Oh no, not another Moon post!

No, not really. Honestly, if we did not have a Petra, I would have to hire one, as she kept it lively. Unfortunately, the blog does not have a large enough budget to pay her or to hire someone like her.

Jackie Barlow put up a comment linking us to a treasure trove of information called Apollo Reality: How, and where, NASA faked the lunar landing, and lunar lift off.` I think I have seen this before, or at least knew of it. It involves a great deal of reading, and for me, wonderment at how they managed to get hold of so many incriminating photos and videos. I am thinking, once again, limited hangout.

I will let all of that go by, as we have pretty well discussed the ass off the Moon Landings hoax. However, two names popped up in Apollo Reality. John F. Kennedy and James Hansen.

Below is a clip of JFK’s speech before Congress on May 25, 1961 wherein he asks Congress for the money to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely before the end of the decade.

I was the tender age of 11 at that time, and of course idolized the man and believed everything I saw on the news. Now, almost 73 years of age, I suspect he knew two things that would play out in his future, one that the moon missions would be used as cover for the very thing he claimed to abhor in a later speech at Rice University, the “hostile misuse” of space. The Apollo program was used, in my belief system, as a cover story to allow for implementation of weapons and spy machines in lower earth orbit. The other thing he surely knew was that we would fake his death on 11/22/63, and would become a martyr, and that martyrdom would act as a huge impetus behind the Apollo program. It was not done for that purpose alone, but that was surely part of it.

The idea that Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were done on presidential initiation smacks in the face of my reality, where presidents are mere actors. True, in the past we have had better actors than recently, especially the current clown  holding office. But presidents read scripts, and the script for weaponization of space was surely written in the dark recesses of shadow government deep in the bowels of Langley or some other fortress. It should be no surprise that Apollo Reality claims that the actual footage of astronauts and machines on the moon was done at and near Langley.

The other thing I noted in Apollo Reality was the presence of James Hansen, later to be head of the Goddard Space Center, and who in 1988 initiated the first volley in what later became known as Anthropogenic Global Warming. The would place him in the midst of two of the largest hoaxes in human history, Moon and Climate. The man is wired.

Apollo Reality notes that NASA had a paucity of photos of the alleged landings, and therefore needed to generate them (at great expense) in the 1990s, in my view done in response to the rise of the Internet, something no one foresaw in 1969. This is why the supposed Moon photos are so crisp and clear, and also so riddled with telltale signals of fakery.

There is scheduled to be a full release of classified material of the Moon landings in 2026. I think at that time, NASA will finally fess up and tell us that it was all fake, beginning, middle and end.

I am kidding.

78 thoughts on “Oh no, not another Moon post!

  1. for what it’s worth, i don’t hate the moon posts. when i talk to people about the topic, even if they are relatively “awake”, they seem to find the moon landing kind of irrelevant. but i find it all the more relevant because of what it represents–a completely fake event that involves very serious scientific claims which has entered deeply into the “mythology” of our culture. it is an event that people seem to feel is deeply tied to our society and this moment in history, representative of the ways we have been able to “conquer” the universe. when you try and tell them that all the evidence suggests we have done no such thing, it’s as if they just don’t know what to say.


    1. Beautiful synopsis of what it is really about to “wake up”, to detach, onslave from the facades created for us

      Space Travel, and the Climate Hoax come in here too

      is a typical example of

      Myth Making

      in which I recognize at least the following grand cultural creations:

      1 – hybris – cockiness, arrogance, belief in your own achievements which are impossible to achieve
      2 – con-troll – the Island, the Hunger Games, THX 1137, pick any dystopian Elites vs hoi polloi story and it comes back ; we are the masters and we can reach Magical Kingdoms you peasants don’t have access to (gaia: haha, you also not, so we’re even)
      3 – awe – in this realm “space” stands out, my own extremely immersive experiences I share for those who care, on air – listen to and join into Eye am Eye Radio, we have grown with new members since the time a long post of mine was to be allowed here (mysteriously Mark holds back ontopic insightful comments, yet publishes and leaves duplicates, makes total sense this place, looks like NASA….)
      4 – FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out – the modern term may be new, but the phenomenon is ancient and imho perfectionalized with the fake Space & fake Nuke “arms races” with the Sovietskis

      with Space Travel, and especially the possibility thereof, I think one of the oldest existential questions must be answered rigidly and eternally

      having had the fortune to have observed the skies in various places on Earth, I can confidently say that the urge to look up to the stars, planets, moons and whatnot, the questions always come up

      can we ever go there… ?

      or {{{they}}} come to us … ?

      the beauty (serenity, calm, understanding) and tragedy (for me personally, I literally wanted to do geologic fieldwork on Mars!) of the realization that the answers to both those questions

      and always

      no matter our technological advancements
      both in “shooting out into space” and “receiving from space” cases
      it is not tech that holds us back

      it is GAIA

      natural laws

      the fact Kerbal Space Program, with its 1000s of parameters, is only available NOW, and not in 1957 when the Sputniks launched Laika or whatwasitagain….

      says everything you need to know
      about something




      PS : Climate Hoaxing has a lot in common and Hansen is not the only link with NASA / NOAA (!)

      thinking about the uncertainties about our own space travel and the fact that NASA doesn’t realize there´s no gas (vapor phase) under space conditions, shouldn’t that make us wary of the validity of those “””satellite””” acquired temperature data …. ?


