[Note to readers: This post was published by accident and prematurely. What follows below differs in many parts from the original. My fat fingers hit the wrong button.]
Petra Liverani is the object of this post. While so, I want to keep it objective as possible, and to resist personal insult. I bear no ill will, maintain no posture of superior wisdom. She and I suffer the same shortcoming, resistance to reading anything we are not predisposed to agree with. She challenged me to read a long treatment by a professional “debunker” of Dave McGowan’s Moondoggie series. I have done so, even knowing she has not read McGowan’s work. I have done my due diligence.
McGowan (fake death 11/22/15, currently alive and well in LA) took us as far as allowed, and as with all limited hangouts, hid more than he revealed. but this is the public platter, and that is where this matter will center.
There is, in formal logic, a fallacy known as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”. Literally translated, it is “after this thing, therefore because of this thing.” One can see it clearly in the example of shark attacks on humans increasing as ice cream sales increase. The fallacy would be to claim that sale of ice cream causes shark attacks. More logically, ice cream sales increase in the summer, as do people swimming in the ocean.
The professional “Debunkers” have at their disposal an array of authoritative sources schooled in rocketry, and the Apollo Saturn V was real. It is logical therefore to conclude that these very skilled people put men on the moon. I see the rockets, I saw them take off. Did they manage to put men on the moon using them? No! One does not lead to the other. We only know rockets took off, but not where they went, really. They were doing something, and whatever it was, they are not telling. But the answer can be found in the two quotations I used with my piece called Moon Landings Again:
“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 …” (Lyndon Johnson, 1958)
“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 …” (McGowan, Moondoggie)
So yes, they did rocketry and got very good at it, but IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that they went to the moon. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
My biggest problem with “debunkers” is that they suck on the teats of power and blandly repeat official truth, their only real job being to distort and confuse, layering enough technobabble on top of official lies to fool ordinary observers. Thus, I want nothing to do with this jackass other than to cast him in the shadows of professional liars.
This link will take you to the debunking piece, “part 1.” The boldfaced headings are his, the responses mine. For me to reprint everything he wrote and then to respond is too much. You can read his words yourself and switch back here for a response if you are so inclined.
Comparison of Apollo to transatlantic travel
No one claims that going to the moon, if that happened, was not far more difficult than earthly activities. Debunker is answering a question not asked, a standard political ploy. The point made by McGowan was that given that the technology supposedly worked, forty years should not have gone by before it was duplicated. The first trans-Atlantic flight in 1919 and within a decade was a routine occurrence. THAT is the point.
Comparison of Apollo to a 500mph early automobile.
This answer is a non-sequitur. McGowan was not talking about any gaps, but only that remarkable accomplishment, his equivalent of a car going 500mph, and no follow-up thereafter even with the technological breakthrough,
The Soviets’ space budget was half of the USA’s.
I would give debunker this small point if we knew how much the two countries actually spent on their programs, and that they really were competing. I think McGowan thinks there was actual competition, so that should indeed be debunked. Indeed, landing people on the moon would be far more difficult than putting them in space, and that is the point. Debunker assumes that happened, McGowan knows it did not.
The Apollo landings were about geopolitics, not science.
By the way, our Debunker is British if one endeavors to read closely. Debunker is making McGowan’s points for him. The cost/benefit of the Apollo program was not there. The Apollo missions were a “symbolic” demonstration of American superiority over Russia. That’s as far a reach as anyone has ever made in justifying Apollo. Burden of proof: Were the US and USSR really embittered enemies? Given the divvying up of German scientists postwar it appears that far from enemies, there were agreements between the two countries on what was to be done. They were cooperating. There was a division of labor. The Soviets could work in secrecy, while the Americans were obligated to place their lies in layers of seeming truth. That is the great shortcoming of democratic governance, that while public opinion must officially be treated with respect, it is rarely heeded. Americans space research was no more transparent than that of the Soviets, only layered in disinformation and misdirection.
The price of the moon landings.
The presumptions behind this bit of “debunking” is that we have a true accounting of the space program, and that even if it were accurate, that the funds were used for rocketry and moon landings, and nothing else. There’s a great burden on Debunker here to counter McGowan’s words early on in his series: “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.” (*Link now dead.)
The technology of the 1960s.
“Clearly space technology hasn’t advanced as fast as McGowan thinks”, says Debunker. Is this not McGowan’s point, restated? McGowan nowhere says that NASA should revert to 1960s technology to repeat the accomplishments of that era. This is, again, a non-sequitur, answering questions not asked.
Smaller distances travelled by modern astronauts.
Debunker: “McGowan makes the point that modern astronauts travel much smaller distances than the Apollo astronauts travelled, as if this proved that travelling further must be impossible. All it actually proves is that NASA has been concentrating on things other than the moon since the Apollo era. As discussed earlier, the moon landings were primarily symbolic. Once they were over NASA was able to turn its attention to less expensive, more practical, and more scientifically beneficial projects, which is why it started work on the space shuttles, with the intention of establishing a space station (now the International Space Station). The idea of the space shuttle was that it would bring down the cost of reaching space by being reusable and flying on a regular basis. Without the distorting influence of the desire to beat Russia to the Moon, crewed space exploration reverted to the course it would probably have followed had the Cold War not happened, concentrating on the far more easily-accessible environment closer to the Earth.”
Again, Debunker relies on the repeated but never actually proven shibboleth that the US and USSR were deadly enemies in competition with each other, when evidence points to the contrary. That is central to his premise, that competition between two superpowers drove the US to make a public display of its superiority. But were they? Confident allies in World War II, after that they divvied up scientists and each undertook study of rocketry. It was not until 1961 that talk of going to the moon became the norm, the Soviets never getting on that ship. It appears that the Soviets and Americans were involved in a joint venture, and that travel to the moon became misdirection, the Americans being much more advanced in the science of propaganda than the Soviets (who were rather ham-handed in that area).
Moon force.
Debunker: “’Is there no military advantage to be gained by sending men to the Moon?’ McGowan asks, but doesn’t delve into any specifics. Establishing a manned military base would likely take up a large part of the US military budget over the course of decades, assuming it could even be done, all for an advantage so poorly defined McGowan doesn’t even hazard a guess as to what it might be. It’s probably safe to assume conventional military spending provides better value for money.”
Debunker says that the Moon landings had no scientific purpose, and now no military value. Can it be made clearer than that that we had no reason to go to the Moon, and so probably did not?
Single-stage versus multi-stage rockets.
Debunker here misses the point made elsewhere by McGowan (and which will be addressed below in better detail) that the rockets were under-fueled, whether it was Saturn V or the Command and Lunar Landings, as those two vehicles had to go an additional 223,000 miles, most of which would be without escaping Earth’s gravity. Whether or not this was done with single stage or multiple stage rocketry is not the point. The question is how much fuel is required to get there, land, take off again and return. Debunker addresses this issue below. Did WvB ever comment on that other than his need for an 800,000 ton rocket statement, or did he go silent on us. If he went silent on us, does this mean he was in on the game? (Most likely.)
The missing tapes.
The ”double speed film” of astronauts on the moon – we have no way of knowing the speed of that video unless we can compare it to the original. They could be, probably is, 3 or 4 times original speed. How can we know without seeing them side by side in order to measure distances covered in time.
Indeed prior to the 1974 Arab oil boycott, when whale oil came in demand once more, whale oil was used to make magnetic recording tape. There was a period of time (1970s) when the synthetic substitute for whale oil caused degradation of tapes worldwide, but it is thought that the problem was rushing the technology to market as whale oil was outlawed. Anyway, I can find nothing about a shortage of magnetic tape in the 1980s, in fact what I learn is during that time was a movement towards cassettes and away from reels, but no shortage. Also, during that time occurred the digital revolution. So that part of Debunker’s argument is debunked. There was a change of technology in the 1970s, but in the 1980s advances were making use of magnetic tape easier. There would be no need to write over reel-to-reel tapes. Use of magnetic tape was on its way out.
I think it most likely that NASA did not destroy, nor did they write over Apollo tapes. Rather I think it far more likely that the tapes simply did not exist, and that this argument is misdirection, an American propaganda specialty.
Regarding use of a TV camera top film a TV screen of the supposed astronauts on the moon, I don’t care, that is, I would not make a fuss about that. Technology was so primitive at that time that no one was on the moon anyway. C’mon.
The amount of fuel needed to reach the moon.
This is a somewhat impressive body of information, all above my pay grade, but I have one question: What is it holds the Moon in Earth’s sphere if not the Earth’s gravity? I can see that when a rocket approaches the Moon, Earth’s gravitational pull lessens, and it will gradually come under the Moon’s gravitational pull. But Debunker here has the Earth’s gravitational pull on the Lunar and Command vehicles at 1/50th of surface gravity at only 1/10th of the way to the Moon. What if, however, that diminishing pull is massive at the start? Then 1/50th woudl still be significant. If Debunker is correct, by the time the spaceship is halfway to the moon, gravity has ceased to matter, and it is in essential free fall. But we know that not to be so. Again, I have to ask, what holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth?
