Moon landings again …

I have suggested to Petra that she review the work of Dave McGowan (fake death 11/22/15) called Wagging the Moondoggie. While a limited hangout, it is a fascinating one, easy reading and littered with humor. I want Petra to confront all aspects of the alleged hoax, and not just those few she selects. I am going to start out with a quote from Lyndon Johnson on leaving office,and prior to Apollo 11.  He apparently did not have a moon landing in his sights. 

“Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control Earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change the climates …”

McGowan mentions the moon landings being a cover story for other objectives only one other time in his 14-part series, in part one, saying “In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents*make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature.” (*The link leads to a 404 NOT FOUND at this late date.)

So that is my primary point to make to Petra: The moon landings were misdirection. Something much bigger, more sinister and therefore more secretive was going on. They did not build the Saturn V rocket just to befuddle and dazzle us. Such technology as was under construction was ahead of its time, and probably in play now in our GPS world where we are all under surveillance at all times, where weather can be controlled, where Vancouver and Seattle can experience 100+ degree hot spells in their otherwise cool climate, where public health is subjected to Big Brother oversight. 

My objectives here are small, however. A list follows of points gathered on my third reading of McGowan. I ask Petra to address some of these points, maybe select just five. She has thus far narrowed the argument to two or three points she regards as pivotal (everyone here disagreeing on the “pivotal”). Time, Petra, to broaden your scope. These are points raised by McGowan, in his order.

There is a lot of material here, so don’t do anything more than skim. I more or less am bound by McGowan’s order of presentation, which jumps around.  But each item below … I felt important enough to leave in for consideration in the broader scheme of things, that is, consideration that in 1969 they did not have the technology to land men on the moon and bring them home. We have an important change to note in 2022: We do not now possess the technology to land men, women, transgenders, gays, asexuals and blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Inuits – the whole modern bag of various assignations of specialness – on the moon and bring them back alive. We are much more woke in our inabilities today.  

From this point forward it is all McGowan.


Opening Quote: “For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?”

How many decades can pass without anyone coming even close to a reenactment of the heroic deeds?

The USSR dominated space research and exploits, far exceeding anything the US did, but never went to the moon. Why?

In the 1960s, a full complement of home electronics consisted of a fuzzy, 13-channel, black-and-white television set with a rotary tuning dial, rabbit ears and no remote. Such cutting-edge technology as the pocket calculator was still five years away from hitting the consumer market. How could they pull this off?

Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far.

The Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets [von Braun] had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).

To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey… 

NASA doesn’t actually have the moon footage anymore. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them?

So what we saw then were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a tiny black-and-white monitor. It seems likely that it was running taped footage. NASA has never explained why they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.

As Moon landing skeptics have duly noted, if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed, the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth. 

There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. 

As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites. By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. 

… most of the Moon rocks are, uhmm, missing. Does anyone see a pattern developing here?

According to the experts over at NASA, daytime highs average a balmy +260° F, but it cools off quite a bit at night, dropping to an average of -280° F. If you’re looking for anything between those two extremes, you won’t really find it on the Moon. It’s pretty much one or the other. If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen.

One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover. And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need.

These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!

On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.”

     NASA scientist David McKay explained that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.” The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”

     So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s.

Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, light is not scattered and travels only in a straight line from the sun and is reflected back in the same direction. What that means is that anything that falls in the shadows will be in virtually complete darkness. It also means that all shadows will be cast in the same direction. And it means that the sky is always black, and, with no atmosphere filtering the view, that sky will be filled at all times with a dazzling display of stars unlike anything ever before seen by man.

Collectively, the dirty dozen took thousands of photos throughout their alleged journeys. And yet, amazingly enough, not one of them thought it might be a good idea to snap even a single photograph of such a wondrous sight [a dazzling array of stars]. 

The problem for NASA and its attack dogs is that you can’t have it both ways. If the camera is stopped down to avoid overexposing extremely bright highlights, it cannot simultaneously capture full detail in the shadows. And if the aperture and shutter speeds are set to capture detail in the shadows, the camera would necessarily also capture the brilliant stars, which would be far brighter than anything lying in the lunar shadows. Other planets would be pretty hard to miss in the lunar sky as well, though none can be seen in any of NASA’s photos.