      1. As an occasional reader of POM for over a year, it is high time I get off the porch with the puppies and (metamorphically) start running with the big dogs… by this I mean working up the gusto to comment on one of the lunar landing posts, perhaps purely as a matter of proper initiation to this oft overlooked blog. So here goes…

        When GeneralHeinz says that people “seem to feel [the fake landing] is deeply tied to our society” and Gaia’s subsequent call out that this is a classic example of “Myth Making” both surmise my outlook from a 30,000ft view. Thus, through this relative agreement with the General and Gaia posts above, I present my principal considerations.

        When we think of myth-making, the work of Janet Murray comes to mind. Murray, who wrote “Hamlet on the Holodeck” in 1997, was an early pioneer in predicting MUD’s and other digital media (preMMORPG) and approached the making of narrative in a more classic theatrical manner. Here talk here from 2017 is a good primer to her message as it has morphed today.

        Click to access pdf-whos-afraid-of-the-holodeck-jhm.pdf

        Murray was a big follower of the late R. Lindheim*, who she acknowledged with a quote “The Holodeck is our Holy Grail” from c.2002. (*Lindheim does not have a wiki page). I recently fell into a bit of a research hyperdrive of Lindheim and his work with the founding of USC-ICT and the US Army, infotainment industrial complex etc. In 2006 he left to form RL Leaders. In this obituary you’ll get the gist of why his type is important: https://news.usc.edu/180962/richard-lindheim-obituary-founder-usc-institute-for-creative-technologies/

        For additional insight on this is all put together, you might get a non-believer to consider a visit to https://www.rlleaders.com/public/ and review the technique of DEEP APPLIED CREATIVITY. Scroll to bottom and read the testimonials from the “public” clients.

        But I digress. Alex Singer, who was instrumental in ‘connecting’ Lindheim with the military seed money to start ICT, is still quite active today. We might think of Alexander Singer in today’s context the same way we think of Kubrick from the 1969 “mission”. Singer, and his involvement with the “B612 group” is comical, albeit a bit over the top on the pre-programming palette. Even for the finite few of with the taste buds to pick up on this delicate dance of what Gaia identifies as “hybris, con-Troll, awe & FOMO,” the repulsive garbage some cultures pass off as intricately produced delicacies will not be fully understood by every other culture for what it is.

        The ingredients that go into making the dish don’t matter to most people. They can only see and taste what they are served on the plate.



        On mythmaking, we can consider this whole notion of a 21st century moon landing from a more classic perspective.

        Apollo and Artemis are Twins, born of Zeus and Leto. “Apollo represented the sun and day, whereas Artemis’ domain was the night and everything touched by moonlight. The divine twins were effectively two sides of the same coin — inseparable yet different. One without the other was inconceivable.”

        The white, militant, hero cowboy archetype of ‘Armstrong’ or ‘Buzz’ (Sun/Apollo) has become supplanted with the more adept narrative for today’s audience. The first Artemis mission featured ‘Moonikin Campos and friends’. “Moon” and “Artemis” are to our time what Sun and Apollo were to Mark and those of 1960’s/70’s narrative. The following is best quoted in full as it is taken directly from NASA’s own Comic Strip.

        Comic: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/moonikin-comic/

        “Named after the legendary Arturo Campos, an electrical engineer who was instrumental to saving the Apollo 13 crew, I will occupy the commander’s seat during the Artemis I mission while wearing the shiny new Orion Crew Survival System flight suit. (Readers with keen eyes will notice that the Apollo 13 insignia is reflected in my visor. More on that here.)

        I will be joined by my two crewmates, Helga and Zohar. As a part of NASA’s collaboration with Israel Space Agency (ISA) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR), my quirky companions will be testing a radiation protection vest. Together, we will collect data on what future astronauts will be experiencing on future Artemis missions to the Moon!”

        Thus, how the myth of ‘Apollo’ is a twin to ‘Artemis’, two sides of the same coin, I would be willing to gamble that instead of the us flag, it will be the Rainbow Flag that gets planted on the moon this time and we will honor all marginalized peoples and ethnic groups instead of the cowboys and white nationalists of 1969. And Singer, along with the latest in visual effects specialists, will make that rainbow flag wave in the space wind! By golly, they will make it “dance if you want to”!