This stuff is all beyond my comfort zone (and Petra’s expertise as well) so I leave it at that. I will say, however, that none of us knows the true amount of fuel that would be used in a hypothetical trip to the Moon, and that NASA has it within its power to publish any set of numbers, true or not, since so much evidence says we did not go there, but that other work was underway using Saturn V rockets. I would classify the charts on fuel use as misdirection, boldfaced lying, or a true rendition of LEO use of fuel during the Apollo program. I cannot know which.
“Missing” plans.
The Lunar Rovers were, as far as I can tell, converted Willie’s Jeeps. I have seen superimposition of a Jeep frame on to the Rovers, done with known specifications for each, and it was a precise fit. That part of the hoax, the Rovers just turning up on the Moon, is an absurd proposition.
Saturn V rockets were indeed real, and used, I imagine, to transport weapons and other equipment into LEO, and not men to the moon. So there should indeed be blueprints for them, confirmed by Debunker.
——————
OK, Petra: I’ve read your Debunkers Report. Now, get going on the 50 points of interest that I gleaned from the McGowan writings, point by point in my post called Moon Landings Again. You cannot hide away forever. Your future comments will automatically go to moderation, only those addressing the matters at hand seeing light of day. After all, there’s only so much Occam we can endure.
Piece of Mindful 
This is going to make a very interesting discussion. I’m sure Petra will bring her own explanations to the points above.
LikeLike
Bah, so much spilled ink over such nonsense. It’s hard to believe anyone still takes this stuff seriously, but I guess sacred cows die hard (to mix metaphors).
I do hope that anybody interested in subjects like the moon landing and Hollywood fakery takes a couple of hours to make some popcorn and go watch Capricorn One – surely, the official confession note on the whole Apollo debacle, but a very entertaining one! Sort of like O.J. Simpson’s “If I did it” – it shows how NASA could easily have kept nearly everybody in the dark, including the astronauts, and precisely how they could have fooled the vast majority of staff, engineers and even crew that were part of the Apollo program, with black helicopters dispatched to take care of any stragglers.
Interesting note from IMDB:
Despite being portrayed as a villain, NASA provided technical assistance, including mock-up spacecraft, sets, vehicles, front screen projection expertise.
Speaking of O.J., his performance in the film was certainly the second best of his career! The film has plenty of great performances, but for my money I’ll take Telly Savalas as the curmudgeony crop dusting pilot Albain (favorite quote below). For a film with so many big names and great performances, it’s surprising that it isn’t more well known! Such a shame. The film can be found on YouTube. Go watch it!
Robert Caulfield : Mr Albaine, how much do you charge to dust a field?
Albain : Twenty five dollars.
Robert Caulfield : I’d like to hire your plane.
Albain : That’ll be a hundred dollars.
Robert Caulfield : You said you charged twenty five?
Albain : Twenty five dollars to dust a field, but you ain’t got no field because you ain’t no farmer, which means you ain’t poor and I think you’re a pervert!
Robert Caulfield : Okay, one hundred.
Albain : One hundred and twenty five.
Robert Caulfield : What?
Albain : Because you said yes to a hundred too quick, which means you can afford a hundred and twenty five.
LikeLike
If it was faked, why didn’t they fake it again? Why not fake a Mars mission, or a permanent Moon base, with even better production values? Why stick to rovers and probes for decades if it was so easy to fake the Moon landings? And wouldn’t further realistically faked missions reinforce the ‘truth’ of the Apollo ones in the eyes of the world? So why haven’t they done it again yet? The fact that we never went back agrees better with it being a difficult and expensive reality than a relatively cheap and easy hoax.
LikeLike
Your questions in order asked:
They faked seven lunar missions. I do think that a fake Mars mission is in the works. Rovers and probes are, I believe, the least expensive and most useful tools at hand for exploration of other planets. Those could well be real. They faked an additional six Apollo missions after 11. They were obviously doing something, but it was not moon landings. Then they quit, cold turkey. Both McGowan and LBJ suggest that they were placing weapons and other equipment in LEO. This would explain the highly powerful and sophisticated rockets. That part, the rockets, was real. It’s just a question of where they went.
They have not tried to put a man on the moon for real as the radiation and particle problems remain unsolved. They could not solve them then, they cannot solve them now.
LikeLike
I was referring to the entire Apollo program, not just the first landing.
So if the purpose of the Apollo program was not to go to the Moon, but some other reason like propaganda or placing weapons in orbit (and that’s why it wasn’t faked again), then the official narrative of the space race was only a cover, and the question of why the USSR didn’t go first or didn’t go at all becomes meaningless, because they were never meant to go. The USA was slated to win, and whatever secret plan they had in space was achieved. Why would the USSR go too, and why would the USA go back? Those questions – why the USSR didn’t go first or do it as well, and why we didn’t go back – only make sense if we take the official narrative as an accurate record, but we know it isn’t accurate, the program was stage managed for global propaganda and the USSR and USA were likely working together behind the scenes.
Finding inconsistencies like that in the narrative goes no way towards proving the program was a hoax, only that it was managed for propaganda purposes.
As far as radiation goes, are you referring to recent statements that radiation needs to be dealt with before we can go back? This is because the planned future missions would have people in space for much longer periods than Apollo ever did, and the instruments for guidance, science etc. are far more sensitive now to radiation than the 60s technology. Makes sense to me.
LikeLike
The issue of radiation/astronomy/vanallen belts is a distraction and ultimately just boring. I couldn’t say what parts of the Cold War are for real, but I do know that outside nations discovering little bits of leakage in our
propaganda can still be used against us. Yet, it wasn’t and isn’t still very likely to defeat the childish notion in Boomer Americans that we conquered Luna in ‘60s, same year as Woodstock!:
I believe the Netherlands had newspapers reporting it as false virtually on “the day of”.
There is just the obvious issue of what tv broadcasting was and wasn’t capable of at the time. Frankly, this should alert people quicker than any strict Astronomy issue. I think I heard the comedian Owen Benjamin put it best, but anyone involved in the “Media Arts” – tv side, back then – had to have known the energy to do that wasn’t possible, after all, there’s more computing power now in our iPhones than in any computer from the 60s. What this may have had to do with the demoralizing nature of so much media is from the 70s on (in America) is speculative, but I think it helped lead to a general feeling of malaise in many directors/writers that didn’t even bother to combat.
LikeLike
A poll taken in late 1969 found almost a third of Americans doubted the Moon landings.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I suspect they did fake all of the Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 (if I’m wrong, then I’m glad to see the evidence to the contrary). But as time passed, it simply became inconvenient for them to do this forever as there were so many other projects they had to focus on such as phony wars and serial killers. As the space race between Russia and America was a farce (since both countries were owned by the same people, and still are), there was really no commitment to continue the project beyond the 70s because they already fulfilled their purpose as morale-boosting propaganda for the masses. So they shelved them.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt that there was ever intended to be any benefit for the “masses” from this venture, and I also suspect that the whole of the space program, going back to the 1920s and 1930s had ulterior motives, perhaps the Manhattan Project part of it.
LikeLike
Not that I ever implied it was meant to be of any tangible benefit to the public. It basically was designed, in part, to be feel-good propaganda for mass consumption, as well as primarily a cover for other things, but there was no real positive benefit to be gained by the hoi polloi. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your sentiment here.
LikeLike
The whole point of going to the moon was to reinforce the belief that everybody knew they live on a ball. The blue marble. So really the whole point was to hide God true creation which the fingerprint of which is undeniable.
LikeLike
Bingo. It’s all about the spinning ball. They spin you right round baby right round like a record baby round round round round. People are so spun around they can’t think straight, which makes them ripe for the shearing. They can’t read the book of God’s work so they can’t know God. So they live in fear of death, because death on a spinning ball in an empty, infinite universe which could only be created by an insane god is a scary prospect indeed. Fear is the mind killer, have they have no use for our minds, any more than the shepherd does for the mind of the sheep or the rancher does for the mind of the steer, terrible thing to waste or not.
The deeper you go, the higher you fly
The higher you fly, the deeper you go
Your inside is out when your outside is in
Your outside is in when your inside is out
So come on come on
Come on its such a joy
Come on its such a joy
Come on let’s make it easy
Come on let’s make it easy
Make it easy, make it easy
Everybody’s got something to hide
except for me
(and my monkey)
LikeLike
Not to mention that they claim they no longer have the technology to go to the Moon. Yet they can go to Mars. Also, the missing NASA taps. How ludicrous can they get with these BS stories? Oh, that’s right, they have no self-awareness, so anything goes.
