelligent skeptics. I was not aware that Buzz Aldrin claimed that Apollo 11 was tailed all the way to the moon by a UFO. That’s rich, being tailed to a place you never went to. One of the objectives of atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs (yes I am aware that current vogue among readers and commenters is that they do not exist) was to blow a hole in the Van Allen Belts to allow passage of humans through. If true, they at least concede the the belts and radiation beyond them forbade space travel. NASA’s recent scientist for Exploration Systems says that space suits made on earth would have turned brittle on the moon. Now he tells us. has discovered that radiation is a problem in outer space, by the way.

PART XIV: PART XIII was to be the end of this series, so XIV is an afterthought. Anyway, before NASA went all crackers and turned space exploration over to Elon Musk, there was talk of future missions, and McGowan briefly recounts them here. Still, no one is going anywhere,


That’s it. I hope you have read this far, and have enjoyed what you read as much as I enjoyed writing it. Better yet, I hope you went to the Moondoggie site, and read it all yourself. The Moondoggie series is McGowan at his best. And I re-emphasize that McGowan is still alive, and is a spook. I cannot help but like him. And even as he did limited hangout on all his other projects, so too must Moondoggie be that. But I am not sure why. To repeat, my theory is that NASA, which has working for it real scientists and engineers, gets tired of having to defend the Apollo bullshit. So perhaps they engaged McGowan to write it all up, collect all the evidence, and lay it out. Just so they could laugh about it too.

170 thoughts on “Moondoggie: Nobody went anywhere

  1. OK, this is all I’ll say here. Craters under the lunar module? Seriously?

    What we see are the faintest traces of radial exhaust pattern – exactly what we might expect … just like the faintest traces of regolith particles in the mylar wrinkles on the landing pads. Faint traces that can barely be detected and, in fact, aren’t by most people are not characteristic of fakery (unless you’re faking paintings by the masters or things of that nature) and especially not of psyop fakery which is deliberately sloppy. Why everyone is absolutely fine for the moon landings not to betray the psyop hallmark of sloppy fakery while every other psyop known to man does I do not know … except of course in the case of ‘ol Billy Kaysing who 100% displays psyop trademarks.

    Because there was no blast.

    Rocket engines are not pressure washers.

    A pressure washer will excavate a cavity quickly because it’s pumping out a needle-thin stream of water (1000 times denser than air) at 1,500 pounds per square inch or more.

    An optimally designed rocket engine pumps out a high velocity stream of vaporous exhaust at as close to ambient pressure as possible. In the vacuum of space, the ideal pressure is zero.

    The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.

    Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.

    Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.


    1. I am so happy to read that this is all you have to say here, and hope you abide by the statement. I think absence of dust on the footpads of the LEM is quite a tell. Your explanation for absence of a landing crater probably came directly from some unnamed debunker. Unless, wait a minute! Are you a rocket scientist? You’re not? Are you sure you’re not a rocket scientist?

      But at least you’ve tried to set aside one of the hundred or so shortcomings in the NASA story that McGowan exposed. I hope you someday read McGowan’s work, or at least my short summary thereof.


      1. Mark, the first thing I did when I started to research the moon landings after I woke up to 9/11 was read Wagging the Moondoggie recommended to me by a diehard disbeliever of the moon landings and I was very, very taken with it. However, I thought I needed to do due diligence so I started to look at the evidence myself. When I came to the audio between astronauts and mission control I stopped dead in my tracks. I thought, “No way could you fake this, this cannot be faked – it’s just too long and boring – except, of course, if you happened to be there.” Of course, that’s just my opinion, right, I can’t say, “I think that audio couldn’t have been faked so therefore it wasn’t.” (My sister’s scoffing opinion is, “Well, of course, it could be faked.” What my sister doesn’t believe couldn’t be faked is … absolutely nothing. She will wave away the whole world as “could be faked”.) I don’t really consider arguing for my opinion, I always like to make it as objective as possible, not about opinion. So let’s move away from opinion to objective facts:
        Fact 1: There are hours and hours and hours of audio between astronauts and mission control
        Fact 2: No fakery has been identified in the audio. (Compare the audio of Collateral Murder used to infiltrate Wikileaks which exposes itself as faked in less than 60 seconds.)

        Occam’s Razor says audio not faked. Big time. Occam’s Razor screams very, very loudly audio not faked. I didn’t stop there though I still thought there was more due diligence to be done and I found that everywhere I turned everything fell into line, everything supported “real” and any seeming anomalies could be explained.

        I’m not a rocket scientist, of course, Mark, but then neither are you.

        Neither of us needs to be, all we need to do is follow the debunking trail.

        The person I quote may well not be a rocket scientist, however, they evince great enthusiasm for the subject of rocketry, etc which I do not detect in any shape or form in moon hoaxers.

        So if you have a debunking of the explanation for no crater, I’m all ears. As far as I can tell, the debunking trail on lack of crater stops with the debunkers but if there’s a moon hoax argument that debunks the explanation for a lack of crater I’m all ears. If there isn’t a debunking argument why would I go along with the moon hoax claim that there should be a crater? Surely, critical thinking demands that you subscribe to the argument that has no debunking of it. Person A says “It’s X,” then Person B says, “No, not X it’s Y because Z.” If Person A has no further response then unless we have any reason to doubt “Y” then “Y” it is!

        Where is the debunking of the explanation for lack of crater? I didn’t see a reference to it in your comment.

        Dave McGowan debunked. Only part of Wagging the Moondoggie at the link below is debunked, however, some of the things mentioned in it are debunked under the debunking of the film, American Moon (Parts 1 and 2) linked to at the bottom of the page below.


        1. “Occam’s Razor says audio not faked. Big time. Occam’s Razor screams very, very loudly audio not faked.”

          The audio may not have been “faked” (that is spliced or dubbed over), but that doesn’t necessarily prove the 1969 Moon landing was real, either. Audio evidence is not concrete visual evidence that the Apollo space mission to the Moon did happen, and it could’ve been recorded anywhere and later synched with the footage, but nothing else was done to the recording.


          1. And with regard to the geopolitical significance of the Apollo moon landings mentioned in the Reddit “rebuttal” of Dave McGowan’s tumultuous Moon landing series, one may argue that since America was in competition with Soviet Russia for supremacy in space (not to mention world domination as a leading superpower), why didn’t NASA launch more successful trips to the Moon (than it allegedly did from 1969-72) to shore-up the Russians as the domineering leader in space dominance, rather than stop altogether? Why didn’t they attempt to be the first in, say, establishing a space military outpost on the Moon before the Russians would even think of doing such a thing themselves? Some may argue that it would’ve been too expensive and “impractical” for the Americans to pursue such outstanding feats, but those same Americans have no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on phony and useless wars and expanding its military for no other purpose but to stupendously enrich big gov’t contractors and warmongering politicians and passing trillion-dollar spending and bailout bills through legislative organs like the U.S. Congress.


            1. an amazing thing happened: let me tell you about it.
              my 6 year old daughter practiced weeks and weeks to learn a certain difficult song on her new ukelele; finally she did it and performed for us without one mistake; when she was finished, she said;
              “o.k daddy now that i have perfected this song, i will never play it again”
              can you believe it!!
              i asked her why and she said “just because”


              1. Nice parable. I think the controllers sometimes don’t even offer people a good explanation for why they do certain things because they know the masses are beyond hopeless in understanding anything, so they don’t care to waste so much energy on explaining to people what they do and why they do it every single time.


        2. I find the term “debunk” offensive. It is much like what the climate change fanatics do when they claim that if you disagree with their bullshit science, you are a “denier”. It is a propaganda technique wherein people like you run to them when confronted with things you do not understand, saying “Help me Daddy! These people are being mean!” It is all structured around appeal to authority. By the same means, this thing called “Snopes” was constructed, by power of Intel set up to be a go-to for people who do not know how to think for themselves. Reddit must be similar. I find it stupid and offensive. That is really the problem, people incubated in our education system, with its SAT’s and ACT’s think there is a right answer to everything if only they consult the right authority figure. I am not speaking generally, Petri, or in a passive aggressive manner. I am talking about you, directly. You do not know how to think on your own, for yourself. You bring in isolated fragments of your own thinking, as in “Wow! They are talking alot on those tapes. That seals it for me. That could not have been faked.” That is as far as you go on your own. Then you go to “debunkers”, hired by NASA to paint nice verbiage, a bullshit spin of fake science on a scenario that is so absurd that anyone with a functioning brain turns away in disgust, as I do. No one fucking walked on the moon! You never learned how to think properly, skeptically, rationally, but my oh my, you did learn to persist. Stupidly, I am afraid. Please be done, soon.


          1. simmer down there bud….she has got your goat now; which might just be what she wants; this is her badge of distinction, and you can bet her daddy or uncle or someone important to her believed deeply in the moonlanding …and she is just being loyal to that memory ; i mean there must be some simple psychological explanation when a person who is not stupid acts like a complete idiot…who knows, maybe she is ….uh…. just uh…jewish?


          2. Mark, I am happy to use any word you care to name instead of debunk – not a word I’m fond of myself particularly but just one I happened to use. How about refute?

            What you’ve done is strawman me and I think it’s extremely important in critical thinking to avoid logical fallacies, especially those of strawman, cherry-picking and argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, eg, “if we’d gone to the moon, we would have gone again.”

            You say:
            “You do not know how to think on your own, for yourself. You bring in isolated fragments of your own thinking, as in “Wow! They are talking alot on those tapes. That seals it for me. That could not have been faked.” That is as far as you go on your own.”

            You could not misrepresent my argument more.
            I say it doesn’t seal it for me, quite the opposite … or if it seals it for me it’s not what I present to others. What’s important is not what you and I tend to believe, Mark, but what we can present as objective fact. This is key: what you and I think possible, probable or believe or disbelieve has no value in terms of argument if we do not have evidence for it. This is the key point I try to make. We must have evidence, it’s not about believe or what “seals it for me” or what “seals it for you”.

            So I say “I don’t think it could be faked” BUT what I present as argument is evidence, namely:
            — There are hours and hours of audio
            — No identification of fakery has been found (compare to Collateral Murder video where we can see fakery in the first 60 seconds)

            Now, of course, they could have faked hours and hours of it without identification of fakery but Occam’s Razor favours real. We’d have to assume they faked hours and hours without fakery being identifiable.

            I’m afraid your long post reminds me a little of a filibuster. I asked you a question but you didn’t answer it.

            How do you respond to the argument explaining why there is no crater under the LEM?


            1. dios mio
              enough of this repetitive crap…..saying the same fucking thing over and over.. and over and over…i tell you only jews are this neurotic…hahaha…
              you are alittle sick in the head girl

              ..mark, will you not ban this bitch already


              1. Yes, I recognise that I repeat myself but why? Because my argument is misinterpreted so I repeat it. I’m not sure how to avoid that. Perhaps you can give me some tips.

                Someone I know believed in the moon landings? No, the only people I know who show the remotest interest in the moon landings don’t believe in them, that is, my sister and two friends – and, of course, they’re not actually interested in the moon landings, they’re only interested in proving they didn’t happen. No one else I know is remotely interested.

                I really should give up, shouldn’t I, because I’m not getting through at all. I’m not really all that interested in the moon landings (although I will confess I do feel a great sense of admiration at the people who made them happen) what I’m interested in is critical thinking. Critical thinking is what I’m interested in and the moon landings is a great topic to apply it to. When you believe they didn’t happen you are not applying critical thinking properly because they’re very easy to prove … just as 9/11 is very easily proven an exercise, etc.

                I’m interested in critical thinking but what I see, Godfly, is that people can exercise critical thinking perfectly fine when their inclination to believe accords with reality … but when it doesn’t critical thinking flies out the window and people automatically start talking in logical fallacies.

                The reason I’m most passionate about the moon landings is that I think people saying they didn’t happen undermines the argument against the very, very many psyops we are subjected to.


            2. Petra,

              Could you please just acknowledge the existence of the Van Allen belts, and the fact that NASA has said we do not have the technology to get astronauts past them? (Not, “we used to have it, but we lost it,” or, “we used to have it, but the Van Allen belts changed and got more radiation-y and that’s why our old method of passing through them doesn’t work anymore. They acknowledge we do not–and therefore, presumably, if we’re going by Occam’s razor, have never had it.)

              I don’t expect you to change your mind on this or anything. I’d just like to see you acknowledge the Van Allen belts. Mark has pointed out repeatedly that you haven’t addressed them. What does your version of Occam’s razor say about them?