If you’ve done this correctly [land the lunar module], the result will be a fairly large crater and a blinding dust storm. That dust will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. If you run the experiment for too long, you may even find that the intense heat has fused the cratered sand into something resembling a large bowl of glass.

There quite obviously should be blast craters under those lunar modules. That is why NASA itself indicated that there would be blast craters under the lunar modules. And that is also why it is fundamentally impossible for the modules to be as impeccably clean and dust-free as they are in all of NASA’s photos. And no amount of spinning from the ‘debunkers’ will ever explain that away.

Those suits were able to provide the astronauts with everything they needed to stay alive in the Moon’s harsh environment. Remember NASA’s elaborate rendering of what a Moon work station protected from space radiation would look like? Neil and Buzz didn’t need any of that fancy stuff because they were wearing the magic suits. And those extreme temperatures of +260° F to -280° F? Not a problem when you’re wearing the magic suit. Not only could they provide the cooling needed to combat the searing temperatures in the sun, but they could also provide the heat to counteract those frigid shadows.

As can be seen in NASA’s photos, the egress side of the lunar module (the side with the ladder and hatch) was usually in the shade (though almost always well lit). What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye. Awesome!

Of course, to actually do that (if we’re pretending that it could be done at all), the suits would have had to have been pressurized. And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.

In the very same NASA post that discusses Moon rocks being constantly bombarded with absurdly high levels of radiation, another curious admission can be found: “meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.” Our old friend from NASA, David McKay, explains that “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.” NASA then explains that that “could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere … like the Moon.”

“Meteoroids,” NASA continues, “are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch … The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.”

Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: “Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We’re in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit.” So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969.

    In November of 1962, Grumman was awarded the contract to build what Moon Machines described as “the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived.” Soon after, we are also informed that the LEM was “what many regarded as the first true spaceship.” In other words, America’s “first true spaceship” was also America’s “most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft.” To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of landing men on a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of taking off from and flying home from a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of performing rendezvous and docking maneuvers in lunar orbit. To this day, no spacecraft has been built that can protect astronauts from the hazards of flying through space outside of the Van Allen belts.

In the Untold Story, we learn that Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas “was not as high-tech as it looked.” On television, it looked pretty damned impressive, for the era at least. As anyone alive at the time recalls, what the world saw was an enormous room filled with computer consoles, each staffed by a key member of the Apollo team diligently monitoring his computer screen for any signs of trouble. But in reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, “the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren’t computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don’t necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide.” But they sure looked pretty damned impressive.

Every one of those consoles on the floor of Mission Control was powered by a single mainframe computer – a single mainframe computer that had the computing power of a single laptop computer. Actually, make that a 2005-era laptop computer. And the spaceship itself, that multi-staged engineering marvel, carried a computer roughly equivalent to what powers a modern digital watch. Total memory capacity was about 72 kilobytes, or just about enough to hold one of the smaller images on this page.

Gemini astronaut Ed White allegedly became the first American to perform a space-walk, despite the fact that NASA did not yet appear to have a suit that would allow for such a maneuver. Nevertheless, on June 3, 1965, White allegedly performed a successful 22-minute EVA (extra-vehicular activity, in NASA jargon) which was yet another “We can do it too!” response to the Soviet Union’s first space-walk.

     In addition, the returning Apollo command modules had to enter Earth’s atmosphere at precisely the right angle. If they hit at too wide an angle, the spacecraft would essentially bounce off and veer off into space. And if they hit at too sharp an angle, the spaceship and it’s crew would not survive the impact. The capsule also had to be in the proper orientation, with the bottom, and thus the heat shield, pointing down. Luckily though, all nine of the Apollo modules that allegedly returned from the Moon hit that narrow window in the proper orientation, despite the fact that the command modules, having jettisoned the attached service modules, had no propulsion or steering capability? [MT note: I am of the opinion that reentry into Earth atmosphere from the moon was, in 1969, impossible, which is why it was wise that astronauts never left Earth’s atmosphere.]