LikeLike
I wonder what are your thoughts of this man’s alleged rebuttal of the claim that the Van Allen Belts were too dangerous for the Apollo astronauts to have gone through. (He is credited for discovering the Belts, btw.) I’m sure you’ll have a field day with this, not to mention other claims included in this link:
“”The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen“
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
LikeLike
Dave McGowan focused his famous paper on the official NASA documents. Others demonstrated that all the space videos are fake as well. I’m convinced that all they can do is to shoot satellites into orbit. And the satellites are simple objects designed mainly to reflect signals from Earth. All the space pictures made before digital cameras became popular are fake or made from airplanes. They now may be able to photograph the Earth from space though. IMO rockets work the same way fireworks do. You can’t really control the trajectory of a firework, except with some steering wings in the air. Rocket engines just burn explosives and cannot be fired and extinguish on request. They also cannot be moved for steering purposes due to the forces involved. I watched the Starlink satellites from Elon Musk after media told us about them and I’ve seen like dozens of them flying first in one exact row, later on 2-3 parallel rows and recently I’ve seen what may be left of them, which were just 3-4 dots flying on not exactly the same row and within a distance of maybe half a minute but still pretty much one after another, which other satellites don’t do. Not even the Iridium flares which I photographed a few times myself. I use long time exposures and stacking and that way you can make the trajectories visible. They just shot some reflecting objects on some 300-500 km orbits and most of them already felt down. I suppose they used the same rockets they use for the ISS because the speed of the Starlink satellites looked pretty much the same to me. IMO rocket engines are designed to reach a certain altitude. They have engines for the geostationary orbit and others for the ISS which they produce in amounts and use all the time. It’s like a firework of the same size and shape which every time reaches the same altitude. And satellites have to be replaced regularly for they usually have a limited time on the orbit. And it is much cheaper than they tell us. It’s rocket science baby, yeah!
LikeLike
Dear POM fellows, maybe it’s just me, but I think it could be the right time to make some useful clarification concerning what opinion the esteemed good folks here at POM exactly hold about the general topic of spacey endeavours.
So, without further ado, to whom it may concern, I’m hereby taking the liberty to declare open at POM the first SpaceTravelsReality Opinion Poll.
Please specify which opinion, among the following list, you deem is best suiting your position, or feel free to add to the list your own new one.
N.B.
In full agreement with the wise rule, already long established worldwide, of setting scientific issues by consensus, I propose that the most voted opinion will be declared the POM’s official winning stance on the matter and accordingly will be the only allowed thereafter.
As successfully demonstrated with climate change, germ theory, relativity and other assorted nonsense, I don’t doubt you good folks will all gratefully appreciate that the implementation of this policy is going to save a lot of everybody’s precious time and energy that otherwise we would insist devoting to endless tiresome and unhealthy activities the likes of thinking, debating, arguing and debunking.
Opinion 1
Space Travels, at least with the allegedly available technology, are just plain impossible, hence no manmade vehicle/object has ever gone and never will go beyond, let’s say to be very generous, the Karman line (much more likely well below it). Anything purportedly related to space travels is fakery of some kind.
POM members: AK, Gaia (the two not necessarily in complete agreement about the technical reasons) + ?
Opinion 2
Space travels are possible only if unmanned, because a safe reentry to the earth is technically impossible. Anything purportedly related to manned space travels is fakery of some kind (moon manned missions, ISS, space shuttle). Other unmanned space ventures (Mars rovers, asteroid probes, Hubble, etc.) could also be fakery, but it’s an open question. At present satellites are the only spacey things absolutely guaranteed 100% real.
POM members: Lumi, HPMug(?), Barbm124(?), JBarlow(?) + ?
Opinion 3
Our present level of technology allows space travels, manned or unmanned, only in LEO. Satellites, ISS, space shuttle (hubble?) are all real or mostly real. All other space missions are most probably fakery of some kind but they could be real in the future.
POM members: MT, Minime(?) + ?
Opinion 4
We have abundant and unquestionable evidence that the moon landings were real, ergo space travels, manned and unmanned, are evidently possible. This however doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that some level of fakery may be involved in the general spacey saga narrative.
POM members: Petra + ?
Opinion 5
What kind of crappy pot have you been smoking lately? Of course space travels are 100% real, why shouldn’t they?
POM members: ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear POM fellows, maybe it’s just me, but I think it could be the right time to make some useful clarification concerning what opinion the esteemed good folks here at POM exactly hold about the general topic of spacey endeavours.
So, without further ado, to whom it may concern, I’m hereby taking the liberty to declare open at POM the first SpaceTravelsReality Opinion Poll.
Please specify which opinion, among the following list, you deem is best suiting your position, or feel free to add to the list your own new one.
N.B.
In full agreement with the wise rule, already long established worldwide, of setting scientific issues by consensus, I propose that the most voted opinion will be declared the POM’s official winning stance on the matter and accordingly will be the only allowed thereafter.
As successfully demonstrated with climate change, germ theory, relativity and other assorted nonsense, I don’t doubt you good folks will all gratefully appreciate that the implementation of this policy will be going to save a lot of everybody’s precious time and energy that otherwise we would insist devoting to endless tiresome and unhealthy activities the likes of thinking, debating, arguing and debunking.
Opinion 1
Space travels, at least with the alleged available technology, are just plain impossible, hence no manmade vehicle/object has ever gone and never will go beyond, let’s say to be very generous, the Karman line (much more likely well below it). Anything purportedly related to space travels is fakery of some kind.
POM members: AK, Gaia (the two not necessarily in complete agreement about the technical reasons) + ?
Opinion 2
Space travels are feasible only if unmanned, if not for other reasons because a safe reentry to the earth is technically impossible. Anything purportedly related to manned space travels is either akin to suicidal or fakery of some kind (moon manned missions, ISS, space shuttle). Other unmanned space ventures (Mars rovers, asteroid probes, Hubble, etc.) could also be fakery, but it’s an open question. At present satellites are the only spacey things absolutely guaranteed 100% real.
POM members: Lumi, HPMug(?), Barbm124(?), JBarlow(?) + ?
Opinion 3
Our present level of technology allows space travels, manned or unmanned, only in LEO. Satellites, ISS, space shuttle (Hubble?) are all real or mostly real. All other space missions are most probably fakery of some kind but they could be real in the future.
POM members: MT, Minime(?) + ?
Opinion 4
We have abundant and unquestionable evidence that the moon landings were real, ergo space travels, manned and unmanned, are evidently possible. This however doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that some level of fakery may be involved in the general spacey saga narrative.
POM members: Petra + ?
Opinion 5
What kind of crappy pot have you been smoking lately? Of course space travels are 100% real, why shouldn’t they?
POM members: ?
LikeLike
I tend to go with #2, but offer in this field a range of knowledge so narrow as to be nothing more than speculation based on scant real knowledge. I am only sure of one thing: There was no scientific or military reason to go to the moon. Even our debunker acknowledges that. I can therefore easily conclude, given all the other difficulties and impossibilities that such a mission presented, that we did not go there.
But massive rockets took off. That cannot have been just for show, in my opinion. The lunar missions were a cover story. For what? Given the abrupt halt in Apollo and Space Shuttle, is it safe to speculate that whatever they were doing, they failed? Otherwise NASA would still be doing maintenance missions, rather than the glitzy and phony SpaceX and the absurd front man, the fake genius Elon Musk.
LikeLike
Sorry, erroneous double posting due to moderation issues. With minor changes.
LikeLike
Lovely initiative, and I am glad to see you pick up the glove that was there!
One thing: they are not “opinions”. An opinion is “I like strawberries” or “Joey Biden is a fecal stain”.
I would use “views” as most neutral, but “stances”, ” viewpoints” (used below), “positions” or something more eloquent.
if Mark is allowed to edit your great overview, I’d like to add a small bit, between [] and the crucial part in bold; my boomerang effect] to our shared Viewpoint #1, to not add a specific new cat;
LikeLike
You’re quite right, but I was half toying centered on “opinion poll”, “viewpoint poll” just wouldn’t be fitting the bill (in my opinion).
LikeLike
I get you.
But that illustrates my point; opinion polls are usually held about things you can have opinions about; soft science, sociology.
YouTube uses “Community Poll”
but my cheesiness of today just came with a better name, for hopefully a larger initiative than Space Travel alone (quite some here seem to believe in nuclear power), what about a (monthly?) ?