              Your avoidance of this (in my view) insurmountable hole in the story reminds me of the New Normals I know who will argue with me on every single point I raise about the plandemic except PCR. When I try to get specific about the glaring problems with that part of the story, they change the subject as if they hadn’t heard me, or as if the letters “PCR” simply won’t stick in their short-term memory.

              Van Allen belts, Van Allen belts, Van Allen belts, Van Allen belts….


              1. The Van Allen belts? Haven’t addressed? I was sure I had but if I haven’t here’s the explanation.

                Just to say, Scott, especially when there’s vast amounts of evidence you don’t hinge an argument on one thing because however compelling it might seem you might be wrong on it, you have to look at everything and see how it all fits together. We could say that 2.25 seconds of free fall in the collapse of WTC-7 is all we need to know that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Of course it is (as are many other single pieces of information) but nevertheless you check to make sure that everything else lines up … and it all does perfectly. The Van Allen belts stopping astronauts from going to the moon does not line up with all the other evidence … not at all … and as it happens there’s a perfectly good explanation.

                I refer you to this page which answers four questions about the Van Allen belts, the second and third relating to the anomaly you cite.

                If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?

                The NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, who says the Van Allen belts are dangerous in the clip starting at 1:09:44 actually explains the reason. He says “radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion”. Smith does not say that the radiation is a danger to humans. NASA scientist David Sibeck gives more detail here, stating that “Our current technology is ever more susceptible to these accelerated particles because even a single hit from a particle can upset our ever smaller instruments and electronics.” It is the threat to sensitive electronics, not to people, which is the problem.

                Scott, no one can come along and say it was really 19 terrorists can they? The evidence is too clear. That’s how I feel about the moon landings. There’s simply no anomaly anyone can throw up because the evidence of having gone is too clear. I’ve done due diligence, I’ve looked at every anomaly-says-we-didn’t-g0 argument I can find and every single one has a perfectly good response. Sure, someone can still throw up a seemingly anomaly I can’t respond to but that won’t make me think, “Oh gee, maybe they didn’t go,” because I see too much evidence.


                1. In my “filibuster”!, which you obviously did not read, much less reading McGowan himself, which is what I recommended (I only capsulized for those not willing to take the time and effort to read McGowan, you know, kind of … like you), I say that McGowan had a good grasp of the Van Allen belts, which protect our planet from radiation, which is omnipresent in space. The VA belts themselves are an issue, but so too is everything beyond. Radiation after traveling through the belts is the biggest problem. It is on the moon, and all the way there. It is a problem that NASA today says is not solved. They do not know how to protect astronauts going and coming back. Cherry pick that.

                  There is also the problem of micro-meteor pelting the moon’s surface, traveling at 5,000 mph, if one were to hit an astronaut, he would be toast. The moon rocks, which were actually picked up in Antarctica, were covered with mini craters due to being pelted with these things. NASA was trying to show those were really moon rocks, and in the process showed that humans would not survive on the lunar surface. Rocks of origin from Earth are not pocked in this manner. They cannot have it both ways. NASA today talks about having to build shelters or force fields on the moon’s surface to protect people. If you had read what I wrote above, merely echoing McGowan, you would remember what I said about this issue: “But actual moon rocks prove otherwise, peppered with tiny craters from meteor impacts. If you are looking for actual double-down proof that we never went to the moon, this is it.” And it, along with the Pollacio film, stand as two solid pieces of evidence that bolster the case of anyone with the good sense to doubt the moon landings. There is plenty of other stuff, which you have not addressed, not read.

                  You cherry pick. You need to address the whole of the McGowan work, all fourteen pieces. I used it because 1) it is comprehensive (no cherry picking), 2) readable for the layman, and 3) provided by a hostile witness, i.e., McGowan (fake death 11/22/15) is, in my view, a spook, and his Moondoggie series may well have been backed by NASA itself as a limited hangout. What is he hiding? I do not know, only that in all his other work, he hides stuff. There is my issue, where hard critical thinking is needed. What is he hiding? I do not, as of yet, have the answer. I could use some help.

                  I have not built a straw man. I have built a large and thorough case, which required sweat equity and verbiage. Your calling my effort a “filibuster” merely indicates you did not have the diligence to read it. It required thoroughness. That it bounced off you … and, by the way, all of the tapes and records of the trips to the moon having been lost by NASA is merely evidence that they never existed. What they claim to be the most important journey in human history would require extra and expensive effort to preserve all the evidence for posterity.

                  If we had gone to the moon, not only would we have gone again, we would have preserved the evidence. What planet do you live on?


                  1. By the way, I suggest you sit down and write a comprehensive refutation to the McGowan work. All of it. I’ll gladly allow it to be published here. Your words, not a paid debunker. Do you have it in you! Do ya, punk?


                  2. Mark, you’re simply not responding to the information put in front of you.

                    Please do not accuse me of lying. I said the first thing I did when I started to research the moon landings was, on the recommendation of a dieahard disbeliever-of-the-moon-landings friend, read Wagging the Moondoggie – whose title I have to say I absolutely love. I have absolutely zero recollection of what was in it but I remember feeling that it was very persuasive. As I’ve already said, however, once I started to research the evidence myself I changed my mind about whether the landings happened or not.

                    “If we’d gone to the moon we would have gone again,” is a logical fallacy of the type, argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. The evidence presented for going is what proves we went or didn’t, not whether we went again or not. If you are happy to indulge in logical fallacies for your argument then so be it, there cannot be a logical argument.

                    Part of Wagging the Moondoggie is refuted here:

                    And explanation of accommodating the radiation in the Van Allen belts is explained here as is why now they are more problematic to get through than they were during Apollo:

                    You still haven’t provided a response to the explanation for the reason there is no crater under the LEM which I put below. What is your response?

                    “Rocket engines are not pressure washers.

                    A pressure washer will excavate a cavity quickly because it’s pumping out a needle-thin stream of water (1000 times denser than air) at 1,500 pounds per square inch or more.

                    An optimally designed rocket engine pumps out a high velocity stream of vaporous exhaust at as close to ambient pressure as possible. In the vacuum of space, the ideal pressure is zero.

                    The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.

                    Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.

                    Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.”

                    I think I really, really will leave it here, Mark. I know I’ve said it before and kept coming back, however, all that ends up happening is that I repeat what I’ve already said because you do not take what I say onboard.


                    1. Petra,

                      you say:
                      Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.

                      Just for absolute clarity – as this sentence may be badly formed – are you saying the “reason” the engines are cut off several feet early is to avoid “disturbing the landing site”? As opposed to either landing at the correct speed, killing the astronots, breaking the landing craft or inadvertantly bouncing back into orbit?

                      Please explain? Why would a few million/billion/trillion tons of regolith, untouched for million/billions/trillions of years need to be undisturbed by the landing of the first/second/third visitors? Is that documented anywhere? Did NASA write that one down? “please ensure you dont disturb the landing site – or at least minimize dfisturbance by turning off the landing thrusters “several feet” before landing

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. You accused. me of “cherry picking.” If you were paying attention, if you had indeed read my work and better yet, McGowan, you would be able to compile a list of fifty, sixty objections to the lunar landings being real. As it is, you cherry pick, and then, as with Ayokera below, when confronted with hard (and technically challenging) evidence, you back away and fall back on your original and easily falsified narrative.

                      Now, go back down to Ayokera’s post below and deal with his evidence! Better yet, read Moondoggie, compiling a list of objections McGowan makes, and then do not cherry pick! Deal with all of them.

                      Since I posted before knowing that McGowan is alive and well in LA, and that he is a spook and controlled opposition, and that his other works are limited hangouts, Moondoggie is a LH as well. That in mind, use your creative imagination to explore what he is hiding. Make good use of your time, as, after all, no one went to the fucking moon.But an investment of that size might have needed a cover story to hide its real purpose. That is where all the work to date has taken me. Use your brain here, join me in the search for truth.


                2. In order to “acknowledge the existence of the Van Allen belts” there is evidence needed.

                  And there only 2 possibilities exist:
                  A – space travel is real – meaning there should be tons of data that support the existence, dangers AND mitigation of those dangers of the VAb
                  B – space travel is not real – meaning that the VAb are merely a model, not calibrated with real data, because we (mankind) cannot acquire those data

                  As everyone here knows or should know, my position is B, so nobody or no thingy has ever traversed those belts. So in my books it is not an argument for or against the moonlandings.

                  But, interestingly enough, the very proponent of the belts, geophysicist James Van Allen, excluded all the Apollo missions in his 1997 (!) publication about the belts. I have the paper on my computer, inaccessible at the moment, will link it when I have access again.

                  Isn’t that odd?


                3. Petra, you keep saying that the moon hoaxers seem oblivious to the fact that their doubts have all been time and again thoroughly explained and debunked by the real “experts”.
                  On the moonhoax debunkers site that you often link to, proudly busy “dispelling doubts about the Moon landings, celebrating courage and ingenuity”, they are ready to answer point by point to all the more popular objections posed by the annoying non-believers.
                  On the fluttering flag anomaly they entertain us with a convoluted lecture about how static charges not only can cause flag to flutter, but just the right amount as seen in the footage. Right.
                  At point 8.8 we also read:
                  “How come meteoroid showers didn’t kill the astronauts?”
                  “IN A NUTSHELL: Because big enough meteoroids are actually incredibly rare. The spacesuits and spacecraft had protective layers designed to absorb the impact of the minute specks that constitute the vast majority of meteoroids. There is no protection against larger meteoroids other than the very low probability of being struck, but this is an acceptable risk, as demonstrated by the fact that satellites, space probes, crewed spacecraft and the International Space Station don’t get riddled by meteoroids.
                  THE DETAILS: The Moon is pock-marked with craters produced by the constant crashing of meteoroids: rocky or metallic masses of all sizes that travel through space at speeds up to 80,000 kilometers per hour (about 50,000 mph).
                  Looking at the Moon, it’s understandable that someone might wonder how the moonwalkers could have possibly coped with this constant lethal danger. The answer is actually quite simple: they relied on probability.
                  In addition, most meteoroids are literally microscopic in size. They have an enormous speed, but an almost negligible mass, so if a micrometeoroid strikes an astronaut it is stopped by the spacesuit’s outer layers, which are designed for this purpose. The space suits used by the Apollo moonwalkers and the ones used today for work in space have essentially the same type of multilayer protection against micrometeoroids. That’s one of the reasons why they’re so bulky.”

                  OK, to correctly examine the soundness of their explanation we need firstly to define a couple of points, namely:
                  1) which size/weight qualifies as “minute specks” or “microscopic in size”? What dimensions qualifies a speck as a “micrometeoroid”?
                  2) how common are micrometeoroids in space?

                  Wpedia is happy to help letting us know that:
                  1) A micrometeoroid is a tiny meteoroid: a small particle of rock in space, usually weighing less than a gram. 
                  2) Micrometeoroids are extremely common in space. 

                  So, according to the experts, any speck weighing less than a gram qualifies as a micrometeoroid, they are EXTREMELY COMMON in space and “CONSTANTLY CRASHING ON THE MOON”.
                  Petra, I have a question for you: have you ever bother thinking how much kinetic energy has a tiny speck weighing “less than a gram” travelling at 80,000 km/h (50,000 mph)?
                  May I briefly annoy you with some very simple calculations?
                  Kinetic energy is E=1/2 mv2 (m in kg and v in m/s resulting in Joules)
                  Now let’s take some very tiny specks, I’m speaking of milligrams, something like 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg and 100 mg, may we agree they’re small enough to qualify for “minute” and “microscopic”?
                  Here is your kinetic energy at velocities of 40,000 km/h and 80,000 km/h

                  WEIGHT VELOCITY (KM/H)

                                                     40,000              80,000
                                                       ENERGY (JOULES)

                  1 mg 62 246
                  5 mg 310 1,230
                  10 mg 620 2,460
                  100 mg 6,200 24,600

                  OK, but, you ask, is that a lot, or negligible? And how much is a lot?
                  Here is for comparison the average muzzle energy of some common firearms calibers + the most powerful elephant safari rifle in the world.