The contract to design and build the command modules was assigned to North American Aviation, whose engineers, it’s safe to say, had quite a formidable task before them. As noted on Moon Machines, the combined command and service modules would require a propulsion system, a navigation system, an environmental control system, plentiful supplies of oxygen, water and food, heat shields capable of handling reentry temperatures beyond anything before experienced, parachutes capable of performing near-miraculous feats, a human waste disposal system, shaving supplies, hygiene supplies, life preservers, protection from micrometeorites, and, for reasons left unexplained, machetes. It took eighteen months to redesign the command modules. Over 100 design changes were made to correct various shortcomings. This redesign process was undoubtedly made more difficult by the fact that no paper records had been kept of what had been installed in the module. As we have already seen, the Apollo program didn’t place a high priority on record keeping.     

NASA had much better luck with the Lunar Orbiter Program, which involved putting five satellites into lunar orbit between August of 1966 and August of 1967. Each of the five orbited the Moon, capturing high-resolution images, for an average of ten days each. In addition to mapping the lunar surface, the Orbiters also sent back the first images of Earth from space and the first photos of the Earth rising over the lunar horizon. In all, some 3,000 images were beamed back – officially at least.

     The problem here, of course, is that NASA’s numbers don’t seem to add up. Does it make any sense at all that the three successful Ranger missions, which flew directly to the Moon and immediately crashed, sent back 17,000 images, and yet the five Orbiters, which spent a combined total of fifty-three days orbiting the Moon, sent back just 3,000 images? That’s a capture rate of just over two images per hour. And the Orbiters had multiple cameras on board. There is little doubt that the Orbiters returned far more images than claimed, of which only a select few (relatively speaking) were released. What then happened to the rest of them? I’m going to go way out on a limb here and guess that NASA needed those images for another, more important project: faking the Apollo Moon landings. All of those glorious shots of Earth from space, and of Earth-rises, and of superimposed spacecraft in lunar orbit were undoubtedly created from unreleased imagery captured by the Orbiters. As were, no doubt, the fake lunar sets and the fake lunar backdrops.

Gemini 6 finally got into low-Earth orbit on December 11 and remained there for just over one day. During that time, Gemini 6 allegedly performed a rendezvous maneuver with Gemini 7, the two spacecraft remaining side-by-side for some 5.5 hours while traveling at 17,000 miles per hour. Curiously, there was a launch of a military rocket in between the launches of Gemini 6 and Gemini 7, and Lovell has said that that launch was connected in some unspecified manner to the mission of Gemini 7.

Curiously, the two pilots chosen for this complex mission were both rookies. The crew that had originally been slated to fly the mission, Elliot See and Charles Bassett, were killed on February 28, 1966, just days before the launch, when See, one of the nation’s top pilots, slammed a T-38 Talon into the side of a building in St. Louis.

The first Apollo contract was awarded in July of 1961, for the sophisticated navigation system that would allegedly guide the spacecraft to the Moon. In an unusual move, NASA opted not to solicit bids for the guidance system; instead, the contract was handed directly to MIT, generating “immediate controversy,” as noted by Moon Machines. As one of the show’s talking-heads noted, “There was actually a budding industry out there that had developed guidance systems and people from industry were quite upset. They felt that they should have been given the chance to bid on the contract – and a university is not ordinarily what the government contracts out to build hardware for operational systems.”

Perhaps significantly, Bill Kaysing, the first Apollo skeptic to gain prominence, has claimed that it was MIT (in conjunction with DARPA) that provided NASA with the blueprint for how to plausibly simulate manned trips to the Moon. If true, then it of course makes perfect sense that NASA would have turned directly and immediately to MIT, and would have done so without taking any outside bids. Until MIT completed their work and provided the space agency with an outline of the project, it would seem, NASA wouldn’t have known what other contracts to award.

The most complicated aspect of the Apollo missions was the landing of the lunar modules, which made the software program controlling that part of the mission the most difficult to design. Amazingly though, that aspect of the software design was not assigned until after most of the other programs were 2/3 complete – and it was assigned to a twenty-two-year-old gent named Don Isles who had just recently started his very first job. According to Moon Machines, “the program without which it would be impossible to land on the Moon … had been written almost as an afterthought by a junior engineer.”

Interestingly enough, some of America’s illustrious astronauts have themselves seeded the literature with alien tales. None of them, to my knowledge, has ever endorsed the notion of alien colonies on the Moon, but they have certainly added fuel to that fire by dropping allusions to UFO sightings. Our old friend Buzz Aldrin, most notoriously, has claimed that Apollo 11 was tailed all the way to the Moon by a UFO!