Piece of Mind Poll
LikeLike
2, for the reason that if the venus /mars/comet exploration were faked, they would have made the results consistent with the cosmology consensus, but we see they the results do not -they are instead more consistent with the electric universe hypothesis. Now why would they do that if they are hoping to convince people -including scientists -if the space missions are faked
LikeLike
Thank you, Mark, for going through all the points listed. I will respond to four of your points and make a general comment and I will make a comment on your other post about McGowan’s other comments.
Please don’t accuse me of lying, Mark, I really do not like being accused of lying as it is something I do only rarely and only for very good reasons. If astronauts didn’t land on the moon I will gladly accept that fact – I have zero problem with accepting that all other kinds of events were psyops, right? You get that Mark, it’s not as if I go along with what the authorities tell us in very, very many cases so if astronauts didn’t land on the moon and that can be proven I’ll change my mind on the matter, no problem. It’s just that I do not see the evidence as showing that.
As I keep saying, I read Wagging the Moondoggie first thing when I started to look at the moon landings … for what that reading was worth. I came to the subject completely blind so I certainly wouldn’t have been taking in what was said with any great understanding, all I can say is that it seemed compelling but when I actually looked at the evidence myself my mind started to change on the matter.
Comparison of Apollo to transatlantic travel
McGowan asks the question whether people would have found it strange if the first transatlantic flight hadn’t been repeated within 40 years. The debunker makes the argument that Apollo and transatlantic flights are not really comparable for the following reasons:
— the technology was pretty much developed prior to the transatlantic flight and only needed minor modifications for it to actually happen
— it didn’t cost much (unlike going to the moon)
— profits could be made from commercial flights (unlike going to the moon)
Mark, what you’re omitting in your argument are the second two points, especially the second point. But another point is, even if transatlantic flights and the moon landings might be comparable, the fact that manned moon landings haven’t happened since is in no way evidence they didn’t happen. The argument, “If we’d gone to the moon we would have gone again,” is in the form of the logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Speculum, it is a speculative argument. Another infamous example of this type of logical fallacy is Chomsky’s, “If the Bush Administration had been responsible for 9/11 they would have chosen Iraqi terrorists not Saudi.” The argument, of course, ignores the clear evidence that terrorists didn’t do 9/11 and it also indicates ignorance of how power works – power doesn’t try to be rational, it doesn’t try to make its crimes make sense – it does the opposite. If the evidence shows astronauts landed on the moon then the evidence shows it regardless of whether we went again or not just as if the evidence shows the US government was responsible for 9/11 regardless of the nationality of the terrorists we know they did it.
Comparison of Apollo to a 500mph early automobile.
As you say, McGowan wasn’t speaking about any gaps but speaking of a gap is perfectly valid. The debunker says that an early car going at 500mph would have been radically different from previous models – a massive gap would have existed between early cars and the 500mph car – whereas the Apollo landings were on a more obvious continuum developing more organically from the types of space exploration done by the Russians who crashed a spacecraft into the moon in 1959. The criticism of the comparison is perfectly valid. Regardless of the validity of the comparison, however, it it wouldn’t serve as evidence against the Apollo landings.
The Soviets’ space budget was half of the USA’s.
Competitors also work together to a point. I just watched the incredible 5 1/2 hour final of the Australian Open and you can tell from their speeches that Nadal and Medvedev have a lot of admiration for each other and obviously need each other to better their game. No doubt the Russian and US space scientists admired each other … and obviously tried to exploit each other’s developments but at the same time wanted to compete to get there first … and if they didn’t I’m sure those in power did.
I think the reasons the debunker offers for why the US landed people perfectly reasonable. From what we are told the N1 rocket did seem highly problematic with its 30 engines and it’s reasonable to believe that the Russian economy was smaller than the USA’s. There also seemed to be quite a bit of chopping and changing of those running the Soviet program which can be a bit of a problem.
You say the debunker believes the landings happened while McGowan knows they didn’t. Obviously, this is the whole crux of the debate.
While there may be other points, the debunkers point is addressed specifically to McGowan’s questioning that the spaceship that was sent only weighed 3,000 tons when Werner von Braun said it would weigh 800,000. It seems McGowan misunderstands that the 800,000 was a figured offered for a hypothetical monolithic rocket which wasn’t, in fact, sent. It is perfectly valid to attack an argument regardless of other relevant arguments made. Attacking an argument while not addressing another doesn’t mean “missing the point”, it simply means that one argument is addressed rather than another.
General comment
I defend the debunker’s debunking against your debunking of his debunking. I wonder if there’s any point in continuing? Will you now debunk my defence of the debunker’s debunking? It seems we interpret things very differently and we will simply never agree. Another point is I’m not really interested in discussing data that isn’t clearly in the evidentiary realm. If it doesn’t work to prove or disprove I’m not really bothered and I find most of McGowan’s points are not related to things that are clearly related to actual evidence … which is hardly surprising.
LikeLike
“so if astronauts didn’t land on the moon and that can be proven I’ll change my mind on the matter”
Any suggestions on how you could prove the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist?
LikeLike
I don’t understand. The impression I have from moonhoaxers is that they regard purported evidence as a phenomenon to be treated lightly. Their attitude seems to be that as Hollywood makes movies which involve fakery whatever footage is presented to us “could be faked”, Hollywood-style.
No. “Could be faked” doesn’t work as an argument. While Hollywood makes movies all the fakery can be identified … or certainly it could be back at the time of the Apollo landings so “could be faked” doesn’t work. Fakery must be identified. There’s also the fact that we can also ask, “What says it isn’t real?”
Purported evidence cannot be treated lightly and what we see in all the purported evidence for the moon landings is consistency with the unique lunar conditions. So:
No identification of fakery (that stands up to scrutiny).
Complete consistency with the unique lunar conditions.
A compelling combination.
Furthermore, we see in every psyop known to man sloppiness of execution with very obvious fakery, for example, in the faked video, Collateral Murder, we can see that the audio is stitched together bits of genuine audio containing a whopping 13 call signs which makes absolutely no sense when the Apache crews weren’t even in contact – most anomalously – with Ethan McCord’s ground crew. No such obvious sloppiness in the audio between astronauts and mission control.
I readily admit I repeat myself over and over and I have very little to say but that little I do have to say I just cannot seem to get through.
LikeLike
Petra, you use what is called fallacy of composition. A prove cannot be faked. It can be true or false. A special effect being presented as a prove is not faked it is just not a prove of anything. All space videos can be made using special effects which means they prove nothing. There may exist a space video which was really made in space but since the same video can be made with special effects we would never know, right? You would have to prove that this video was really made in space, which requires another prove and it becomes circular. Think of a DNA prove on a murder scene. They have to make a lot of show, wearing white overalls, using gloves, being sterile, etc. isolate the scene pretending nobody else except the murder could bring the DNA on the scene. I don’t believe in DNA sequencing at all but still. Would it convince you if somebody just pulled out a bag from his pocket claiming he found this evidence on the crime scene without such a show? Which brings me to another aspect of proving anything. It has to convince in the first place. Some people may be easy to convince of anything like the majority still honestly believes in Corona but the same majority no longer believes in Heaven and Hell yet many people still go to church and pretend they believe. Which means it is not enough to be convinced. A prove of something only works as long till somebody says he is not convinced and demonstrates why. When this happens and you cannot ignore the sceptic a new prove becomes necessary. Some proves can be reproduced anytime by anybody. Those are actually the only solid proves.
LikeLike
Side note, BarbM124, your native tongue is German and so when you speak English (very well I might add) there are mistakes apparent. Most times here your use of “prove” should be instead “proof.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks Mark, I apologize. I know the there are different spellings for the verb and the noun but still. And please correct me any time.
LikeLike
It is this wiggling and moving the (artificially erected in the first place) goalposts by Petra, on top of the word salads, non sequiturs, the fallacy I learned today, so Danke, and her inability to answer simple questions or half-responses, coming with the former horrors, that makes she is not here out of learning purposes.
She has a belief that she will defend no matter what.
No falsification; “what makes me not believe this narrative anymore”.
No standards, no knowledge about even the basic physics, chemistry and other basic sciences and engineering principles, nothing.
so, good that Ayokera Kimura took up the glove to go beyond this (for me) pre-2014 silliness….
please explain under there why you believe in “germ theory for viruses but not in Corona”, analogue for “space travel but not the moonlandings (1961+!)”
LikeLike
As a person who has spent years and hundreds of hours examining photos looking for fakery, I find the expression “could be faked” to stand on its own. I might also use the expression “kept at arm’s length” or “Whoa, buddy, stand back on that one” or “Try a little skepticism sometime.” I might also suggest “Don’t be so goddamned gullible!”