                  22 LR 136
                  38 SP 298
                  357 MAG 767
                  44 MAG 1,288
                  454 CASULL 2,509
                  700 NITRO EXPRESS 12,100

                  You can see we need much, much less than a gram for those microscopic specks to have energy that easily range among that of big bore handgun cannon like the huge 44 MAG revolver from Dirty Harry’s fame and even up to twice the energy of an elephant safari rifle.
                  If the spacesuits and helmets failed to stop the nasty little things I hope you agree they would have easily pierced through the whole head or body, exiting the other side almost undisturbed, and I seriously doubt that would have been a healthy treatment for the moonwalkers.
                  Assuming instead the spacesuits and helmets were really capable of stopping 44 Mag. and elephant rifle bullets (you seriously believe that, in your heart?), still a huge amount of energy had to be dissipated at every impact, and here the only way the energy can dissipate is onto the astronot’s body. Do I need to point out how much unhealthy absorbing that kind of impact energy is going to be too?
                  The same goes for the lunar module or any other delicate device and machinery they brought on the moon surface.
                  Petra, in truth, if you were a NASA lunar mission director, would you send men to the moon surface knowing there’s a very high chance they and their precious equipment will be under bombardment by things akin to 44 mag bullets and very possibly to much worse? Does it sound remotely reasonable to you?
                  If you find my reasoning faulty please enlighten me.
                  If you think it’s correct, do you really still believe the moonhoax debunkers know what they’re talking about?


                  1. “Petra, I have a question for you: have you ever bother thinking how much kinetic energy has a tiny speck weighing “less than a gram” travelling at 80,000 km/h (50,000 mph)?”

                    No, I haven’t because I don’t look at things I have no understanding of. Why don’t you post your question on Quora or reddit or somewhere where people have a greater understanding of the physics of these things.

                    What I do is focus on the things I DO understand and in my opinion I have acquired sufficient knowledge on the things I DO understand to state categorically that astronauts went to the moon.

                    What needs to be considered is that when there is sufficient evidence there can be no seeming anomaly that somehow comes along and refutes the argument, that is not the nature of reality. No one can come along now and say it was 19 terrorists, can they? There is simply no anomaly that can pop up. If any seeming anomaly is presented we KNOW a priori that it has an explanation that makes it a “non-anomaly”.

                    What moon hoaxers do is keep coming up with anomalies that haven’t been responded to yet. Put your anomalies to Apollo enthusiasts and see what they have to say, not to me, who understands nothing about physics, space, etc, which isn’t to say that because I lack that understanding I still can’t make a judgement about whether we went or not because the nature of something huge like the moon landings is that there will be evidence from all manner of angles that say we went or we didn’t and there is too much evidence that I can be sure about that says we went so that I don’t have to worry about every little seeming anomaly that comes along.

                    I don’t know how they laid the explosives on 9/11 or exactly which buildings were laid. Was WTC-6 laid with explosives or was the damage genuinely caused by the collapses of the towers? Many, many things I have no idea about for 9/11 and cannot explain but that doesn’t mean we can’t all know that it was essentially a big exercise where buildings were destroyed. We can all know that regardless of the limits of our knowledge on all manner of things 9/11-related.

                    It is a fallacy to think that you need to explain every seeming anomaly, you don’t. All you need is sufficient evidence that supports and favours one hypothesis over another. and there are massive amounts of evidence that favour the reality of the moon landings with only SEEMING anomalies refuting that evidence, they only seem to be anomalies but this will be due to lack of sufficient understanding.


                    1. Your logic goes something like this

                      You: I know the moon landings are real.
                      Me: How do you know?
                      You: because I don’t see the revelation of the method I usually find in psyops, there are no blatant anomalies in the official narrative.
                      Me: actually a lot of blatant anomalies have been spotted and pointed out.
                      You: every single alleged anomaly has been thoroughly explained and debunked. Just go to that website, they’re technogeeks and you’ll find all the answer you need.
                      Me: how do you know the debunking is valid and the debunkers aren’t just full of crap?
                      You: I can’t make heads or tails of all that stuff but I know it must be valid.
                      Me: why?
                      You: because otherwise the moon landings would be fake, and I know they’re real.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Strawman.
                      “You: I can’t make heads or tails of all that stuff but I know it must be valid.”

                      —1. Wherever seeming anomalies have been explained, the argument ends with the explanation of the seeming anomaly, that is, the moon hoaxer doesn’t come back with a refutation of that explanation.
                      Good example: No one has come back with a refutation of the explanation for why there is no crater under the LEM. Mark hasn’t attempted it – or did I miss it? – and Gaia evades responding to the explanation by saying there’s proof that no rocket went to the moon in the first place so crater irrelevant.

                      —2. I focus on what I can understand – of which there is a reasonable amount – enough to state categorically that astronauts went to the moon when combined with 1. above.
                      Example: I can understand that hours and hours of audio between astronauts and mission control with no identification of fakery favours the hypothesis we went over the hypothesis we didn’t. Occam’s Razor says if it were fake we’d have to assume they faked hours and hours of it without showing signs of fakery whereas the real hypothesis fits perfectly.


                    3. About that, I find it difficult to imagine, as the Moon landings were fake, the the hoaxers had to know they were going to have to construct a dialogue between the astronauts and between them and the people “on earth,” as if all were not on earth. I find that evidence to be a non-starter.

                      Regarding the crater, Gaia is correct that there can be no crater when there is no landing, but we are indeed arguing angels on the head of a pin. As to whether there should be a crater, purely hypothetical, it depends on whether or not the hypothetical landing sight was solid rock or covered with dust. Since the hoaxers show us astronaut footprints in dirt, at least NASA maintains that the surface is covered with dirt. If you read Moondoggie, you would know that McGowan quotes one of the astronauts has complaining of being covered in moon dust after a buggy ride. So NASA apparently says that there should be a crater, if only one as deep as the soil on the planet.


                4. Something messed up the number formatting, let’s try again

                  WEIGHT ENERGY (JOULES)

                                                       40,000 KM/H            80,000 KM/H

                  1 mg 62 246
                  5 mg 310 1,230
                  10 mg 620 2,460
                  100 mg 6,200 24,600

                  22 LR 136
                  38 SP 298
                  357 MAG 767
                  44 MAG 1,288
                  454 CASULL 2,509
                  700 NITRO EXPRESS 12,100


        3. Mark,

          In the video you linked of the capsule taking off, it is immediately apparent that there is a cloud of dust formed due to the rockets. That cloud of dust is still there well into the filming of the craft rising from 0:10 seconds onwards


          What is the power of the take-off engine? It sits atop the module and so the direct downdraft of the exhaust is first hitting that, but is then powerful enough to escape around the edges of the LM and billow up a good cloud of dust – each and every particle of which must follow a parabolic trajectory and fall individually as discrete entities

          Why is there a cloud at all?
          That should be like throwing a few hundred million M&Ms into the air and them NOT following the laws of physics and falling back down immediately on parabolic paths

          Everything in a fairly large radius of that cloud will have dust settle on it as it lands including the feet – as we should have seen during the landing

          This is very obvious proof that what you have stated above is wrong and the downdraft does not need an atmosphere to disperse the dust like the jet-washer you described. The released accelerating gases from the engine do indeed provide downdraft and a cloud – which would have been much larger had the LM not been in the way

          If, say the LM had NOT been in the way, would you agree that the force of the jet would have caused/created a crater?

          Its a yes or no answer that one


    2. One comment:. The world’s greatest “achievement” where life literally hangs by a thread…

      And they “cut off” engine at some elevation to “minimize disturbance” of the surface? Is that what you are saying?

      Is like Columbus landing off the Caribbean Islands and paddling extra mile (or three)…”because he didn’t want to disturb the beach”.

      I’ve literally heard it all now, thanks for humor 🙂

      And just because they tell you they can throttle a liquid rocket engine doesn’t make it true.

      Combustion instabilities and thrust oscillations are one hell of an obstical to overcome with “steady state” flow. And this indeed was and is a serious issue even today. To say they “resolved” this “issue” over an entire spectrum(!!) of “throttle settings” sounds to me the stuff of SpaceX today.



      1. Comment became misplaced…was a direct response to Petra’s comment at very top of comments section…regarding “shutting off engine” at elevation so as “to not disturb surface”

        What prompts such nonsense, do I dare ask? It’s borderline pathological lol.


        1. And then a few years later they bring along a Willey’s Jeep to perform rooster tails destroying virgin surface of Moab..
          I mean “moon”.


          1. It’s good to see you actually read through those word salads and pick up on this hilarious ad hoc “argument” Petra posted.

            All those sediments thrown up in Earth’s gravity (faking 1/6th gravity that the Moon has according to the presented model was impossible), that shouldn’t be there in the first place and not even 1 new mineral in there.

            It must be she is trolling, or posing. No serious human can defend that Apollo string puppet theater.


              1. I dunno, but in Colombia it is, yeah, interesting. Inflation is high, most prices have doubled in a year, especially meat. And as of 2 weeks ago, only mutants are allowed in restaurants, bars, public transportation and events. Which is fine, I didn’t do that anyway anymore.

                I see less masked people, which is good, but more crazies attacking Molly, which is not.

                How’s things over there?


                1. Things are OK.

                  Thanks for chiming in..I will tune it n to Eye Am Eye podcast..
                  Good reminder, thank you. It’s been awhile for me.

                  Have good evening.


        1. Those thrust oscillations will literally destroy your curtain rod, bailing wire, aluminum foil craft in mid flight!!!

          What’s an Astronaut to do??

          Can’t shit your pants! No measures were taken to deal with that!!


      2. And they “cut off” the engine … yes, that’s what I’m saying or at least I’m just quoting. I wouldn’t have the foggiest if that seems like an OK thing to do or not although I cannot say it immediately strikes me as anomalous … but seemingly you think that that wouldn’t happen because …

        … so what you’re telling me, Rasputin, is that because Columbus wouldn’t have stopped paddling before he landed this means the LEM wouldn’t have cut off its engine despite the fact that we can see two important differences: boats move horizontally and need something to push them while a LEM descending on the moon is able to move with its already existing momentum (not to mention gravity although in space you don’t even need gravity right, if you’ve got momentum with no resistance you just keep going).

        Wow! I’m just utterly astounded that people would use an analogy in that way. I’m simply gobsmacked where the differences are so utterly enormous and yet you make one completely different scenario mean another couldn’t have happened the way it did because it doesn’t copy the same formula.


        1. It’s no longer a “technical’ discussion at this point…but a commonsense one.

          Be gobsmacked, please. By all means.

          What the F is more important, a safe landing or the preservation of virgin “Moon Surface”??

          I await your next 800 word response with all due eagerness.

          But you won’t get another response from me. I encourage others to do the same 🙂


            Finally, one or more of three 67.2-inch (1.71 m) probes extending from footpads on the legs of the lander touched the surface, activating the contact indicator light which signaled the commander to shut off the descent engine, allowing the LM to settle onto the surface.

            It seems it was only shut off virtually at touch down, Rasputin. But Columbus yeah …

            A little learning is a dangerous thing.

            I remain gobsmacked, I really do.


            1. 1 meter being 3 feet, so 1.7 meters being ~5 feet…

              They shut the F’n engine off 5 feet above “Moon Surface”…a rocket engine…and zero disturbances…or as you say “disturbances captured in miniscule resolution”…

              Where did you come from, you are so full of $h@t.

              Sweet Moon Dreams you stupid $#@_.

              Bye bye.


              1. Where’s their laser altimeter?

                They fly a Lunar Module with antenna-like wire fingers, each w/ a mechanical switch, extending off “landing pads”?? Contributing greatly to failure rates?

                Really? Just WHAT KIND OF BS ARE YOU selling the public??

                You are definitely a spammer, a BS artist, and I agree w/ our friend in Japan…you of a certain “persuasion”.

                How much are you getting paid??


                1. LOL. Two words, Rasputin: Bill Kaysing.

                  Bill Kaysing oh did he have you all fooled. You simply don’t understand how the perps understand the disbeliever-by-default mentality – they so completely understand it – even when I point out Bill Kaysing’s giveaway psyops signs you still don’t get the significance. You just don’t get it. They so overegged the omelette with Bill and yet no one picked him up as an agent. Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne and said that the lunar module would have created a crater that it would have sunk into. They had fun with that one I bet.


                    1. I highly doubt that Bill Kaysing was “controllable” and think that he was very much in the opposition – he was more “hippie” than most hippies, listen to nardwuar’s interview with the wacky (but truthful – or, let’s say, essentially right) guy.


  2. If one hasn’t yet figured it out…they ALWAYS have to have bigger and Bigger and BIGGER “projects”…to keep the slaves a workin’!

    Keep that alarm clock a chirpin’ to get one’s ass out there …commute! Hurry”. Meeting!! Presentation! Proposal!! Client! Customers!!

    Work, and work some more!!!

    That’s a huge element in the control system!!

    You need a bigger and more expensive car!! What kind of BS are you?!?

    Mars!! Just LOOK at the rockstars!!! They Did It!!!

    Now we have to fund “Space Force”! And “Global Warming”! In addition to $1T annual “defense”!