In one of the articles, we find Michael Wargo, identified as the “chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA Headquarters,” contemplating a return trip to the Moon: “’None of our spacesuits that we currently have would be appropriate for that extreme an environment,’ [says Wargo]. Any materials built for Earth-like temperatures won’t work on the moon. ‘They don’t bend anymore, they fracture, and they fracture brittle-y, and so everything gets extremely brittle at those temperatures.’” (“Water Discovery Fuels Hope to Colonize the Moon,” November 13, 2009)

The other article from details yet more of the lost technology of the 1960s: “Though engineers are well on their way to preparing us for life on the moon, some major issues have yet to be resolved. ‘Something that we’ll have to consider is radiation,’ Zacny (with Honeybee Robotics, a NASA contractor) said. ‘We can close ourselves in habitats, but radiation protection requires a lot of shielding. We cannot solve this problem yet. Radiation can kill us.’ Moon dwellers will also have to contend with the ubiquitous dust on the surface of the moon, which gets into everything and can wear down joints and connectors and prevent sealing off doors. It also poses a health risk to people, as it can cause breathing difficulties and is difficult to filter out of habitats.” (“How to Build Lunar Homes From Moon Dirt,” September 3, 2008)

Earth’s gravitational pull would obviously get progressively weaker the farther out one ventured, but common sense dictates that it wouldn’t just abruptly end once you got beyond low-Earth orbit. Indeed, an article that appeared in various newspapers not long ago noted that the satellites that enable GPS devices to work orbit the Earth at an altitude of roughly 12,000 miles, about 11,800 miles beyond low-Earth orbit. And yet they are, miraculously enough, still held in place by Earth’s gravity and there have been no reported cases of one of them suddenly freefalling to the Moon.

There they go again, pretending as though we’ve never done this before! Already we have heard from NASA types about how we haven’t yet solved the radiation problem, and how we haven’t yet developed spacesuit materials capable of withstanding the temperature extremes on the Moon, and how we haven’t yet solved the problem of how to deal with all that Lunar dust … and now we find that we apparently also haven’t yet worked out how to deal with the fact that spacecraft returning from the Moon would have to survive much higher re-entry speeds than spacecraft returning from low-Earth orbit! And I’m guessing that we might also have a problem with controlling the all-important reentry angle.

What Van Allen’s team had discovered, of course, was that Earth is ringed by belts of high-energy particles, now known as the Van Allen radiation belts. And what Fleming’s recent research revealed, incredibly enough, is that the “day after the press conference, [Van Allen] agreed with the military to get involved with a project to set off atomic bombs in the magnetosphere to see if they could disrupt it.”

30 thoughts on “Moon landings again …

  1. Very happy to see you back on this thread; I just read this once through and need to review your post more in depth as it recently came up on my radar again for a few reasons – and honestly, its really, really important to me and likely the future of our human race, foundationally speaking.

    So I recently gave “American Moon” a shot, which was surprisingly less biased than all its detractors claim (sure at some points, biased, funny music etc,). Overall, covered the common to uncommon arguments fairly well. Yet, I am unsure whether it might classify as a limited hangout – many exhibits were well presented, others less so. Curious if you watched it / your take. I’ll get back to this documentary below though, so finish reading;

    My up-to-date take continues to be that something is absolutely wrong with the sum of the evidence. And, a bit frustratingly, I simply cant seem to find many people in my day to day non-digial life that care enough to even watch and listen for themselves.

    I will say that it is amazing how arguments are conflated – to suggest something is absolutely wrong with the sum of the evidence leaves one to head in one of a few directions – yet one doesnt need to begin commenting on which one to stick to the evidence presented by “official” organizations. (Those directions being, roughly, black projects occulted by the nonsense promoted to a gullible public – or that the technology is not feasible ran into extreme difficulties, or something more bizarre and maybe unspeakable or uncomprehendable to thos uninitiated)

    “American Moon”‘s focus was for the most part, not about which direction, albeit it leans one towards the project being a surprising failure and then simulation. And it does a great job of covering just how feasible the simulation tech here on earth got as the deadline approached. But it never once could be portrayed to lean one towards the more likely possibility that this tech broke away from official oversight, or its purpose was never to travel to the moon (rather militaristic innovation in LEO)


    1. I have not seen American Moon, but will now for sure. I do not have bandwidth enough for video, so in my spare time here in Mexico I have captured and then pared down the 14-part McGowan series, trying to make it short enough to be useful and enjoyable for readers. Even so, I cringe at how long it is, and yet, McGowan’s writing is crisp enough that I like the flow of the narrative.