You have now twice used the phrase “Complete consistency with the unique lunar conditions” – it is a statement so wrong as to be absurd, and stated as if you knew the “unique lunar conditions.” The evidence saying that those sets were not on the Moon is impressive and has grown in large volume over the decades since the advent of the Internet. Just the photographic evidence is enough to make a person stand down and back away. For instance, there is a famous photo of Apollo 17 fakester Harrison Schmitt standing by a flag, the tip of which just happens to be pointing at the earth. Just good photography you might say, but I have to ask: If NASA claims we cannot see stars due to aperture settings due to lunar brightness, how in the HELL can a camera show the dimly lit Earth? Remember, NASA says the stars are there, but that the camera simply could not pick them up.
I think you have said that you cannot see stars in lunar daytime, but that is a terrestrial phenomenon, that is, if we had no atmosphere we’d 1) be dead, but also 2) would see stars aplenty even during the day. The photo, shown to be heavily retouched anyway at https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm is obviously fake. That and many, many others. I’ve forgotten the man’s name, so someone else will have to supply it, but a guy who build a whole gallery dedicated to NASA photo fakery, even able to pick out cranes and large trucks in black backdrops. We’ll have to send you on a tour.
By the way, I did a duckduck search for evidence that the Moon landings were fake, and it went on for pages with conventional sources spouting official truth. People like to ridicule China for censoring its Internet, but they hold no candle to us.
LikeLike
You’re addressing and reinforcing Mr.British Debunker. Fair enough, but I asked you, as I have been for a long while, to address the 50 points I raised in my post “Moon Landings Again”. That will take effort and time and diligence, and reliance on authority figures like Debunker won’t get you far.
LikeLike
“Werner von Braun said it would weigh 800,000”, he was a scientist at the time and calculated correctly how many of rocket fuel would be necessary to shoot a certain mass to the moon. That’s how the rocket science actually works. What NASA then made was just a show of fake Sci Fi and von Braun played along. Also what von Braun said concerned only the physical aspects of bringing a body some 300000km away from the Earth’s gravitational field. It did not concluded the difficulties of steering such a body through space. Once a rocket is shot it makes a seemingly bow in the air because the Earth is rotating under it with a speed of some 1670 km per hour which is 28km per minute. It is not easy to follow such an object with a satellite dish today and it would be quite impossible 60 years ago. Just try to follow an airplane with a binocular. A receiving satellite dish has to focus very exact on the object it is listening to. Or it would only receive noise. Sending signals is easier for every radio wave is being created as a sphere. It is one of the many facts the mains stream ignores. Once a rocket leaves the Earth it has the seemingly additional speed of the Earth rotating around the sun, which is about 30km per second. Such object can’t be followed anymore. Just think of a sniper shooting at a car far away while this car drives very fast on the highway, etc.
As for the logic of debunking, you cannot prove the negative because the amount of possibilities to be proven becomes countably infinite (mathematically speaking). The one who claims a change in the status quo has to prove his claim. The claim that viruses exist has to be proven, not the claim that viruses don’t exists, for nobody so far has ever seen a virus. The claim that humans landed on the Moon has to be proven not the obvious claim, they didn’t.
LikeLike
As for why the Russians didn’t “land on the Moon” first, since the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were really working for the same team (remember that much of Soviet funding came from the West, including funds for space and military advancements), and, importantly, because the controllers slated America as the leading winner of the space race as American innovations and industry were more profitable, it was pretty much a done deal that the U.S. should lead this sector of the world economy during the “Cold War”.
LikeLike
Petra: Only one thing, as there is no point in debating further. As I mentioned in a previous comment, it makes no difference if you read but then forgot the content of McGowan’s essays, as you stated, or if you did not read them. The content of both statements is identical.
LikeLike
Soviets put up Sputnik with US money so they could be a space race.
LikeLike
If scientism is western culture’s 20th/21st Century religion, at some point arguing about religion becomes all speak and no listen. Subjective claims, or expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference, cannot be proved right or wrong for lack of an accepted criteria. At the time of the Moon Landing I relied exclusively on my instinct, got high with a friend and passed out cigars in front of our local Safeway in South Denver. We were(instinctively) mocking the grand mocking. Nothing wrong with having a little fun, right?
LikeLike
Petra: Since you’re obviously not going to address the whole of the 50 McGowan objections I raised in Moon Landings Again, will offer you five:
1: How many decades can pass without anyone coming even close to a reenactment of the heroic deeds?
2: 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?
3: 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…
4: … most of the Moon rocks are, uhmm, missing. Does anyone see a pattern developing here?
5: 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.
Once you’re done, I have more. The battery problem is especially compelling, as they could not be recharged and yet had to funtion in a nearly 400 degree temperature swing, sunlight to shadows.
LikeLike
1, Already discussed in my other posts above.
2, The Apollo computer was far ahead of its time, the first based on silicon integrated circuits and comparable in power to a late 1970s home computer like the Apple 2. It is a fascinating subject to explore, and contrary to popular misconceptions, it doesn’t take a huge amount of processing power and memory to guide a Moon landing spacecraft. There are lots of web pages and videos about it, it’s worth looking into.
3, Do you have a source for this number? Where have these calculations been made so that we can check or replicate them? Why don’t you post them here?
4, It is claimed that some Moon rocks went missing. I don’t see how this is evidence the program was faked or why they would fake this element. Why have some of them go missing as a part of the hoax?
5, To show that the batteries of the time were not able to cope with the Apollo program, shouldn’t you provide evidence that the batteries of the time were insufficient in either power or capacity to do the job? Has this been done? Why don’t you post that information here?
LikeLike
I am not Dave McGowan. I do not vouch for his information, as I regard him as a spook (fake death: 11/22/15, currently alive and well in LA, age 61). That does not mean that his limited hangout called Wagging the Moondoggie does not contain useful information. But if you doubt his words, by all means debunk him! You do the research. I will not.
Moon rocks, kind of interesting in the wake of the petrified wood given to the Dutch. Did other recipients of those gifts smell a rat?
Find me a battery today that will operate in temperatures as high as 240 F and as low as 400 F. Anyway, you can research this stuff as well as anyone, so have at it. Debunk McGowan!
In the larger scheme of things, I have long known that the Moon landings were a hoax, and have used this forum in other instances to validate that belief. If you asked me when I came to understand they were a hoax, it has been so long I cannot say. I put up this post because Petra, who has never read or has completely fortten what she read from McGowan, insisted nonetheless that I read the British Debunker’s work. I am now waiting on Petra to respond.
Check this link out:
Russian rocket scientists conclude that the Saturn V under Apollo 11 was severely under-powered and would not attain LEO.
LikeLike
You believe (J. would say you assume, and that is also true) that part of the script, but how do you verify this? Did you get your hands on an Apollo computer? Didn’t NASA “destroy the technology”, cause that’s what you do when you achieve ” the biggest achievement” For All Mankind (1989, hilarious video, my awakening into this baloney), right?
I imagine. Late 70s computers, wow. You reckon such enormous processing power could possibly handle the complexity of calculating which imaginary path around the innumerable cosmic bodies of gravitational effect to take?
If so, why did it take another 2 decades before we had GPS in our cars? Not accurate to the milimeter, as docking spacecraft requires…
And how did the Soviets land their Luna thingy successfully on the Moon? In 1961, long before this alleged “far ahead of its time superApple”….?
You talk like you have guided spacecraft. If not, you cannot possibly “debunk” the “popular conception” (where would that come from, hmmmm) about what it takes to reach the Moon.
It’s all make-belief.
And you are (still) marked by the space travel carnies.
QED – quod erat demonstrandum
LikeLike
Look up the Apollo computer, there are photos and detailed descriptions of what it had to do and how it worked, it’s interesting.
I don’t need to have guided spacecraft to learn enough to determine that the Apollo computer was good enough to guide the craft.
LikeLike
Automobiles of the time were also sophisticated, having on board predecessors like modern vehicles with computers … if you open the hood on a 1969 Ford, removed the carburetor cover, you will find an abacus. That was enough to get us from LA to New York and back.
LikeLike
Oh, I am sure there are “interesting descriptions and photos” of something, but as I asked, how does that prove the veracity of said technology and at the time? And that it was suited for what it claimed to do.
Elon Musk also has *detailed descriptions” for his antiphysical hyperloops, fake electric trailers, “unbreakable” cybertrucks, solar roadways and more baloney.
There are numerous “interesting descriptions and photos” of:
nukes
Holocaust Story
“ancient” Rome, Greece & Egypt
completely articulated fossils in environments where that doesn’t make sense
the 19 hijackers with boxcutters myth
Corona and other Invisible Monsters (read that mosquito-monkey-mouse “paper” that I think Oregonmatt shared, it’s hilarious)
and thousands of others faked, falsified, corrupted or otherwise non-genuine narratives of twistory more…
does that prove their validity?
do you believe any of the above narratives, or even worse, all of them?