    I can assure you some if not most of these “brilliant minds” are as dumb as a rock…I promise you! Regarding certain things as discussed on POM.


  3. I started doubting the moon landings when I heard about Buzz smacking a guy for daring to ask him to swear on a Bible that he went to the moon, that was on a programme called ‘QI’ hosted by the smug, patronising, gay Jewish actor Stephen Fry who said words to the effect that ‘He was upset, you’d be upset if someone doubted your word…’ (More upset if you’d been found out!) Like The Castaways’ song goes – Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    ‘They can launch rockets, but they can’t land them. There is no way to make rockets run backward and land.’ MM


    1. According to “SpaceX”, the rockets go up per usual, then perform a BACKFLIP, and then proceed to fight gravity all the way down…to enable a “soft landing” on their special “landing gear”.

      And the idiots, aviation “experts” included, cheer this $#@t on!!!

      You see, just like dancing nurses during “covid”, literally EVERYONE wants to be a “rockstar”…so when Covid hit, they nurses day in the Sunshine, in the spotlight, finally came!!

      On moment of glory!! 🙂


    2. I suspect, Jackie, that the Astronauts are people of integrity caught up in something much bigger than them. Those NDA’s they sign must be bullet proof. Since they are military, they could be jailed for violating them. That is why Aldrin punched the guy … he was put in an impossible spot. His personal integrity would not allow him to put his hand on the Bible and tell a lie. So he punched the guy who put him in the box. Neil Armstrong became a virtual recluse … understandable if he has personal integrity, which I think he did.


        1. Imo they have been MK-Ultra’ed into those positions. You see it in the empty stares when they are talking. And that is the only way they could convey a barely (one P. Liverani is the only one in the world defending these silly space stories) believable show.

          Also as a result of the same programme; when Michael Collins remarked “I don’t remember seeing any [stars]”, he was NOT lying. Because he wasn’t in some capsule doing 360s ’round the Moon, but in some bunker in wherever.

          Same for Mr. Bean about “cannot recall we went far enough out [to cross the Van Allen belts]”. Indeed, he didn’t go that far.

          I think the contents of what Bart Sibrel asked was not so important, more his style. Aldrin felt harrassed and his property invaded and the alcoholic decided to go for the punch. Some (was it Mathis?) have even suggested that whole scene was staged which I wouldn’t exclude as possibility.


          1. Maybe they were under some sort of mind control or, like everyone else, were deceived into believing the lies, but I highly doubt it. I don’t think any of these high-profile actors at NASA are simply unwitting dupes of the ruthless charlatans behind these stories and projects.


            1. I wouldn’t call them dupes, but they were of course mind controlled. With or without substances, doesn’t matter, but the behavior the Apollo 11 dudes showed at the infamous interview did not look natural to me, it did to you??

              Being kept in a safehouse and 24/7 being scripted on what you have to say (and especially not say) on air is pure mind control, right?


                1. Huh? The famous post-Apollo 11 interview with Patrick Moore asking the question about the stars. You find it easier and better than I can on this tablet.

                  That interview, you want to tell me those three guys were their normal self, you must be joking… ???


                  1. “That interview, you want to tell me those three guys were their normal self, you must be joking… ???”

                    I never claimed that they were “normal” in any way. I do believe that they were knowingly lying to the public regardless if they’re normal or not. All I ask is to see that video you mentioned.


                    1. Thanks a lot, MM. In the first minutes of Neil Armstrong talking, he appears to be speaking a little slowly and stuttering a bit. It looks like he was lightly sedated with drugs, or maybe that’s how he normally spoke. The two men sitting with him seem to be speaking normally in comparison, indicating that they weren’t under influence and had no problem bambozzling their audience. Perhaps Armstrong was a little anxious about outright lying to the public, so he may’ve taken or was given sedatives to calm him down in order to make it possible for him to do his job.


    3. ‘They can launch rockets, but they can’t land them. There is no way to make rockets run backward and land.’

      This is one of the biggest “tells” of all in the BS official story Jackie, although there are many as Mark points out. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of basic physics can tell you that power from only one engine is inherently unstable in any craft. Unless going full speed AHEAD and even that is potentially very unstable. Why do you think that drones have multiple engines? Even the old Harrier jump jet needed multiple engines to land. The LEM is just a stupid fairy story, yet it is supposed to have worked PERFECTLY every time it was deployed

      Thanks for a good summary of McGowan’s amusing book Mark. It’s his best work in my opinion, although I did enjoy “Weird Scenes” as well. Despite the fact that it comprehensively took down one of my rock favourites, Frank Zappa, who was very funny, very dirty minded, outrageous and a brilliant guitarist as well.

      Frank was well ahead of his time:

      He released that in 1973, I think. It is still relevant in today’s covid madhouse nearly 50 years later


      1. Great point about the single engine Pete, thank you.

        It is that point also why I think John le Bon is very right about (steerable) missiles being fake. There you have also apparently steering rockets that seem to behave like Hollywood props.

        The thing with these tell-tale signs is that once you see it, you cannot unsee it. The Playmobil thingy, the lack of any believable physics, it doesn’t matter to the psyopaths. Though I think there is hardly any psyop so widely dismissed by the public as the Moondoggie show.


  4. I’ve come to realize that NASA is a huge brain drain, getting the best and brightest to waste their best years compartmentalized on these projects which are designed not to work at all. Instead of building flying cars or green LGBTQ+++ friendly sustainable mouse traps, they essentially build nothing. (At least nothing that could help wider humanity. I’m sure some of these well intentioned fools have moved espionage forward by light years)
    Rome suppressed technology, having shelved batteries, computers and steam tech so as to not lose control of their empire of prisons, and the same is happening today. Sure, there are our back pocket toys, but we are more penned in than ever because all the computer does for most people is convince themselves they are all equal. While warm fuzzy on the surface, unrealistic dreams also create nothing. We aren’t created equal. We aren’t legally represented equally, and we aren’t at the same level of sustainable health. There is no one size fits all. That hands across the universe crap is commie talk, citizen!


    1. Not to mention that it’s also a huge financial drain, although that’s nothing compared to the gigantic money drain that is the military industrial complex (if we are to believe the official stats that state NASA’s budget is 23 billion dollars yearly and the U.S. military’s budget is now close to a trillion dollars yearly).


    2. I only once, when I still used Facebook once in while years ago, commented on fake space travel, to a post made by a former classmate (highschool, not uni).

      Promptly next day (!) I got an invite from a Dutch NASA employee on my LinkedIn. I didn’t know the guy (so didn’t accept the invite) and didn’t ask the girl if she arranged it or so, it was just weird and very fast.

      And I agree with your observation, or how Fakeache from Sweden said it at Eye am Eye Radio : “theoretical physics [we talked about that, but the essence is the same] is invented to let the brightest minds study meaningless things”.



      Dr. XXXX is the Planetary Protection Officer for NASA and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance. In this role, he oversees the responsible exploration of the solar system by implementing and developing efforts that protect the science, explored environments and Earth. Planetary Protection is concerned with forward contamination of another world with life from Earth and backward contamination of Earth with a life-form from another world. Forward contamination is assessed by looking for evidence of Earth-like environments on other planetary bodies and considering the potential for a terrestrial microbe, transported on a spacecraft, to find a refuge and remain viable in an extraterrestrial setting. NASA requires every planetary mission to meet stringent requirements for biological cleanliness during assembly and launch of spacecraft. Backward contamination is assessed by looking at each step in the chain of contact from collecting samples on another planetary body through transporting and landing on Earth. NASA carefully analyzes the potential for an as-yet-unknown extraterrestrial life-form to be released on Earth as a result of returning samples for scientific study.

      Good to know you are doingwell in these novel coronavirus times Tyrone!


      1. Great call, Ty! Knowles’ “Secret Sun” is very funny and intense. Lots of interesting posts about music too. Found it some months back. Some good stuff on his site for sure.


  5. [This is in reply to Gaia above, 8:40 PM]

    One might say the same of mathematics beyond that required in engineering, which is in my view the most useful field in service to humanity. Without engineers, we have no tall buildings, bridges, roads, motor vehicles, aircraft, telephone systems, sewage systems. We are still knuckle scrapers.

    I had sixteen years of schooling. Other than learning how to do accounting to make my living, and some pleasant encounters with nice and nurturing souls, usually Jewish, I took nothing away from it. What I know about life, people, events … and I am always a work in progress … I picked up on my own, stumbling as I go. Formal education, especially elementary and high school, is merely what Steve Kelly calls warehousing, a place to put us to keep us out of everyone’s hair. [It is also an opportune time given our ages and innocence, to brainwash us. Thereafter it is a lifelong process to undo that.]

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Here is something I’d completely forgotten. Reagan, while in office, proposed “Star Wars,” or LEO weaponry to protect us from our fake enemy, the Soviets. Generally, when something like that is proposed, it is fait accompli, that is, projects like that are never put out for public discussion. Whatever it was that he wanted done was already done.

    Could it be that Apollo was merely a cover story for LEO machinery that was designed for weaponry, spying, and the like? The Pollacia film would then make sense … the rocket in question was not going to the moon. It was carrying stuff for dispatch in LEO.

    Just wild speculation. The moon story is so absurd on its face that they would not have gone to such lengths to fake it unless they had ulterior motives. This would also help solve the McGowan conundrum … what is he hiding?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Maybe sometimes they just get bored or have a brain fade. I’ve seen it on the cricket pitch often enough. (we know they have faked car crashes for the TV). I do plenty of stupid things.


    2. Mark, the “Star Wars” initiative announced under the Reagan administration was officially called SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative. It was about intercepting “ICBMs” using, among others, laser weapons. It was all science fiction and just an excuse to pour more money into the voracious MIC.

      I remember it, although I was only a teenager in the 80ies, because my parents were members in the IPPNW organization, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. SDI came in the wake of the Pershing 2 / SS-20 medium-range missile deployment. The narrative was that if there was a war and it went nuclear, Germany would be the battlefield. Nuke scare was quite intense (remember the movie “The Day After”?) and only boiled down with Gorbachev.

      There is a couple things to understand in order to discern military and technological reality and assess the real danger.

      First, there is no such thing as an atomic bomb or a nuclear weapon. It is all quite ridiculous science fiction, made in Hollywood or close to it, no reality whatsoever to it. I could write more about it but not here and now.

      Second, there is no such thing as ICBMs and orbital ballistics as there is no safe way of atmospheric reentry from orbital speed of 8 km/s. It is science fiction and there is no reality to it.

      Third, Pershing 2 and SS-20 were the real deal, meaning the best performing and longest range missiles, although I think both sides overstated the ranges of these missiles. As they have never been used in any war, their true military value is unknown, and their tactical value could be rather low; but they are a true threat to the other side as they allow to strike somewhere deep inside the opponent’s territory with very little time to react.

      Fourth, we may conclude that SDI, as advertised, is designed to counter an imaginary and fictional threat. Whatever work was done and money was spent on SDI, it had a different purpose. To me, there is no real need to know the precise purpose. What matters is to understand the technical and military possibilities and limitations. That is a solid base to take apart the many-layered web of lies that is passed off as reality ad usum populi.

      Kinetic weapons in orbit, whether directed agains the enemy’s satellites or targets down on Earth, are still fictional as far as I understand. But of course, there are espionnage and reconnaissance and navigation satellites. And manipulation via TV and radio, which is greatly helped by satellites, could also be seen as a kind of weapon.

      As I mentioned the IPPNW, this is a prime example of how clever the propaganda is devised. I recommend everyone to study it and think about it. The IPPNW is a fraudulent association led by political fraudsters to herd well-intentioned medical doctors into the fight against an imaginary threat. Medical doctors usually have relatively high reputation and social standing, so they are useful as propaganda vectors to transmit ideas to the sheeple. The main idea, of course, is fear, and awe. But you do not only have these well-intentioned fools spread your propaganda – you also have them pay for the organization via their membership fees. I would say this scam is pretty well done.

      We may speculate if the Saturn V carried anything into orbit but it is somewhat pointless and I don’t think it did. My reasoning is that the payload was merely propagandistic, i.e. the Apollo moonlanding fairy tale. The rocket was to be a giant one because Wernher von Braun had made it clear that you needed a giant rocket to go to the Moon. And if people are not in awe of a 110m rocket launched sky-high (exact altitude reached unknown to me), then I don’t know what will impress them and whether they have sufficient respect to appreciate the technical prowess such a rocket represents, even if its mission was only propagandistic.