      1. Mark, I’m chuffed you wrote an article with my name in it. A few weeks ago Off-Guardian wrote an article rubbishing me for allegedly saying that the power elite are infallible – which, of course, I’ve never said. I just say they always give us the signs and if they did genuinely screw up … would it make a difference?

        I’ve just gone through the most stressful day of my life – no exaggeration – trying to get my mother’s American neighbour in Italy exemption to travel as her chaperone to Sydney as in the last few months my mother has developed dementia – seemingly massively hastened by the jabs she got in August to travel around Europe – she didn’t want them and as far as I knew she wasn’t getting them but then she wanted to travel and so went ahead. The idea was that Susie could attend the Australian Open (not sure how likely that is now) as a win-win type situation. My mother and Susie were supposed to depart Rome on Sunday but there was some mixup about the test required and they’d done the RAT instead of the PCR so they were not allowed on the flight on that basis alone but there was another basis we were unaware of too. It was hoped they’d get the same flight the next day but Susie’s exemption was rejected by the Australian Department of Immigration – I mean, how on earth do you reject exemptions at this stage? Why wasn’t the exemption part of the visa requirements to avoid any confusion? She’d submitted a 2nd request but today I thought no way are they going to spend a third night in a hotel – I need to ensure an exemption will be approved rather than simply wait for the verdict. My mother’s going seriously batty and she’ll send Susie batty and it’s all so ridiculous. After a number of phone calls and a submission finally the exemption was granted just before check-in time. OMG! But even though they should be right now about to board the plane I’m still in hyperventilation mode. Do they know how to demoralise us or what? I know I should just keep calm and simply do the best I can but I simply find it impossible.

        I will get back to your post in a little while, Mark.


        1. Sorry for your troubles … this article stands for you to review when you want to cover the entire depth and breadth of the moon deception. So far you’ve only dabbled in some confirmation bias, nothing more.


    1. I thought the video was good…I read Mark’s post then watched and it hit the salient points. Parody and humor is important. Laughter is one of the greatest joys of life and I don’t intend to let them take that away.

      I offer a parody for a parody… (complete with its own singing cowboy)

      A ode to the supposed ‘project A119’ to blow up the moon

      From Mr. Show with Bob and David:
      Blow Up the Moon ( )
      Season 3
      Episode 6 “Goin’ on a Holiday”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. From an article on AULIS Online called The Dangers of Space Radiation:

    Ellen Stofan CC BY 2.0“NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars… We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic radiation. That’s a higher dose than we think humans right now should really get.”

    – Dr Ellen Stofan, Chief Scientist, NASA, and principal advisor
    to NASA Administrator – BBC Newsnight interview, November 2014

    “Radiation surely must be the biggest showstopper preventing mankind’s exploration of the Universe.”

    – Professor Clive Dyer, MA (Cantab.), PhD (Lond.), DIC., June 1997
    Clive Dyer has worked in space and radiation research for more than 40 years, authoring more than 200 publications in the field

    In a significant speech delivered in Washington on 26 March 2002 NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe told his audience of aerospace professionals that NASA faced two key technical obstacles in the exploration of space, the most significant being:
        The hazardous radiation environment for humans travelling beyond Earth.

    Figure 2″How do we shield astronauts from radiation on longer missions? … How do we supply spacecraft with energy needed for these far-reaching journeys?

    These are questions that we can answer and will answer. And these are the questions whose answers no doubt will reap untold benefits right here on Earth.”

    – US President Barack Obama
    John F. Kennedy Space Center, April 15, 2010


  3. Have you ever noticed that the lies are never funny (but usually boring and overly complicated), and the truth is often simple and hilarious? Some say laughter is an involuntary response to truth. I think McGowan (or whoever really wrote it) proves that with Wagging the Moondoggie. Absolutely hilarious stuff.

    The point about the implications of the lie – if they can lie about this, they can lie about anything – is so important to understand. Everyone needs to do a complete re-inventory of literally everything they think they know, certainly everything supported by the “official” dogma – that must be obvious, mustn’t it? If you’re still buying any of what they’re selling, you ain’t as woke as you thought you was.