LikeLike
If someone claims a new car can do something amazing, be it speed, fuel economy, handling, design, innovation, whatever.
we (pre-War, now probably only mutants) can go to car shows, talk with people who actually have driven them, check the specs and if we gather enough money, we could even buy and test the thing.
All these verifications are available to us, All Mankind, wasn’t that For which the whole “achievement” was meant?
Yet, even in the 65th year after the “first man in space” (even his wife doesn’t believe that), space still is a realm, only accessible to a select few.
Which 1957 technology worked like that? Real I mean.
LikeLike
‘1: How many decades can pass without anyone coming even close to a reenactment of the heroic deeds?
Why don’t you rebut the explanations already given on this point?
LikeLike
The explanation given by the professional debunker above, that the Moon landings were not done for scientific or military reasons, but rather just to show up the Soviets, was rebutted in the body of the post. It is not credible, in fact, is a giant ass-pull.
LikeLike
The “explanations” for why the (on all levels) “biggest achievement of mankind” hasn’t been repeated, while in all other record-breaking achievements the adagium and thus ‘law of progress’ holds:
“if you can do it
we do it
if we can’t do it
you fake it”
So please share those no doubt hilarious “explanations”! I am always in for a good laugh.
LikeLike
MM papers… revisiting his early output after all these years… funny that he blames the CIA for almost everything in the XX century except JFK murder. He tries hard as much as he can to deflect attention from CIA, Mossad and Israel.
LikeLike
The main opinion formation for most people about this topic, is simple the task of looking up.
Without looking at facts provided here, when you look up, what does the little voice in your head say?
LikeLike
Gaia,
Please kindly translate…thank you.
LikeLike
Ehh, with a proper Italian here and my school Italian rustier than Berlusconi’s bank account, it would be better if someone else translates.
I guess Nuvole Bianche means “White Clouds”, but again, there are experts in the room.
Thank you for the songs.
LikeLike
Yep, that’s it, White Clouds
LikeLike
Rocket science is actually quite simple. A rocket works in the same way a gun bullet works. When you pull the trigger the explosive part burns and creates gases which then push the bullet out of the barrel. The bullet accelerates for some time, reaches its maximum speed and then uses the laws of inertia to reach a certain distance. In a rocket the explosives also burn into gases which then are pushed out of the rocket which accelerates the rocket until it reaches the maximum start speed and the law of inertia carry the rocket into certain altitude. The difference between gases in the barrel and gasses being exhausted affects only the efficiency of the conversion of energy but not the physical principles. If you put a mass on a certain altitude against the gravity it does not just use up the energy,it changes it into another form of energy and when the mass starts to fall down, this energy will be again changed into another form of energy until the mass crashes on the surface again changing the form of energy. The same happens with the rocket. If it reaches its altitude it has collected all the energy from the conversion of burning the explosives and if it then just falls down this energy will culminate in a crash on the surface of the Earth. If you don’t want the rocket to crash you’ll need pretty much the same amount of explosives to slow it down until it lands. In the lower parts of the atmosphere you can use a parachute to use up some of the energy on air friction but this concerns only a few kilometers of the altitude and no parachute can make a body stop in the air. Since rockets use up all their fuel at the start, no landing is possible anymore.
Another problem is controlling the trajectory. On the start you can use the aerodynamics to put the rocket in the right way like the barrel puts the bullet in the right direction. And now think of a bullet which has to land back in the barrel. That’s why rockets can’t land, they only can crash.
There is one more problem: changing the way of the rocket. Imagine the Apollo capsule with the astronauts on board flying with huge speed toward the moon. It has a huge kinematic energy from inertia. If you want to change its trajectory only a bit, you’ll need a powerful rocket fired very precisely and once a rocket is fired it cannot be stopped until it burns out. You cannot stop explosives from burning. They lie when they show us some kind of sprays used to steer objects in space. That’s bullshit. More realistic would be to show us canons shooting bullets to steer objects in space.
As for the Apollo computer, it could only be a kind of simple calculator without a display, without proper keyboard, only with some switches and some lighting dots representing the digital values of single numbers. What for do you need such a computer? What do you need to calculate and based on what data? You sit inside a bullet flying uncontrolled toward the moon. The astronauts could as good as throw themselves against the walls to steer their capsule.
It’s all just fairy tales invented by Sci Fi writers. They worked for some time in the past like the old Godzilla movies also worked. Now it’s just laughable.
LikeLike
” throw themselves against the walls to steer their capsule”
Lucid description. But, isn’t that straight from the NASA steerage manual? 🙂
LikeLike
Exactly.
There is no steering in space.
because, according to their model
space is the absence of atmosphere (enough particles per volume)
and the mainstream model is based on gravity, big G, which is a model, not measurable, like small g, but it doesn’t matter which model of space you have, there is a Force of the Cosmos that keeps the innumerous bodies revolving around each other (mostly, if not, they crash, the only two options in space, again, according to their model).
So, conceptually, without the need to (as that is impossible because of its complexity) calculate things, we can grassp that
a trajectory planned on paper
dealing with those enormous and impossible
to predict, understand or mitigate
Force of the Cosmos
does not make any sense. Or any hybris, thinking that space thingies can fight forces wayyyy bigger than us.
Or any alien race that should exist.
Barbara, do I understand from your post and conclusion “no steering in space” that you embrace Option #1 in the ViewPointPoll by Ayokera? That would be awesome news, a creality less in life!
LikeLike
It seems to me steering issues are far from being enough of a reason to embrace wp 1.
E.g. geostationary or even LEO orbiting satellites may well have just about zero steering problems.
My personal main issue with space travels is propulsion, but Barb seems to be perfectly comfortable with the classic newtonian gun/bullet explanation, so I don’t think he/she is inclined to totally disregard the space narrative.
LikeLike
Anything that would be “sent into space” would have steering issues (funny way of phrasing dealing with impossible to even imagine forces).
The mainstream narrative talks about “sending objects into orbits”.
The mainstream model however says that orbits are the natural result of competing [Force of the Cosmos] driven bodies.
From the narrative claim follows that there are somehow zones where there “is no orbit”, or that “you can just move from one orbit to the next”, like a sci-fi metroline to Mars….
The model contradicts that narrative.
So either the model is wrong (and there is some supersecret Vatican library real space science unknown to us that only they use to get into space) or the narrative is wrong, or both.
They cannot fit together.
It is breaking the whole foundations of the space narrative apart, which nicely displays how nonsensical it all is.
This is not uniqure to the moonlandings (1961 Soviet Luna+), but it is a nice learning point for other psyops.
That is why the failure to recognize the typical psyop patterns in the moonlanding narrative by Petra is so laughable.
If she’d really be the “psyop expert” she claimed (even for others), she’d recognize these patterns immediately.
Corona vs moonlandings
Irrational Fear of Invisible Monsters
vs
Infinite Awe about Impossible Journeys
the first rule of life is;
don’t be crazy.
PS: Barbara is a she, from Frankfurt, Germany. the rest she can tell you herself, this is not secret info
LikeLike
I think it only makes sense to analyze things that everybody can observe. I know some here don’t “believe” in satellites, but satellites can be observed. Not just the ISS. There are objects in “space” flying very high and very fast (in relation to airplanes for instance). The altitude of the ISS (about 400km) can be calculated from the announced positions. The announcements though not always are correct. I’ve been waiting many times for the ISS to show up and it wasn’t there. On other occasions the ISS was perfectly on time and place. I suppose that they just shoot a kind of toy satellite up there just to reflect the sunlight and be observed and this doesn’t last for long, so they have to replace it regularly. The geostationary orbit also can be observed. If in your area the sky is dark in where the geostationary orbit is supposed to be (just look for satellite dishes in your neighborhood) put a camera on a tripod with some zoom (200mm will do) and make some long exposure pictures. The stars will become lines but the satellites will stay as dots. Repeat this a few times to make sure you see the same dots every time. In my area the Astra cluster is a looker. The satellites there not always reflect the sunlight due to Earths shadow so be patient and practice astro photography which is a skill in itself. Or just make long exposure pictures using wide angle and look for lines between the dots which are not airplanes. Airplanes always blink and are recognizable as such in a binocular.
My point here is: Satellites are real and they somehow got there. As for propulsion, just fire a firework placed horizontally on a table or something. It is real too.
LikeLike
Nowhere in your descriptions of the observations you made, which I think are genuine, do those satellites have to be man-made. That is your assumption, based on what a bunch of proven liars tells you.
With Danny Blitz’s point of “Earth capturing new bodies into her orbit” you have your answer what those lights in the sky should be; natural satellites, asteroids, space rocks; Near Earth Orbiters.
The nonsense of space travel and the nonsense of Flat Earth can be shown with the same point.
You believe in an impossible narrative.