      1. I never thought (in these current writings) that SDI was something real as stated, but rather fait accompli, something already done having to do with surveillance – they would not be doing Apollo as a stage production just to fake moon landings. The program had to have been in the works, going back to JFK’s 1961 statement at least. Just as our current Covid scare has been in the works for decades, so too Apollo. So I speculate that the moon landings, everything filmed in advance, was misdirection, so that therefore the rockets were what needed a cover story, misdirection. I suspect they were hauling hardware into space, surveillance technology to watch all of us and enemies, fake and real.

        That’s the best I can do. But whatever they were up to, it was vitally important to keep a lid on it, ergo the extreme efforts at faking the moon landing. Also, I do not imagine that the Cold War was real, or that the US and USSR were ever really enemies. So pointing rockets at one another had to be fiction.

        I grew up in Montana, not far away from Malstrom Air Force Base. On trips up there for visit relatives, we would drive by missile silos, said to be pointed at Russia.,In the 1990s they had supposedly removed the rockets, and allowed selected news media in. What they found was primitive technology, the rockets supposedly guided by technology contained on floppy disks, not the ones we came to know (don’t know your age), but the ones maybe 12 inches in diameter and holding maybe an 8×11 page of data. The whole thing was fake, put there to scare Americans. The Soviets would have known too that they were fake, was were the ones in Cuba. All for effect.


        1. “they would not be doing Apollo as a stage production just to fake moon landings.”

          Yes, they would. And why not? That was a giant worldwide propaganda, big enough to be an end in itself. No need to think about hidden purposes (“hauling hardware into space”). While they are possible they are absolutely not necessary on the Apollo missions as they could have been accomplished with suitable rockets tailored for the job at hand.

          I agree with you on the purpose of the missile silos in Montana. But the Soviet missiles in Cuba were different. They could reach the US mainland. And they were deployed to counter the missiles the Americans had deployed in Turkey before, threatening Russia, and to force the Americans to remove their missiles. Which is what happened.

          Missile range, given current technology, is more limited than what they want to make us believe. It’s all about range: aircraft, vessels, nuclear powered vessels (extended range), tanks, drones, guns, and also missiles.


          1. You do know that US Guantanamo Bay Naval Station is on the island of Cuba, it was there during the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs; the US has maintained a base on Cuba for over a hundred years. Castro was an actor, he was an extra in Hollywood movies. Russia/China/Cuba=controlled opposition.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. The fact* that the Cuban regime is controlled, and their former leader perhaps the father of the Canadian one, but that doesn’t change much for the average Cuban, living far under their potential. If you talk with Cubans, real ones who live there, then you understand, all the media façade is just that, a façade.

              I have been to Cuba twice, the second time for work, and did my Open Water the first time and Advanced the second in one of the most special places to do it, in the Bay of Pigs (Bahía de los Cochinos).

              I use one of my photos from there to explain the aSHIFT. concept and construction; we are a coral reef and each of us corals, sponges, shrimp or other sprout improves not only themselves, but others too.


            2. Russia/China/Cuba=controlled opposition.

              Russia and China have their own civilizational model and their own national interests. All great powers have shared interests and privileges uniting them against lesser members of the “world community”. To call Russia and China “controlled opposition” would be a misunderstanding … their role is based on their own identity and existence and not on how West Block dissidents may form their world view.


  7. 3) provided by a hostile witness, i.e., McGowan (fake death 11/22/15) is, in my view, a spook, and his Moondoggie series may well have been backed by NASA itself as a limited hangout

    Mark, you keep presenting these mere speculations as “facts”. In your OP I have seen any argument to call Mr. McGowan a “spook*, which means “ghost” in Dutch.

    Everybody dies and there are so many “suspicious dates” in a year, how do you substantiate McGowan “faking his death”?

    Do you have your premises aligned, or are you as unhinged as Petra?

    If your premise is that for a death to be real, it must appear in the SSDI, then how is that with Dave?
    If your premise is “does not follow my views, must be limited hangout”, you do know that others can do the same to you, for “believing the Earth is a sphere” or “does not want to address chemtrails, must be limited hangout”

    So far the only thing I read in your attacks on McGowan is speculation, non-aligned premises and a lack of any smoking gun argument.

    You even completely fantasize that his smoking was an act!!?? WTF?

    Have you listened to the interview John Adams and Chris Kendall of Hoaxbuster fame with Dave McGowan? Do you still maintain this madness?

    Sadly and ironically enough they are of Liverani levels, these “spook” and “faked death” accusations.


    1. I never offer “proof” or undisputed “facts”, but instead speculate based on evidence. I know that two of McGowan’s books are limited hangouts, and from that speculate that Moondoggie is that as well. I know that McGowan went to great lengths to chain smoke in front of us, something rude and possibly done for effect, that is, to lay the groundwork for his coming fake death. His work was done. He was on to new assignments. I am very familiar with the specter of fake deaths, have exposed many as that, often enough finding the supposedly dead person alive and well. Fake death is common in spycraft, celebrity and music cultures.

      I have never claimed that SSDI is anything more than evidence. Two of my own family members are not there. With Weird Scenes I had more than sixty to work with, so that absence of most of them was a tell. Absence from that source is not “proof” of anything, again, a word I do not use. When I speculate, I do not pretend otherwise, and you will not find in any of my writing other than on rare occasions, use of the word “proof” other than with Pollacia and the pock-marked moon rocks.

      I have not listened to Adams and Kendell, not since 911, when I concluded they were spooks or hires of spooks. Our landscape is littered with sources that affirm the hoaxes we live with. Anyone genuine receives no attention.

      You are just barely holding in your rage.


      1. Rage?

        Not at all, but glad you admit you just speculate and throw wild accusations around.

        That is why you need objectivist philosophy, the laws of logic (which are mathematic; the language of nature).

        You just keep repeating the speculations about “limited hangout”, only because in your view Dave McGowan “did not go far enough for your liking“.

        Anyone who writes books produces static documentation. When a book is written and published, the writer cannot go back. The only thing you can do is write an addendum, a erratum, or a new book, but as a writer selling books undermining earlier works makes you look like a fool.

        That makes that a book need to be solid, not like blog posts or other “lighter” publications and one of the reasons I like wikis.

        Can you prove faked deaths? Only if you find the one that supposedly died you can, else it is pure speculation, based on ideas, not solid arguments. Again, the need for objectivism; what is objectively true or untrue. Not subjective speculations, they are meaningless.

        And now the SSDI is not even an argument anymore (because apparently your own family members are not listed and I trust you know they died), so what is left?

        A fantasy about smoking. So many conspies including myself smoke, which for a non-smoker may be interpreted as chain smoking. And then what?

        How do you discern “a posing smoker” from “a real smoker”? What are your benchmarks, criteria to call someone one or the other?

        And how do you falsify your stance; i.e. what makes you see McGowan NOT as “a spook”? Which piece of evidence makes you change your mind?

        It is these questions and points that form the basis of truth seeking. Not throwing around wild speculations building on from earlier confirmation biases.

        I am neutral here, it could be that McGowan was a “spook”, but I need solid evidence for such accusation, not fantasies and subjective speculations, they have no meaning outside of yourself.


        1. Yes, rage. You will go off the reservation again. You always do.

          I know McGowan’s work is limited hangout because he puts no effort into it, that is, no interviews, no detailed research. I also know the things he does not talk about, fake deaths. Some of them I have identified in real life, but you won’t buy that, so I won’t trouble you. You saw it on the news that they died, so they are dead, right? I also know that what he did tell us was important, that most of the musicians of the late sixties early seventies had military ties. The absence of most of them in SSDI is important to understand. Only a few being absent would be the norm, but 50, 60 deaths not ending up there? C’mon. His death on a spook day, 11/22 (11+22=33, remember JFK?, and is also the 326th day of the year (=11). I have never claimed to know why they use markers, only that they do.

          If we are stuck with objective reality as you describe it, we must always take people at face, and never question underlying motives. That’s not only boring, but stupid, as people lie. You lie. Everyone lies. Everyone has a self shown to the world, and an inner self kept private. If you are going to go through life taking everyone at face, I have a bridge I wanna sell you.

          You probably don’t want to know what my inner self is thinking about your outer self right about now.


          1. We have gone over that photo in the past.

            Objectivism is the way to expose liars, not just subjectively (weak) but for others to see too (strong).

            What is funny with you that as soon as you or your iconoclasts get challenged, you try the personal route.

            Your comments about me are funny, because you’d be surprised how open I am about myself.

            You are just annoyed that your cheapskate accusations towards McGowan based on nothing but subjective nonsense are being exposed.

            God forbid you die on a day adding up to 11 or 33. According to your own “rules” that would make it “fake”.


            1. You believe the photo is real, right? Or do you have eyes for that sort of work? Can you tell me why it is fake? What gives it away?

              I have said repeatedly that I am well aware that the numbers 8,11 and 33 appear in real life. By themselves, they mean nothing. One develops a sense of their use, for instance, a recent (fake) mass shooting in nearby Boulder, a grocery store we used to shop in. I don’t even follow up on mass shootings anymore, assuming they are fake until proved otherwise. I waited for the spook numbers to appear. Sure enough, the perp was escorted out of the store at 3:30, the same time that the Columbine Massacre officially ended. If you don’t develop a sense of these numbers and their use, most things will blow right by you.

              My view of McGowan is based on his work (inadequate), his failure to consult SSDI or do interviews in his book on rock star deaths, his failure to express any skepticism at the premature death of so many rock stars, his behavior (chain smoking in interviews, a behavior he developed in 2014), and his date of death, a spook marker date. I can be wrong, but, often have been, but McGowan strikes me as a spook. By the way, McGowan would be (is) 61 years old if still breathing, and indeed there is a Dave McGowan, 61 years of age, living in Los Angeles, which is Dave McGowan’s place of birth and home town. They don’t even try to hide these people.

              (Judi Bari was a prominent member of Earth First! who was supposedly 1) blown up in a car but survived, and 2 died of breast cancer in 1997. She lived in Santa Barbara CA. I thought it all too spooky. I did a search for her – if she is still alive, as I suspected, she would be 72. Sure enough, Judi Bari, age 72, lives in Santa Barbara. Did not even bother to move after her ‘death.’ Note the unusual spelling of Judi and the unusual last name. Has to be the same person.) Earth First! was a spooky outfit, which is why I suspected she was one.

              By the way, March 11, the date the pandemic was declared, was a spook marker date, 3*11=33. That is why I instantly knew there was no virus. Months later I would realize there are no virusES. It helps to know those numbers, to watch for them. Also, my birthday and Hitler’s, April 20, is a spook marker, the 110th the day of the year. They are very subtle about use of these markers.

              This is my ‘objective’ reality, the truth I uncover, always subject to error, as I am human, but the kind of thing, given your attitude about what is real and not, that you would not be able to do.


              1. How about an article addressing fake deaths? Mark I think you stated awhile back that it isn’t illegal to fake ones death as long as there isn’t any fraud. Although with some of the fake deaths in history may show there was insurance fraud.

                I have been occasionally skimming the obituaries, kinda sad I know, but the reason is I noticed there were many people under 20 passing away through the years in my area and it seems like a certain percentage are either fake deaths or not real people to begin with. Not much history about the person, with what looks like just a computer generated photo, and after a web search their names do not show in the city they were said to pass away in. If it was an accident there is a brief article in one of their local town newspapers, but nothing else of the person actually existing. Their names would show up on the Intel websites showing another city. The Intel websites show people who I know that died and stopped their ages at their death date. But some dead people on the Intel websites show their current age.

                After reading the fine print terms on some of the Intel people search websites they do state the information may not be accurate. The SSDI I think cuts off at 2014 so anyone that passed after that would not show up? Some states do not release death information unless it’s to an immediate family member that has to provide a signature to get the documentation that their relative died. So how would these Intel people search websites be able to attain that information and legally be allowed to show that information on their websites?

                I know local people that supposedly passed away and who I went to school with. Their families were military or wealthy, belonged to the lodge or church groups. Some people had incredible trade skills, that could be used elsewhere, some were on drugs so they may have died, but they may have been offered to start somewhere new to get sober or after becoming an informant.

                I assume people in the alphabet agencies, certain detective law enforcement departments, and attorneys would have access to accurate information.


                1. You seem to have a better grasp of the fake death scenario than I do. I am only aware of the phenomenon in music, celebrity culture, military and Intel. I have seen fake death, as when I was on Facebook, a young woman disappeared from the Crow reservation and law enforcement put out a plea, which would never happen in real life, on Facebook for help. Such a plea would generate so many false leads that it would use up precious time available for real investigation. I looked for the woman on a people search engine, and found her alive and well, several years older than stated, living in a city off the reservation. Her name, Native American, was so unusual that there could only be one. This sort of fake death goes on often and everywhere, creating excitement and angst. Its real purpose? How can I know? I just know it is.