    I think it’s great that folks are figuring out that the moon landing was (an absurd, ridiculous, unbelievable) fake. I hope that others, like myself, once realizing that not only are the moon landings fake, but literally all “space” technology is fake (satelloons being the closest thing they have, other than their big dumb fake rockets that fly a parabola into the ocean), begin to question the official cosmology itself, for which there is little to no evidence for. What is the evidence that stars are distant “suns”? What is the evidence for the distance to, and size of, the moon, sun and planets? For that matter, what is the evidence that the Earth is in motion? Every scientific experiment ever conducted has failed to detect a hint of motion to the Earth, not to mention our own five senses. I offer you this quote from Relativity For The Layman by James A. Coleman (highly recommended) – page 37, under the title “Possible Explanations for Michelson and Morley’s Results”:

    “The failure to detect the ether could be explained, of course, if the ether did not exist; but the necessity of the ether’s existence was too firmly entrenched to be discarded. Instead, four reasons were advanced as possible explanations of the inability of scientists to detect the ether: the easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether. Then we on earth would not experience an ether wind, thus making detection of the ether impossible. Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.”

    Ah, but I get ahead of myself. We all have to get there in our own time, at our own pace, though I find that even the most ardent truth seeker may balk when it comes to questioning the official cosmology. Some programming runs too deep I suppose, and admittedly it’s a lot to let go of. Casting aside the official space mythos is certainly a prerequisite though, and a big step in the right direction!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “For that matter, what is the evidence that the Earth is in motion?”

      The seasons, and the night sky changing with them. The big tour we call a year. That is the evidence.

      The official cosmology of our solar system, the classical cosmology, is a great story of what the human mind has figured out over time. Let’s leave aside “black holes” and “big bangs” other modern confabulations, which are uninstructive anyway. But the classical cosmology is a great story.

      It is a common tactic to associate reasonable criticism of hoaxes such as the moon landing with outlandish claims that you have to ditch the entire cosmology and instead go Flat Earth, Geocentric or whatnot – with a view to discredit such criticism and discourage people from examing the evidence. My guess is it may even, in some cases, be a paid job.


  4. Years ago, I looked into the moon tale. Aulis offers good perspectives, but the quality of the articles differs. In the end, it’s all inside the space frame. We just don’t know what’s really up there. Argumenting with space radiation leads to nothing, who knows. What’s telling, is the history of the program. Big problems, little testing. No accidents, except A1. The reentry, coming back from the moon, was not tested unmanned.
    The Saturn rocket maybe was a failure. The Russian moon rocket used 30 engines, even the Russians did not master the problems with big engines. NASA used explosives to stabilize the engines. The Saturn took off, maybe it flew into orbit, and soon into the museums, after the skylab interim show. A source to look at are vintage film reports. I got a nice collection. One is about the development of a nuclear stage for Saturn. This thing was built full size and tested. It was supposed to make exploration of the solar system possible, but it’s forgotten today. There’s also an early documentary about research for shielding materials, much heavier than needed and seen later…


  5. There is a very good reason why they launch from Cape Canaveral. And likewise in barren Kazakhstan (if I’m not mistaken).

    In US, the rockets go into the drink…that is, down “range” into the Atlantic Ocean.

    Likewise in Kazakhstan….into barren wasteland.

    No one goes anywhere. Space programs serve one purpose
    . .to enslave the public with Trillion$$$$ in debt!!

    Period! No “grander” purpose whatsoever.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Mark, I’m sorry. But this discussion about the Moon Hoax is leading nowhere. I cannot stress the importance of a single (and nakedly obvious) fact, that the central players in the Moon Mission were Freemasons of the highest orders (not your Blue Lodge dopes sitting around on Saturday afternoons, figuring out which food bank they’re going to feed). The scum who perpetrated one of the greatest hoaxes ever in the history of the human race were members of some deep secret Freemasonic order that has thrived in this world since the Crusades. They are the Kingmakers, the Presidentmakers, the Senatormakers, etc… They mint our currency with their ancient symbols, they print their ancient images on all our corporations, which they own. Think the Golden Arches, think Exxon Mobile, think Capitol One, think AAA, think CBS, think CIA, think the dollar bill, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on….In fact, the very driver’s license you put in your pocket, and the social security card you place next it–all Freemasonic symbolism. And on the order of Sandy Hook and Boston Bombing ugly hideous hoaxes, it’s a fact that 95% of Connecticut and Massachusetts State Troopers are low-level Freemasons. The Connecticut State Police might as well be 99%. It is time to destroy the Freemasonic Order, to tear down their statues, to burn their Wall Street offices to the ground, to refuse their corporate cleptocracy, to reject their technocratic, systematic destruction of the human mind. If we do not, then we shall forever be slaves and serfs and peasants beneath the cornerstone of their tyranny.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. You still think you can win Mark by NOT detaching from the kleptocrazy bunch John so eloquently pointed out?