I was too optimistic it seems. One day you’ll see the
LikeLike
Propulsion and steering in an absence of atmosphere both seem like the first issues the mainstream would be called on to address – do they really not do so??
They can “debunk” every tiny detail of the moonlanding, but they have no response or rationalization for the most fundamental of issues?
LikeLike
‘The mainstream narrative talks about “sending objects into orbits”.
The mainstream model however says that orbits are the natural result of competing [Force of the Cosmos] driven bodies.
From the narrative claim follows that there are somehow zones where there “is no orbit”, or that “you can just move from one orbit to the next”, like a sci-fi metroline to Mars….
The model contradicts that narrative.’
We know for a fact that external objects can enter into our planet’s influence and end up orbiting it. A new object enters the system, and an equilibrium is reached between the competing forces. There is no reason we couldn’t place our own object into an orbit from earth in the same way. You need to understand the standard model in order to debunk it, not just speculate and make up your own rules before investigating what is already understood to be true.
LikeLike
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Orbits are the resuls of natural forces around them. That object (asteroid, NEO, etc.) came from an orbit and was caught by other forces so drawn into a new orbit; that of Earth.
Yes, there is reason behind that difference, because it is not in the same way. An object sent into space can only be caught in an orbit, or fall back to Earth. There is no planning paths, no steering and no decisions. The space thingy becomes a mere play toy in the great Pinball machine of the Cosmos.
Have you looked at the hilarious “Lissajous orbits” and “Langrangian points“? Pure mathemagical fantasy that only works in non-existing two body problems. It i nothing physical, as those “points” become lines with a 3rd and fields with a 4th body. And so on.
No “parking of space thingies” in Lagrangian points.
I think you need to rethink what you think you understand, because your own first argument (Gaia capturing rocks into her orbit) shows what a nonsense that narrative is.
LikeLike
No ‘craft’ (think occult & Freemasonry here) ever left the dome. One after another official fairy tale from the authors of history & science. Silly to be looking up, when we are looking at a major food crisis to amp the kill shots body count and fear factor.
LikeLike
My handle is nothing more than a hint. Phremsn. What might such a strange series of letters mean? Well, it means “children of the sun” in Egyptian. Why is that relevant? Well, many Freemasons attribute that word to the origin of their order, Freemason itself being an Anglicized corruption of the original Egyptian derivation. To this very day, today, right now, every Freemasonic Lodge in the world celebrates the idea that the first man to put his foot on the surface of the moon is a Freemason. It’s the Order’s greatest achievement and one still celebrated and honored within their lodges throughout the world. So how do we interpret that? This great achievement of national pride, a moment in United States history that still resonates as one of the single greatest achievements in our history–why do Freemasons take all the credit and cherish it as their single greatest achievement? Well, the answer is really quite simple and obvious: the Freemasonic Order has run this world since time immemorial, even beyond our wildest assumptions of world history. I wish I could impart to you folks the depth of my research and knowledge in something as simple as this comment section–but I cannot. I can’t even admit that I’m particularly Anti-Mason. However, all my years of deep research have led me to this simple conclusion: The Freemasons have run the world since time immemorial, hiding behind an iron-curtain of deepest, deepest, deepest secrecy. I am now convinced McGowan was a plant, a limited hangout–as I am now convinced that those who avoid the Masonic question in all these matters are totally and utterly fraudulent in their surmises. I’ve been a ‘lurker’ for many years among you folks, coupling my inquiries with the vast body of your speculations. I went down this road, and that: Simon Shack, Clues Forum, Miles Mathis, CTTF, McGowan, Fakeologist, and on and on. I read deeply into all the content. But yet I never have once come across a single mention of the Freemasons. Why is this? Could it not now be more obvious given the knowledge we have through the internet that the Freemasons rule this world and run these operations and own all our corporation and run all our Western governments and institutions? Does it not shock us that here in America the Ancient and Accepted Rite has created all our professional sports, all our entertainment, all our media, all our government, all our streets, all our buildings, all our transit systems, all our shipping and supply chains, all our architecture, all our music, all our history, all our literature, all our poetry, all our science, all our art–and, in a word, our entire national identity? Having deeply researched Freemasonic symbolism, I have been struck by how prevalent their symbols reach our eyes everyday and every way. Their symbols dominate the horizon of every American main street from Portland, Maine to San Diego, California–an endless gallery of ancient symbols preserved from the Chaldeans through the Egyptians and the Hebrews, and then passed on through the ages after the dawn of Christendom. The answers are out there, the research seeking the deepest depths of the deep, but it is there like a sunken ship lurking in the fathomless bottom of the sea. Of course, we’ll never know everything about the Ancient and Accepted Rite, but they’ve let enough seep out over the years to give us a hint of the most powerful secret society ever to rule the earth.
LikeLike
I do not disagree or agree. That’s another venue. I only suggest you learn the meaning of a “paragraph” to relieve the eye of a rant.
LikeLike
Hi Phremsm
Funnily enough I’ve been reading Eustace Mullins “The Curse of Canaan – A demonology of history”. The book is stuffed full of similar sentiments to yours. It has some breath-taking historical assertions too which have fascinated me. And there lies the problem, it is assertion only, there are no footnotes, no index and no other references
I already knew a smattering of masonic stuff, randomly: the US founders, Washington DC layout, dollar bill, moon “walkers”, Winsor family involvement, Italians and the pope etc etc etc
I’ve not quite finished the book yet but, lurking in the back of my mind all the way through it is the same point that you raised up above: if the masons are everywhere, and they clearly are, then how come NONE of the big internet voices ever talk about them? None of them, as far as I know
I’m not looking for your answer Phremsm, my question to you is as follows: given your depth of knowledge about masons then, is Eustace Mullins a credible source in this book? I’ve no way of finding out as it stands because this topic seems to be off limits. Please advise me also: is his Shem/Canaan theory credible?
Thanks in anticipation
Pete
LikeLike
I don’t have a sense of freemasons being “off limits” so much as perhaps downplayed as just one player among many, and also maybe a bit “out of vogue” – in decades past I think(?) freemasons might have been a bigger subject of conspiracists. But they still get talked about quite a bit, especially their symbolism. Many “normies” stereotype “conspiracy theorists” as believing Freemasons (or Illuminati) run everything, so it’s not an obscure conspiracy theory by any means.
LikeLike
I grew up Catholic, and we were taught that we could not join a Masonic order and still be in the faith. For that reason the Knights of Columbus was offered to us. I joined KC, lasted about a year. It was a fun initiation, but they wanted me to be treasurer, for maybe $40 a month, so I detached and moved on. We were told outright that KC was not a secret organization, but please, they said, don’t don’t spill the beans on the initiation, a little play that was acted out by people already belong but only pretending to join. I quickly figures out the ruse, but said nothing.
Eventually, and I don’t know which Pope did it, the ban on Catholics and Freemasons was eliminated. I would not be surprised if most popes have been masons, even as it was banned for ordinary lay people.
Anyway, the central feature of KC was the bar. When married to my first wife, I went with her father and a friend to a NY Jets game, taking a bus from KC on which the drinking started at 10AM. As we sat in the bar that morning before leaving, his friend told me that KCers would never disappoint me. If I were to show up at the club with a woman not my wife, nary a word would be spoken. My Father-in-Law was not there at that moment.
LikeLike
Freemasons were a staple of conspiracy theories in my youth (I’m now in my sixties). The trope of “Freemasons being the men behind the curtain” simply fell out of favour. “The Simpsons” have a notorious episode making fun of Freemason conspiracy theorists. A lot of people did a lot of digging about Thomas Hamilton, the purported perpetrator of the Dunblane school shootings being a Freemason. This proved to be pointless. He was being handled by MI5, so it goes back to the security services and whoever is calling the shots to them which I’d put my money on being the money power. Bankers rule the world but it’s not about money, it’s about power. Anyway, kind of by definition, if you figure out who the men behind the curtain really are then it’s curtains for you.
LikeLike
I can almost hear the spooky organ playing as Phrem-sss-glaven! does his best Vincent Price impersonation, laying it all out without actually saying anything. Honestly, how do secret handshakes compete today with everyone’s personal password directory?
LikeLike
Sure, Masonic symbolism comes from an ancient global religion, so it is no wonder that it appears throughout history, religion and culture; but “most powerful secret society”? I think not. Freemasons have been corrupted by the Zionist cabal in the 18th century, so people often confuse the two, but I think it would be more meaningful to talk about Zionist than Freemasons – which people clearly do.