              2. By the way, McGowan would be (is) 61 years old if still breathing, and indeed there is a Dave McGowan, 61 years of age, living in Los Angeles, which is Dave McGowan’s place of birth and home town.

                FINALLY, something of any value. All the rest is speculation, this is your first point that could indicate a faked death.

                Not “by the way”, this is something to start with, all the rest is useless.

                LA is a big city, so statistically this may even mean nothing, but finally you have come with something. Without link, but if you looked this up and have the info, I can believe you.

                You see, you need to be challenged, otherwise we are stuck with subjective nonsense and empty accusations.


                1. There is a way of dealing with objective reality wherein some people, like me, take various aspects, like the odd situation where the dog did not bark, and connect them. McGowan’s various behaviors were inconsistent with an honest researcher. Rather, he appeared to be a man on a mission to obscure rather than enlighten. By allowing various aspects light of day, he at the same time occluded other things more important, as those rock stars who did not really die. And that was the point. Your inability to see anything more than the storyboard is your shortcoming, lack of imagination. I took everything and deduced that McGowan is still a living person. I cannot prove that, only providing evidence that a man by that name, age 61, still lives in LA. Probably the same guy, death faked. Way out of your wheel house.


                  1. Your inability to see anything more than the storyboard is your shortcoming, lack of imagination.



                    Now gladly kick me again, pathetic clown. That is what you always do when I have you cornered.

                    This level of trolling was next level. Your next level loss.

                    Over and out.


                    1. [I did not realize before I wrote what follows that your last comment was a storm-out, a way of getting out of a debate you are losing. That is so Gaia!]

                      Now you call me a troll on my own blog. I’ve come to know you over time as a mercurial personality prone to being an attack dog. That’s fine. Be who you are. Do not expect it to affect me.

                      I am in a comfortable position. I get to be both right and wrong, and neither creates excessive ego or depression. When I am wrong, as so often happens, I have no stake in the game, and merely admit error and move on. Mistakes are our best teachers. I don’t care what people think. Thus over time, and I did do this at one time, the list of thing about which I have changed my mind due to error is very long. Take just two items where I was invested and had to back away: Peak oil and Judy Wood. You might say you are too smart to fall into such traps. So what. You are deficient in other ways, mostly lack of imagination.

                      This blog, my writing, for me is a spiritual journey. I do not need religion or political ideology. I am not affected by psyops like Covid and Climate, and walk freely on the planet, my head clear, free of fear. My mission is to search for truth. When you were here I wrote about Jonestown, and after long labor came upon a mineral map of Guyana, and found that Jonestown was actually a mining camp, and that a gold mine was very close to the compound. That resolved the matter for me, my search for truth not complete, but closer than anyone had ever gotten before. In fact, in my years writing here, I have come upon more truth than anyone I know save perhaps Tyrone and MM, and it is exciting and rewarding. It is far more than you have accomplished even as you regurgitate the work of others at Fakeopedia.

                      If you had not taken on your asshole stance, I would never had taken the time to search for the living Dave McGowan. I was overly certain of his fake death, enough to convince me, but not others. Of course LA is a big city, and if you undertake the search for yourself, you’ll find several people by that name. They key is age … I’ve done this so much. Matching both exact name AND age is meaningful. Short of going to LA myself to visit him, that is as close to truth as I will get. As with Judi Bari, as with fake victims of John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, they live among us not having changed their names, not even using fake names in their victim status. Which reminds me, I need to examine the victims of the Zodiac and Hillside killers, to see what pops up.

                      So flail away at me, have your fun. The best you will be able to do is show me to be wrong about this or that, and the effect of that will not satisfy you. I won’t care. And, McGowan lives! Thank you for pushing me further towards that conclusion.


                2. With finally a decent piece of evidence of faked death of McGowan, looking at the creepy photo at the top of the OP (who wants to be shown like this?)…

                  the black-and-white pattern used often by Freemasons looks present in:
                  a – the black coat vs. white shirt he is wearing
                  b – the left and right sides of McGowan’s face
                  c – the dark and light of the door behind him

                  something much more speculative, probably meaningless:

                  I count 28-15-28 white panel stripes in the Left-Middle-Right columns behind Dave, total 71, making 8
                  28-28 = 10-10 or 11, the month of McGowan’s death
                  15 in the middle, the year of McGowan’s death


        2. I would suggest Gaia that you should go the other way and require solid evidence that McGowan is not controlled opposition before you dare to suggest he is genuine. With the main stream media I need solid evidence that the person is not presenting a scripted (or talking points etc) opinion (for example news readers and panel members) before I dare to believe them to be genuine. The same applies for me to the alternative media, politicians sports people, business people or anyone promoted. I assume they are not promoted by accident until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. You dont have to prove the snake oil salesperson is lying to not buy the snake oil.


          1. I don’t live my life as a paranoid android, but what works for you, works for you. For me, the questions don’t change:

            How do you assess “genuinity”, “genuineness” or how it’s called?

            What criteria do you use to decide someone is “genuine” versus “talking from a script”?


            1. “you do not have to prove the snake oil salesman is lying to not buy the snake
              oil ”
              that is a great comment …and how do you know he is a snake oil salesmen?
              Usually you just do and you do so by your gut, by your intuition. That is not about being paranoid.
              Gaia, the comments you made many days ago about all the t.v characters being clowns and not real and not deserving even of our attention was so right on… what happened to that?
              One could even say, and i have said it before, that there is almost no way a person can act naturally when there is a camera pointed into his face…that alone can make it almost impossible to have a solid criteria, a foolproof method for determining who is promoting a secret agenda.
              Is it even possible to speak of “genuine” when the camera is in front of your face?
              a little chinese parable i wrote about a few months back:
              there was a woodcutter who lost his axe and he then suspected everyone he met; a boy passed by and said hello and the woodcutter said “Humm, did you see the way he said hello? He is the one who took my ax…”
              the next day he passed an old woman on the way to the market; she smiled and said hello and the woodcutter said,”Humm, did you see the way she smiled? she’s the one who took my axe….” and so on…
              there is no real criteria, it seems to me, but your gut….

              imagine how boring life would be if man was unable to lie. We would be nothing more than beasts…


    2. “Unhinged,” you call me, Gaia? Yeah, I’ll wear that, totally. I’m ab-so-LUTE-ly unhinged to think I can change anyone’s mind who is determined to believe according to their inclination to believe rather than according to the evidence. That is absolute madness, I cannot deny that.

      Perhaps you could humour me in my unhingedness, Gaia. I’ve asked Mark to provide a response to the explanation for the lack of crater under the LEM but, so far, he’s been coy in responding. Perhaps you, with your superior font of knowledge on the massive store of “anomalies-that-prove-we-didn’t-go-to-the-moon” can provide a refutation of that explanation. Got one?

      Because there was no blast.

      Rocket engines are not pressure washers.

      A pressure washer will excavate a cavity quickly because it’s pumping out a needle-thin stream of water (1000 times denser than air) at 1,500 pounds per square inch or more.

      An optimally designed rocket engine pumps out a high velocity stream of vaporous exhaust at as close to ambient pressure as possible. In the vacuum of space, the ideal pressure is zero.

      The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.

      Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.

      Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.


      1. there cannot be a crater under the LM because it couldn’t even reach the Moon.
        under the claimed conditions of space, gas cannot exist
        there should not be sediment on the Moon, it should be a hard, rigid surface. Watching the Moon through a good telescope confirms that.

        I am not conversing with Quora, neither with you for that matter. By your own admission you understand nothing of physics and can only grasp at 3rd party straws that have no relevance for the questions I asked you.

        “everything about Apollo can be explained”
        “those simple questions you ask, I cannot explain”

        these two statements are mutually exclusive, making you the one going on the fallacy train.


      2. Watch here for the evidence of a blast:

        This video shows alleged LEM liftoff from the Moon. It clearly shows a blast of gas exhausting from the engine as it starts its ascent.

        By logic, the same applies to a descending LEM – its engine expels mass / gas in one direction mostly. The exhaust gas being shot outward with great velocity and energy will exhibit WORK, a force levered over a period of time. With 1/6 of the Earth’s gravity, dust particles on the Moon are even easier to displace. But not a speck of dust can be seen on the photos?

        Although there’s a mathematical probability that none of the displaced dust particles would have ended on top of LEM’s legs, it is highly unlikely to happen, close to improbable, factually.


        1. “Although there’s a mathematical probability that none of the displaced dust particles would have ended on top of LEM’s legs, it is highly unlikely to happen, close to improbable, factually.”

          But, in fact, there are barely visible minute amounts of dust particles in the wrinkles of the mylar covering of the landing pads. These microscopic amounts so closely hug the “real” hypothesis. Fakery – especially of the sloppy psyop kind – is not usually done so subtly. Why would you fake something that can barely be seen – especially, I repeat as moon hoaxers seem immune to this – in psyop fakery. Nothing – absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing – could be more alien to psyop fakery than minute amounts of dust that can barely be seen.

          Click the link below and click the magnifier that appears. Then scroll to left and see minute amounts – even magnified they’re quite difficult to see.

          From the thread, “Why is there no dust on the Lunar Lander’s footpads?”


          1. Childlike question, I know…so be it:

            Why pray tell is a “landing pad” and strut covered in gold mylar foil? To protect the alloy material from cosmic rays?

            The absurdities only continue with each of your latest revelations (in this case microscopic dust).

            Mylar for what, please? I’ve never seen helicopter landing gear wrapped in such ridiculous nonsense..but who am I to say.

            Please enlighten us all.

            And boy, the resolution of this photo of landing pad is superb. I wish we had such exquisite photos of the flying antigravity bell-shaped crafts the Nazis were flying down in Antarctica.


            1. I think the U.S. reverse engineered the gold mylar foil from downed alien space craft out at Edwards AFB and Area 51.

              I would have loved to have attended the Design Review where Jr. Engineer presents to Chief Engineer and Company.

              Jr. Engineer: “I’m telling you, I have all the data here (taps on his 3″ pile of papers”…we have to go with the gold! The masses love flashy shiny objects! ”

              Chief: “Board Concurs! Approved! After all this debate, back and forth, over this this past year, we’ve finally had enough of this $#@t…Now go get me a large glass of that Orange Tang…pronto!!”


            2. I’m not sure why you consider microscopic amounts of dust on the landing pads absurd, Rasputin. What do you think would be credible? Lots of dust, no dust at all, a small amount but not microscopic. What does your indepth knowledge of the lunar surface and lunar-landing physics say would be the amount of dust to expect on the landing pads of a lunar module? Please enlighten me.


              1. None.

                The Moon cannot have sediment. The surface shoud be hard, harsh and rigid.

                Don’t ask me. Ask all the sci-fi writers who pictured the moon before Apollo as she should be.

                Not that silly sandpit those clowns were hopping in.

                I posted an overview of that here in the past and actually searched for that post, that’s how I came across more madness by the senile boomer who started this whole thing.

                You guys should marry. Two stubborn crazies together, what a funny couple you’d make.


                1. I think most of the people on this thread are crazies – at least in regard to the moon landings – because they pontificate on things they have insufficient knowledge of to speak about authoritatively while ignoring easy ascertainable facts that speak very loudly.

                  Perfect example?
                  ‘The Moon cannot have sediment. The surface should be hard, harsh and rigid.’


                  1. I think that he might be right about that, Petri, because on our planet sediment arises from motion of air and water and other matter, pulverizing rocks and creating fine particles. Without an atmosphere, without air, without moving water, the only force available on the moon to create sediment would be meteors. Are you saying that is what created to soil that astronauts walked on?


                    1. Mark, what I say and have said a number of times is that I don’t focus on things I don’t understand, I focus on things I do and I suggest others do the same.

                      I reiterate, “A little learning is a dangerous thing.”

                      I do not know the science of lunar composition, OK? Haven’t got a clue and there are many other things about the moon, space, rockets I have no clue about … and nor do you but I can look at the evidence presented and see where it corresponds with what I do understand and it all corresponds perfectly and in subtle ways completely unexpected in fakery, eg, barely visible dust particles on the landing pads so I have no problem accepting the astounding achievement of the moon landings.

                      What I’m very sorry about is:
                      — all you guys miss out on that sense of awe at such an astonishing achievement (which I can appreciate even though I have no real interest in space, the moon, rocketry, etc)
                      — you undermine yourselves (and me) when speaking about the many, many lies we are told … the untold lies we are told.


                    2. Just to point out there’s a difference between having a little learning and recognising that fact and having a little learning and not recognising it.