        Why is it that when people actually are encouraged to act, that they weasel out.

        If you actively keep supporting the System you are part of the problem, no two ways about it.

        Either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists hasn’t become more appropriate now.


        1. All is connected, economy, military, law, religion, the spiritual. Apollo was not only about siphoning money and distraction from the war, it shaped the picture of the world humanity has. Vandalizing some offices will not change this place, we need to figure out the situation we’re in first. The current events are connected too, a mechanic worldview.


            1. No and you shouldn’t either.

              Why do you allow such fakery into your life ?

              And why do you actively withhold small shop owners from their potential ecos nomos.

              If Bezos/Walmart/any avoidable retailer is evil
              and why aren’t they ?
              anyone supporting those evil empires
              by buying from or spreading links to
              aMAZON…..and co

              is part of that evil

              you buy from the Nazis.

              why ????

              do you have a moral conscience ?


              1. Pretty sure I am not guilty, minding my own business, no world to save that I can assist with anyway. But I appreciate you taking time to lecture me. I’ll stop buying from the Nazis immediately. I will cancel my Swastika order immediately.


                1. You’re a Nazi, and I’m a spook. Take note of this little thread over “there”. “”. JR’s article is one of his best, at least from my particular bias.


            2. Fun fact, Walmart shut down business in Germany back in 2006. Little bit off the rails here, my point was, building the biggest fireworks rocket ever to shape human worldview may be money reasonably spent.


  7. Once one accepts it was a hoax life gets more interesting! I was never into space as a kid, just mesmerized what I had to for class and promptly forgot it all. There’s quite an interesting film called ‘Shooting the Moon’ by Croww777 for those whose minds are open. He has done an enormous amount of video of the sky and it was put together by his partner in such a way as to be informative and digestible for a lay audience like myself who is really not interested in the fraud itself, but in speculating what space is really. He suggests the moon is not a rock in space that can be landed upon and that makes a lot more sense to me. I also doubt the entire theory of space and think it was all coordinated for eventual weather control and spy stuff.


    1. Croww777 is a flat earther, which is why he is not listed on our blog roll. He denies this, even affects disdain that people would say such a thing, and at the same time says the the best way to understand our planet is to drop the letter ‘t’.


      1. What does that mean your ‘blog roll’? I don’t really care anymore who is in what ‘camp’ I try to look at the material they are presenting, which the vids he’s amassed are not altered, are they? So I don’t see what’s the problem. I don’t need a one to come out with an entirely new and acceptable theory before listening to their speculations. Do you have any evidence that his material is tampered with or otherwise not to be trusted? If he says he’s not a flat-earther but likes the word ‘plane’ as a description, how is it this makes his material not of value?


        1. Crowww777 is disingenuous in his offerings, including much that I like, but because of this disingenuity, his refusal to flat out assert that we live on a flat planet, I do not allow discussion of his work here. It’s a big world, plenty of sites where you can take him in. Just not here. Read our commenting policy. You’ll find flat earth right there among the forbidden topics, and the reasoning behind it.

          Commenting Policy


  8. Some pertinent observations by McGowan, for example the need for batteries in the absence of viable solar panel technology back in the day.

    Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, light is not scattered and travels only in a straight line from the sun and is reflected back in the same direction. What that means is that anything that falls in the shadows will be in virtually complete darkness.

    Well, there is still the light the near side of the Moon receives from Earth, plus the light from Venus, Mars and Jupiter. There should be the stars, too. The question is in how far the human eye would be able to see them in the vicinity of the Sun. But I can’t think of a reason for the stars to be invisible when facing away from the Sun as you would have to do anyway, given that the sky must be black and reveal the stars. In fact, the stars should be overwhelming.


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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s