LikeLike
According to Mullins then zionism is just one part of the freemasonic conspiracy, he wrote his book in 1987
Mathis has previously outed him as an anti. He was commissioned by Era Pound to expose the Federal Reserve and Mullins subsequently wrote “Secrets of the Federal Reserve” the first real exposure of the US privately owned money creation mechanism. It’s owned by oligarchs and it isn’t Federal, and it holds no Reserves. Pound wasan ” insane” anti, Mathis paper covers them both quite fully
My 2 question to Phremsm were sincerely asked. I would like to know what he has to say about Mullins and his Shem/Canaan theory. If anyone can point me to a critical appraisal elsewhere I will be grateful, my admittedly cursory web search drew a blank. Phremsm appeared just as I was pondering Mullins mind boggling work which I’ve almost finished now. If he doesn’t respond then I will conduct a more thorough research of my own
LikeLike
Still Miles Mathis would tell us John Jacob Astor was a Phoenician from a galaxy far, far away!
“The original founder of the Astor fortune was John Jacob Astor (1763-1884). John Jacob Astor was born in Walldorf, Duchy of Baden (Germany) from a Jewish bloodline. The Jewish origins have been hidden, and quite a number of various ideas of the Astor’s heritage have been put into circulation by the Astors. John Jacob Astor was a butcher in Walldorf.
In 1784, he came to America after a stop over in London, England. Although the story is that he came to America penniless–and that may be true–he soon joined the Masonic Lodge, and within 2-3 years had become the Master of the Holland
Lodge No. 8 in N.Y. City. (This Holland Lodge is a prominent lodge in that many of its members have good connections to the Illuminati elite. An example of just one Lodge #8 member is Archibald Russell, 1811 – 1871, whose father was President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years: The Royal Society of Edinburgh).
By 1788, Astor was a master of masonic lodge#8. This is rather interesting considering Astor could not speak Englishwhen he arrived in America, and supposedly was very poor. John Jacob Astor was always very famous for being coldhearted, anti-social, “a man who didn’t have charm, wit or grace.” (This quote comes even from a relative of the DuPont family who wrote a sympathetic Biography
entitled The Astor Family.)
If this man lacked social graces and was so cold, and was so poor during his first years in the U.S., why did he rise to such prominence in Freemasonry? Certainly not because of his social graces. For instance, one time later in life at a meal given for elites, when his hands got dirty at the table he reached over and used the shirt of the man beside him to wipe his hands. The original financial break came by carrying out a series of shady and crooked real estate deals in the N.Y. city area.”
LikeLike
Mullins covers Astor in a very similar way in his book Addendum; “The Curse of Canaan – A demonology of history”. Mullins also covers the Phoenician story in a very similar way to Mathis in this book, but he adds a Sumarian race angle with Shem= white blue eyed & Canaan = dark brown eyed. And far more other fascinating historical info too [a LOT of which makes sense to me. For instance what he says about the Congress of Vienna after the battle of Waterloo]
This makes me wonder how much Mathis has used Mullins work in his broad Phoenician theory. Hence my questions above. If Mullins is an anti, as Mathis says then, by the nature of that role, he is revealing lots of truth. But which is true and is any of it misdirection, or deception?
LikeLike
The Actors were also connected to the Titanic hoax, which Mathis exposed three years ago. Towards the end of his Titanic paper, he mentions Stuart Collect, who was allegedly a minister, and his Masonic hand-in-vest sign that he did while standing on the Carpathia‘s open deck. It’s a nice little cameo he added into his essay.
Click to access titan.pdf
Even the mainstream press admits that the event was overseen by powerful Masonic interests. For example, they admit that establishment Freemasons (at least) rigged the British inquiry into the Titanic “disaster” by the U.K. Board of Trade, the same organization that gave the White Star liner a green-pass after conducting inspections on the ship just prior to her “doomed” maiden voyage. Smells like conflict of interest already, n’est-ce pas?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329854/Freemasons-fixed-inquiry-sinking-Titanic-allow-Establishment-figures-escape-blame-claims-secret-archive-reveals-scale-Masonic-influence-levels-society.html
Hence Charles Lightoller’s claim that the investigations into the debacle were a “whitewash”. Lightoller himself was directly involved in the entire thing, having first been a high-ranking officer on the ship and later a star witnesses in both American and British inquiries into the disaster shortly after it reportedly happened, so he must’ve known what he was talking about.
“In Washington it was of little consequence, but in London it was very necessary to keep one’s hand on the whitewash brush. Sharp questions tht needed careful answers if one was to avoid a pitfall, carefully and subtly dug, leading to a pinning down of blame on to someone’s luckless shoulders.”
He also called the U.S. inquiry into the event a “complete farce”, so they weren’t any better if we are to take his word for it.
“With all the goodwill in the world, the “Enquiry” could be called nothing but a complete farce, wherein all the traditions and customs of the sea were continuously and persistently flouted.”
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301011h.html#ch35
LikeLike
And as for why the “founding father” of the Astor fortune managed to rise so high in the prestigious Masonic ranks, the obvious explanation in my opinion is that he already came from well-connected wealth before he began his life in America. Otherwise, he would’ve never gone very far in high society. The same is true for other families such as the Rothschilds and the Kennedys.
Here’s his Geni profile for future research into his family tree:
https://www.geni.com/people/John-Jacob-Astor/6000000000889288243
LikeLike
Starting with the fact that one of his ancestors went by the name of Felix Ebenhardt. According to House of Names, the name is “associated with the two dukes of Wuerttemberg, Eberhard I and his brother Eberhard II.” Astor was born in what is now known as Baden-Württemberg. The surname is also associated to “a prominent Swiss industrialist family … from Bern whose origin has been traced back to the 10th century”, who founded the luxury watch business Eberhard & Co. in the late-19th century. What are the odds that they all don’t share a significant genetic kinship?
https://www.geni.com/people/Felix-Eberhardt/6000000161063984837
https://www.houseofnames.com/eberhardt-family-crest
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberhard
https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/eberhardt/359/
LikeLike
Another interesting tidbit about his personal life is that soon after his immigrated to America in 1783, he flirted with and married a Todd, which probably connects us to First Lady Mary Todd of the Lincoln assassination hoax. That lady’s mother also carried her exact full name, and he rented a room from her before he married her daughter. Are we looking at the same woman?
“In November of 1783,[4] just after the end of the American Revolutionary War, Astor boarded a ship for the United States, arriving in Baltimore around March of the following year,[7]. There, he rented a room from Sarah Cox Todd, a widow, and began a flirtation with his landlady’s daughter, also named Sarah Cox Todd. The young couple married in 1785.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor#Migration_to_the_United_States
LikeLike
Here’s the Geni profile of his wife Sarah Todd, for those who are curious:
https://www.geni.com/people/Sarah-Astor/6000000000889248488
LikeLike
MM & McGowan, ect cover primarily entertainment folk. Get the reader to focus on anything but WHO is middle management (Wall St/Hellywood/music/sports) is and their goal. Really, the term “all the worlds a stage’ is what they elite use to get researchers looking at actors! You all do see this? The past 2 years will be nothing compared to the next 6 months. Will anyone here be taking this kill vax?
LikeLike
There’s no mystery about why the Apollo Project was done, it was too loot a shed load of money from the American economy. The reason they backed off was because once the initial novelty wore off (maybe even before the actual fake landings) people became hostile towards the colossal amounts of money it was disappearing with nothing to show for it. It really is that simple, I was alive through it all having been born in 1958. Plenty of people thought it was all fake at the time it was happening. It would be my bet the Pyramids at Giza were essentially the same thing who knows what malarky the men behind the curtain pulled to convince the plebs the Pyramids were an urgent necessity but it must have been something impressive.
LikeLike
Interesting to hear that “plenty of” people in the 1960s thought the Apollo program was fake, but how do you know? You were in your early teens when the Apollo project happened. If it was your classmates their “disbelief” may well just have been an attitude of rebellion, not a real insight into the fakery.
Or were there many elders (a generation and more older than you) back then who were outright calling the moonlandings fake?
Would you be able to get those people on board to come on air?
That would make an awesome podcast man!
The comparison with the pyramids does not make any sense however.
No matter when, by whom, or for how long the pyramids were built, they are an absolute marvel of engineering.
I have not heard any serious attempt of twistorical revisionism on the pyramids, how those megastructures were built in times with much, MUCH less resources and technology than today, or even 50 years ago.
Apollo is NOTHING like the pyramids. Apollo was fake because it had to be fake. Space travel is physically and chemically impossible, so the only thing to make it happen was faking it.
The pyramids were built, when nobody knows, by whom same, but they are there, they are not a hoax, not a staged theater production, they are tangible built structures surrounded by arguably the most dicktatorial reign over “what is accepted”, with an influential military man dominating the whole “Egyptology” realm.
In terms of twistory I see most value in the works of Fomenko, but I don’t have clear what he sees as viable for the pyramids in Egypt or their ages.
So I’d say Apollo was never real, while the pyramids were never a hoax.
LikeLike