                      I recognise 100% that I only have a little learning on most subjects, I’m pretty lazy and I don’t do much research but what I do:

                      — is research as efficiently as possible which means following the argument trail among those who have an opinion on the subject and

                      — dwell on things I can easily understand because there’s enough things I can understand to choose the correct hypothesis.

                      I mean it’s really not that complicated: follow the argument trail. If you’re only dwelling in moon-hoaxer land then how can you profess to be correct in what you believe?

                      You must look at the argument against what you believe, you must – as stated by Kary Mullis – aim to prove your hypothesis wrong. That’s what I do, I check enough the to and fro argument to ensure the hypothesis I support is correct and so when any seeming anomaly comes along I know that that’s what it must be – just a seeming anomaly, not an anomaly that actually contradicts my chosen hypothesis.

                      What is abundantly clear is that people on this thread have not gone over to “the other side” to check what they’re saying. No one says, “Moon hoaxers say X is anomalous while Apollo enthusiasts give explanation Y for the anomaly but, in fact, the moon hoax argument is correct because Z.” I do not see arguments put forward of that nature one little bit. You guys simply do not do due diligence.


              2. McGowan, about whom I recently gained strong evidence to be still alive and well (fake death, hallmark of a spook), did a limited hangout in Moondoggies, hiding something far more important than exposure of the Moon landings as fake. I do not know what at this point. In so doing, he brought out maybe fifty or more aspects of the Moon psyop that scream for explanation. You only address one or two of them. For instance, he does not talk about passage through the Van Allen Belts, but rather that they are there to protect Earth from space radiation beyond, so that once through, the astronauts would be exposed to fatal levels. Walking on the Moon unprotected is an absurd notion. That is why I said in my narrative, which at best you only skimmed, that his understanding of the Belts was thorough and very useful.


                1. So where did Dave get his information about the radiation beyond the Van Allen belts? Perhaps we need to check with those sources what they think about astronauts walking on the moon.

                  I avoid the topic of radiation because to me it’s just one person’s word against another. Moon hoaxer: “This is what the radiation is and that means they couldn’t have gone.”
                  Apollo enthusiast: “No the radiation is this and – or Yes that’s the radiation but – it means they could have gone.”

                  To me, it’s an abstruse subject and I find it amazing that people spend so much time on it.

                  You still haven’t responded to my question Mark.

                  What is your response to this person who says a crater wouldn’t have been expected under the LEM?


                  Rocket engines are not pressure washers.

                  A pressure washer will excavate a cavity quickly because it’s pumping out a needle-thin stream of water (1000 times denser than air) at 1,500 pounds per square inch or more.

                  An optimally designed rocket engine pumps out a high velocity stream of vaporous exhaust at as close to ambient pressure as possible. In the vacuum of space, the ideal pressure is zero.

                  The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.

                  Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.

                  Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.


                  1. Dave got his van allen nonsense from a Geiger counter on the explorer missions by van allen himself. The igy was dreamt up at van allen’s house over his wife’s chocolate cake per the ridiculous narrative.

                    Liked by 1 person

                2. I’ll chime in on Dave McGowan being a spook (love that word for spy) although my research is very, very lazy – but it’s just an indicator that I always look for. It seems that spooks will often touch their noses to indicate lying (part of the “hidden in plain sight” MO) and they often do it a short way in.

                  Shortly after 2:40 in this video he touches his nose in a pretty ostentatious way. I skipped through a little and noticed that he talked about how seemingly strange it was that Jim Morrison didn’t have a musical background and never went on to learn to read music or learn an instrument and yet became the lead singer in a famous band. Hellloooo? If someone can sing they can sing and don’t need a “background in music” and quite a lot of musicians don’t learn to read music. So what if he didn’t go on to learn an instrument, musicians are of all kinds. There is no way Jim Morrison would have been lead singer of the Doors if he simply hadn’t had what it takes. I studied piano for 9 years … and can’t really play a note now. I’m not a musician in any shape or form despite a seeming “background”.

                  Look out for the touching nose thing – it’s so often there a short way in.



                  1. Petra, I am thinking of giving me some time off from you, making you absent here for a while, if for no other reason than you profess with great certainty to know things while at the same time cringing and shrinking away when presented with anything requiring a bit of technical analysis. Commenters here have hit you hard with details facts that need steady and sure rebuttal, and you only say you are not good at that stuff, and fall back on your other not-well-thought-out assertions. I don’t know your age, but am reminded of Cool Hand Luke, the movie, where Dragline says to Luke “You’re beat, stay down.” Instead, Luke comes back time and again, as Dragline says, “with nothing.”


                    1. “… if for no other reason than you profess with great certainty to know things while at the same time cringing and shrinking away when presented with anything requiring a bit of technical analysis. ”

                      While you think this approach is wrong, I see it as perfectly sensible. I know some things with certainty and focus on those and stay away from things I know nothing about. I think it’s an excellent policy to follow – I highly recommend it and I think it’s wise to distinguish between what you can know for certain and what you have shaky knowledge of and should avoid discussing as if you know them better than you do.

                      You mean you’re going to ban me, Mark? I’m used to that but I didn’t think you’d ban me. It’s funny how I manage to make myself unpopular wherever I go. Amazingly, FB hasn’t banned me yet nor LinkedIn.

                      You still haven’t told me your response to the explanation provided for the reason there is no crater under the LEM. I take it you’re not going to.


                    2. If there was soil underneath, it should have blasted all over, and left debris on the lander. Why so much soil in a place without natural erosion? If no soil, as Gaia maintains, at least scorching. This is not rocket science. In other places people have written about the difficulty of a landing with but one engine, the unreliability, the need for more than one engine for stability. Elon Musk and SpaceX merely keep on hoaxing us. The benefits of ignorance and refusal to move even a dime off your ridiculous stance have kept this thread going far beyond reason. My other option would be to merely close comments entirely. I always catch hell when I do that. But this has gone on too,long. You’ve made all your points, not swayed anyone.


                    3. I’m very happy to make this my very last comment, Mark, on this post. I promise I will not make any more comments on it. It seems no one has persuaded anyone of anything – or maybe they have and I’ve missed it – which is a shame nevertheless I’ve still found some value in it. I’m with you on Dave McGowan though being a spook at least, Mark, totally with you on that.


                    4. Nah, don’t worry. I am being somewhat petulant. I am off to have hand surgery this morning, and won’t be able to use a keyboard for a while. I do think that there is much more to know about Apollo, not so much that is was a hoax, but rather misdirection. I cannot imagine they used all of those large rockets, especially Saturn V, merely to deceive the public that we went to the moon, an impossible and useless feat. Something else was going on in LEO, and I have notions about it. Stephers has pointed me to others making the same point. More to follow, but I have to be a bit circumscribed about it until I do more and better research and thinking. For now, just think about this: Our leaders do not merely lie to us, as lies don’t fool enough people. They misdirect. For instance, with the JFK assassination, they gave us endless rabbit holes, Oswald, CIA, Mafia, Russians, to keep us from asking the first and best question: Was he really killed? Ask the wrong question, the answer does not matter. This is so much more effective than just telling big lies.

                      With Apollo, they’ve got us looking at photos and arguing about radiation and meteoroids, the point being to convince some of us that we really went to the Moon, and some of us that it was a hoax. They want to keep that argument going, as it distracts from the correct question: What was going on with those rockets, really?

                      I hope I get a chance to watch the rest of the McGowan interview later today, when I am out of my surgical haze. He is also doing misdirection, his specialty. He does touch his nose when talking about Jim Morrison, just once that I saw, but that is a valid point. The photo they talk about of him with his admiral father, which I ran at the beginning of this piece, is fake. Take a close look at it, and see the man-hands this young boy has in front of him. Then look closer, allow it to penetrate. Eventually it will emerge for you, two heads, different skin tones, as if a new face has grown out of another skull. That’s Jim’s face stuck on someone else’s head. If you look long enough, suspend your desire to trust authority, you will see that they took another man, older than Jim, and placed Jim’s face on that man’s head. Once you see it, you will not unsee it.

                      I encountered the same thing with John Denver, real name said to be Henry John Deutschendorf Jr., said to be the son of Lt. Col. Henry John “Dutch” Deutschendorf, and born at Roswell, NM. I can easily see that John was pasted in to family photos, and further, his (fake) brother, Ron, had a son and named him Henry John Deutschendorf II, and not “III”. For some reason these two guys, probably others, are assigned officially as the brats of high-ranking military men. We do not know their real names or origins. We did some photo analysis on this blog of the Morrison family, and in every one publicly available, Jim is pasted in. He is not the admiral’s son, just as Denver was not the Lt. Col.’s son. Also, in both cases, they faked their deaths.

                      McGowan can only take it so far, noting that Jim had no calling or interest in music, and yet managed to write, in his head, 12 sculptured pieces that he carried as intact musical scores to the Doors for recording. If you cannot see that, like the Beatles and so many other groups, there were ghost writers and studio musicians behind them, I’ve a bridge to sell you.

                      I also did extensive work on Pam Courson, supposedly grieving girlfriend of Jim Morrison, who took her own life. Not so according to what I discovered. She disappeared for a few years and reemerged as Barbara Walters, replacing the original, who was not cutting it. That is my view even as others do not see it as clearly as I do. I stand by it to this day.

                      This is a small slice of what you are missing, if I can be so bold.


                    5. when i was 17 I would turn on strangers with righteous and scorning indignation for not knowing what i believed to be absolute truth; only later, did i realize that what i believed to be absolute truth was due precisely because i was ignorant of so many other things; of not seeing that everything is connected and that when you are ignorant of so much, the little bit of truth you know seems so real and true…as you said many times petra, a little truth is a dangerous thing, and yet you admit in the same breathe that you do not know so many things…

                      i told you to give it up long ago and that you were digging your own grave; frankly i have peeked in daily and have come to feel you are abit disgusting in your obstinacy…a characteristic which could be a badge of honour in certain cases, even unto death, but in your case, just a badge of repugnance…go away already and feel yourself the noble victim…humm noble victim?!
                      (oh, are you by chance….jewish?)


            3. Oh and please enlighten me with your indepth understanding of all things lunar, Rasputin, what, pray, what should be covering the landing pads?

              Nothing at all, black-and-white striped cotton booties, rubber galoshes?

              Pray, do tell, what you deem are credible possibilities for the landing pads in terms of coverings.


  8. I cannot help to feel that you DO enjoy all the attention that is being given to you. I would if i was in your position. perverse in a way but true.
    Will you not admit that? And by admitting that you are admitting that there is something very personal in all this and being personal, is it possible that you are not seeing things clearly?
    How would it feel if suddenly everyone here saw the supposed logic to your position and admitted that you were correct after all?
    You would change your tune abit , i suppose.

    you kind of suckered in everyone because they are trying to argue with you on your level …the level of second and third hand information;
    even the math has to be second hand since the data used to do the math requires an act of trust and faith in second hand information. Do you understand what i am saying?

    now, given that everything being spoken about has an element of trust in the data given to us BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO RUN ALL THE OTHER HOAXS, how then can you be so sure of what you are saying?


  9. p.s must i spell it out even clearer: since you admit that almost everything else is a hoax but not the moonlanding, how then can you explain that? Why would they fake everything that you know to be faked..9 11 sand hook and so on ad nauseum but just not this one thing?
    Honestly, does that make sense to you petra?
    i prefer a yes or no…does that make sense to you?


    1. And weren’t “the moonlandings” performed under the same actor that gave us “psyops in ‘Nam”, “staged serial killers”, “fake money” (off the gold standard) and “Watergate”?

      So all the acts by that creep were psyops, except the biggest of all, makes total sense. Only when you’re down and under I guess.


    2. I promised Mark I wouldn’t make any more comments but I hadn’t seen your comments to me, Godfly, so I’ll just make this a brief one.

      Just to say there’s a very big difference between the type of event the moon landings was and 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Challenger disaster, etc – they’re mostly terror events or have some criminal-type, very obvious psyoppy aspect to them, no? The moon landings, assuming they happened, were an achievement, so they have that distinction to start with.

      But regardless of anything I look at the evidence, Godfly, and focus on the evidence I can understand and additionally follow the for and against argument. It’s that simple, that is all I do.

      BTW I tried to respond on another post about the Holocaust survivor who you couldn’t watch on bitchute but my post wouldn’t take. This is a transcription of what she said:

      92 yo Holocaust survivor speaking at rally in Canada

      “I am, in fact, a survivor of the Holocaust and the first thing I have to tell you is even then nobody told us it was done for our own good, we all knew what was happening. And when I see people today masked I think of the yellow star which gave everybody liberty to aggress me, to insult me, to call me a carrier of disease, to spit on me even.

      I would like to tell you that this is worse. It is more insidious, it concerns more people, there is a hypocrisy in the public narrative that is absolutely unbearable to say that we are doing this to protect the old. I would love to die in a state that gives me freedom. I have already outstayed my welcome by many years and my life expectancy is probably not great but I would gladly exchange it for the lives and livelihoods and happiness of the generations that come after me to live their lives as I have been.

      To have masks, to see people defile their children with masks is something totally unbearable to me. And I would like to say a short word about obedience. It’s been said you’re not allowed to obey and if you obey someone who wants you to do evil then you cooperate, you aid and abet in evil.

      The other thing I want to leave you with is the thought on voluntary submission which was written about in the 16th century by a French philosopher which ends, “Cease to obey and you are free,” “Arrêtez d’obéir et vous voilà libre.” Thank you.”


      1. petra, i am sure it will not bother you to know that i no longer take you seriously..if you have read all my posts to you on this thread alone you will know that;
        but just for the record , it makes not a rats ass difference if it is an “achievement” event or a “terror event” , the point was that they were being produced from the same people and we can safely assume they are hoaxes.

        that you failed to see the essential, confirms that you are a weak thinker and cannot be taken seriously.

        and the same goes for the old womans speech:

        The old woman only mentions and gives indirect reference to a repressive government, and not gas chambers and concentration camps which is what would qualify as a holocaust.
        repressive governments are a dime a dozen. Or do you want to call a repressive government who throws you in ghettos and makes you wear a yellow star a holocaust? Let us not change the meaning of words.


  10. How would you post a photo here? I happen to have a Life Magazine dated Aug. 8, 1969 (and cost $0.40!) given to me by my wife’s mother a good many years ago. The cover says ‘On The Moon’ photos by Armstrong and Aldrin. On page 24 of the magazine there are two photos. The upper photo is Aldrin next to the LEM setting up a solar wind collector. In the upper left hand corner of this photo are two very conspicuous white ‘orbs’ that have what looks like a smallish nipple on them, pointing at Aldrin. I know what they look like, but have no idea what they ARE. But I can’t post a photo here and even though I seem to remember seeing this photo somewhere online I haven’t found it yet.
    And in this same photo, Aldrin is right next to the LEM and you can see what look like two large engine nozzles underneath, and nary a rock or speck of moon dust disturbed…


    1. If those photos are on the Internet, you can merely link to them to take us there. Posting a photo in WordPress is laborious, and you would have to work behind the scenes here to be able to do it. Linking is best.

      At one time someone, I think Josh from Cutting Through the Fog, showed me how to post a photo to a neutral site set up for that purpose, and then import it. I am not technically savvy enough for that, but maybe you can go to CTTF and ask him. The best I can do for you is to suggest linking.


        1. Here we are again, you fools are clueless.
          That was a well known technical issue, called the “flood lamp light chromatic aberration”, that sometimes randomly affected the lunar Hasselblad 500EL cameras when coupled with the Zeiss Biogon wide-angle (60 mm) lens and the special lunar Estar polyester base film.
          On very rare occasions this strange aberration can occur even on normal photo equipment, as can be clearly seen on page 28 of the same Life magazine.


            1. Said the senile blog owner who not only made up all kinds of shit about me, but on various occasions has claimed (and NEVER apologized for being wrong!) that other accounts here were actually gaia.

              While I never have posted here under another name, this or my WordPress account.

              When are you going to finally admit all the times you were wrong about me, boomer?


              1. Self awareness is not your forte’. Personal attack is more like it, says this senile blogger. You are more inclined to lose your temper, lay into people, than any I have met here with the exception of Fauxlex. It is hard to describe … a sense of superiority and lack of humility that must somehow compensate for other difficulties you’ve experienced. What if, by chance, the vagaries of nature, you sadly ended up with a short unit for procreation? Life cannot be more cruel, and rejections based solely on this aspect, over which you have no control, would surely lead down a path of misery. Completely unfair to judge who you are based on such measurements. My pity for you.


                1. The list of bad judgements from your side is getting funnier by the minute

                  first you claimed all kinds of lies about me and my research, then you claim I don’t have something which in reality I have excess of (imagination) and the same is true for self awareness and to top off the list of psychological inabilities from your side also start suggesting I would suffer from what I call “tiny dick syndrome”

                  You must the worst psychologist in the world because none of what you claim and phantasize is true.

                  Not a “personal attack”, as snowflakes like yourself grasp on, but a demonstrable assessment of your pathetic efforts to characterize me.

                  You really have become senile, I thought I made a joke, but no, it is serious.


                  1. Your imagination seems unable to comprehend humor. This is my outer view of you, black and white, harsh in judgment of others, in need of a mirror.

                    I own a mirror and know how to operate it. It’s a hard way to go through life, but once I learned of my own fallibility, mistakes in judgment became easy to accept and internalize. Have you ever made a mistake, took it to the mirror, took ownership, and then laughed at yourself? If not, you’re not yet intellectually qualified to be judging others.


            2. Maybe you missed the irony in Ayokera’s comment?

              As for personal attacks, yes, it would be better for the quality of the discussion if they stopped, from all sides.

              Gaia may tend to be not 100% polite in some of his comments, but I don’t doubt his honesty and I find he often has a point and observed correctly where I was misled for a while by gving too much credence to some claims made by another contributor to this blog.


          1. The LEM shows a secondary light source. I don’t think NASA, when releasing these photos, grasped that people would come to understand that light in a place with no atmosphere would not refract, so that everything would be lit up or black. I surely would not come to that understanding on my own. This photo, like so many, is touched up, maybe even a composite. If you get a chance, maybe you already have done so, see Jack White’s work at Aulis.


      1. YES…that’s the one….I’m assuming you’re familiar with the AULIS site of which there are many photos…especially the section on Jack White’s photo analysis. Here’s a link with a photo that shows those two ‘lights’ on the other side.

        But the photos I find interesting are the ones of the Lunar Rover sitting on the surface of the moon, but showing no tracks on how it got there.


        1. I was just at Aulis looking at White’s work. This photo might be all that is left of a man who was doing videos of the moon buggies, showing how they would stop just short of crashing into the back wall of the studio. He claimed they were nothing but modified Willy’s jeeps, and offered this schematic to back his point.


        2. The Aulis site is very interesting, thanks Kip

          The moonbuggy/jeep photos on that site expose the BS official story all by themselves. Ditto the reflections in the Astronots visors.

          In fact the moonbuggy and golf “human interest” BS stories are just plain ridiculous. Why take a jeep and a golf set up there into such a hostile environment and risk an accident? Why not do something properly scientific, a real experiment of some sort? All that money to just have a bit of pointless fun? Really? You’ve got to be kidding me. Both are simply inane stories. I guess they put them out to maintain public interest, which was starting to wane. But still, couldn’t they think of something less stupid?

          It’s pretty amazing that these 2stories didn’t expose NASA at the time. I suppose that they were confident that they had most folk hooked, and thought they could get away with any blatant BS. A bit like the covid story easily hooks covidian cult members without question now. [Omicron is an anagram for moronic, about right for covidians]


          1. And the very same Johns Hopkins who brought you “Covid” is intimately involved with extravagant (that is, expensive) BS Space Programs too.

            All in the family of corruption.

            Here they wish to use kinetic energy of a flying space probe to slam into a Double Asteroid system….as a proof of concept…for when the REAL NEED occurs. That would be when NASA and Johns Hopkins University need to save humanity from a incoming asteroid.

            I think I mentioned earlier that this $h#t never ends, does it? Most of you get that already 🙂



            Regarding the daily, if not hourly, 24×7 BS which is spewed at the public, has anyone given any thought to exactly HOW this constant firehose of lies is implemented? I mean, really, it just boggles the mind.

            Who, What, Where, and How?? I know control of the media plays a key role, but there has to be more to the story than just that.


            1. thank you rasputin for bringing up my point above:
              we should assume that the moonlanding is a hoax since it is brought to us by the very same people as all the other confirmed hoaxes..

              and you also bring up an excellent and highly interesting and much more useful point than moonlanding to contemplate on:
              HOW is the “constant firehose of lies” implemented?
              Yes, the lies are strangely congruous, consistent, and coordinated; perhaps this indicates, despite what most people think, that there really is just one man at a time at the very top making the final decisions; it is not inconceivable when we realize that one general command from top has FIXED commands that shoot out from that one central command.
              of course signals get crossed and mistakes are made and dissenting voices squeeze in every now and then but the absolute consistency of the media output seems to indicate that very very few men at the top are making the final command.


              1. I’d assume it’s run just like a corporation. That’s how I would do it. The person making the day to day calls doesn’t wield the real power they are just the CEO appointed by a board of directors appointed by the major shareholders.


  11. Whatever life takes away from you, let it go. Surrender the past, allow yourself to be alive in the moment. Releasing the past means you are free to fully appreciate the dream happening at this very moment. The present (now) is a terrible thing to miss.

    “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
    —Galatians 4:16, KJB


    1. A very Buddhist thought also, Steve, the eternal present. Nice scripture too…especially for those of us who perceive the ramping-up of the on-going war. Even after 20 months, the mantra of most seems to be “Don’t wake me from my opium dreams!”


  12. If memory serves, Dusty Baker, while playing for the Dodgers, created the high five. A spare part for the Padres, Juan Bonilla, parodied the high five after he hit a rare home run against the Dodgers, and Baker et al, took umbrage. From that point on, every opponent of the Dodgers high fived, when applicable, and the contagion spread down to the very DNA of the culture. The More You Know….

    Liked by 1 person

  13. As someone who’s dabbled in 3d imagery, I was struck by the parallax analysis of the photos-
    One small set of images can convey what thousands of words of explanation and technical analysis may fail to, and I think it’s quite compelling. I believe it was linked to in Moondoggie.
    By the way, has anyone ever watched Capricorn One? It’s a fairly realistic assessment of how it may have played out, at least for some of the participants. It at least shows what was on people’s minds by 1977, and I don’t think it would be made today.


  14. I don’t think Bill Kaysing is controlled opposition, he had been supportive of other journalists who argue the official narrative, and pointed out pretty much the same points you summarized; why would you think that he is controlled opposition?


  15. I read McGowan’s work on Moon Hoax and Boston Hoax. I can understand, Mark, why you’re skeptical of his motives. He divulged evidence, in Boston, that was stunningly clear. He did prove that the official media reports were false. Now all this begs the question why. Why, specifically, did the perpetrators proffer such a voluminous photographic record of the naked fraudulence of the Boston Bombing? You would actually have to be a certified idiot not to see the nakedness of the fraudulence perpetrated on the American public (99.99 percent idiots, both uneducated and actually asleep). But why this military exercise on a peaceful, hard-working American city? I think it was done to absolutely ridicule and destroy our movement. Crush it into little pieces. It’s the perpetrators saying to us, “We will commit this psychological atrocities on your loved ones just to demonstrate you will never defeat us and will always get away this, no matter how much absurd visual evidence we provide. The military is slapping us in the face.


    1. McGowan in Weird Scenes took us as far as he was allowed, that rock stars had military connections. The part he held back was their fake deaths. So I assume in his other work he is also holding back. Regarding the moon hoax it was, as I perceive, that the moon was a cover story behind which was hidden top secret transportation of equipment to LEO, most likely surveillance, maybe weaponry. With Boston the question must be asked: Why so blatantly obvious with the counter evidence to the official narrative? It must be, as you say, to rub out faces in it.


  16. My feeling now is that 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing were all military operations. It’s funny. I only hear from SS and CF that 9/11 was a media operation (and rightfully so), and I hear from Miles Mathis and CTTF that these events are Intelligence operations. But my feeling is that these are ALL MILITARY OPERATIONS, implying that the Military Coup we’ve been fearing for years has already happened– and many, many years ago. I am convinced that the Military has run our government for 70 years now. Boston Bombing and Moon Hoax were 100% military operations. Miles Mathis points the finger at CIA, Intelligence Agencies, the British Peerage, the Phoenician Navy–but never at the Military. Makes one wonder.


    1. But who controls the military? Who controls Intelligence? Who controls government, media, education and every other major industry?
      These are all the tools of control of the ancient inbred families of moneychangers who have been manipulating us for millennia.


      1. I agree there must be central control of some sort. But how do we know it’s “the ancient inbred families of moneychangers” who are in control? Or rather, how do we know it is only them? Aren’t there others? Couldn’t they be toppled? Wouldn’t they have been at some point? What is the best source on the control exercised by the moneylenders?


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