        How myth-making, and the construction of narrative, is a form of military warfare, interwoven into the fabric of our everyday lives. The stories we tell, and more importantly, the stories we choose to believe do indeed matter. They matter because the message that is coded into the language of our collective stories and media making becomes our culture and define our values. If we chose to believe myths that serve the World Builders who don’t serve us in return, than so our future is truly going to be tragic and our spot in the audience unfortunate. But if we can return to telling stories that serve the old world, and telling stories that serve the ancient ways of truth and love, than perhaps, we can believe in something good again as the curtain comes down.


  2. Back when the event happened, what was the vibe, did most people(your friends, classmates, teachers, parents, siblings, grand parents etc.) think it was a real event? I believed it for a long time, always thought human space travel was possible too. All that time spent studying the planets and universe in science class which could be flushed down the toilet if people find out it’s all out of reach and they expose it. They can expose the moon landings were faked and human space exploration cannot happen to make people lose interest. The flip side is that space travel could actually be happening and be far more advanced than we are to know. There is huge money to be made with the continued space promotions, and there are commercialized low orbit trips they sell as space flights. I think they have too much to lose if they don’t keep the moon landing hoax going.


    1. I think it unlikely that humans can travel in space, but not machines. The problem is, of course, that humans have to go and return alive, where machines are expendable. I am at odds with myself as to whether astronauts were actually aboard those Saturn launches of 1969 forward [which never left LEO]. I just do not know.


      1. I think it unlikely that humans can travel in space, but not machines.

        why do you KEEP IGNORING all the posts made on your own blog, where Petra Hivemindi is “the treasure”, “the only one keeping your blog going” and more nonsensical acts by you, Mark. On your own blog.

        what you actively ignore with this comment, no further reading needed for the impossible to not happen, EVER….

        TimR – does the best thing possible ; approaching things conceptually, such that an 8 year old can understand it
        Suominen – has made great comments which should anyone point towards the absrdity of ANY space travel, since when are “machines” immune to GAIA’s laws ?
        MiniMe – in the end he agreed with me and described in his own words exactly what would happen with an imaginary rocket in inaccessible space, but especially pointing out the rudimentary technology of the 1960s that YOU of all and more people here have lived and I haven’t….
        Boethius – seriously no attention for that man, but “treasure trove” constantly down under the table Livearoundmi is more important to you, innit ?

        and my own contributions
        exclusively donated to you

        you just ignore everything from former threads
        and start from 0 again

        nothing lands ever with you

        that’s why you don’t progress


        “””satellites””” allegedly ‘exist’ since Sputnik, October 57 & Explorer I, jan/feb ’58
        if someone believes in satellites as “machines” I hear now,
        and if you contest the silly 1968 (Apollo 1)-88 (act II, learn more @ Eye am Eye Radio) “moonlandings”, as any sane thinker knows


        when oh when did REAL unmanned probes, “satellites”, “machines” start become happening ?

        if you know the microprocessor was just invented in 1964, and that inventions take a while to be implemented in engineering, it is absolutely absurd to imagine that mankind could access gravitationally (and electromagnetically and whatever GAIAvitiy more exists ; the Forces of the Cosmos, see under link …) impossible to reach space

        with just rulers, paper calculations, not even a pocket calculator most of us grew up with at school …

        I mean …

        how many “parking spaces in place”, I mean “parking places in space”, ehh, sorry, “Lagrange points” can I sell you

        in a 4D (at least) environment

        where points

        DO NOT EXIST

        stop being fooled

        and calling for bookz, carnies, anything

        GAIA speaks for herself, through her laws


        now in my ear :

        Mark about me : “you do good work”
        gaia : I do a lot alone, but together, we matter



        become a matron to get full access !
        and await the next release, in which these words come back, it is about

        SPACE TRAVEL and so much more, as always…

        you all have access to a peek into the first of many valuable Space conversations (podcasting is too formal of an idea for the chill chats I hold…) for all the freebees :



  3. ” … for me, wonderment at how they managed to get hold of so many incriminating photos and videos. I am thinking, once again, limited hangout. …”

    So many incriminating photos? Hardly. The photos only show all the more how astronauts really did land on the moon.

    When photos are taken at night on earth with artificial lights what do you expect to see? One or more of the following:
    — Fall off into darkness from a single light source
    — Multiple shadows from multiple light sources
    — Low density of reflected light

    Moon lander at night on earth
    Light situation: Low density of light and fall off at back

    Compare Apollo 11
    Light situation: High density of light and no fall off

    Anyone who thinks the image taken from Apollo 8 looks anything like the fake moon … I have no words.

    Due diligence. Read carefully Sensible Site guy’s refutation of American Moon and then come back to me with your thoughts.


    1. Those Apollo 8 Moon pictures were probably taken by unmanned probe, if not totally fabricated. You don’t need an astronaut to take pictures from space, but all those photos of the Moon and the Earth really seems to be false to my eyes. Why they seems real to You? And in those Apollo 11 Moon pictures the horizon is clearly only about 50 meters (164 ft ) away at maximum. Take a look how the shadows reach to the horizon. The Moon is not so small. That should not be possible in the Moon, but is possible in the studio of course. Can’t You really not see those errors in those pictures? Besides there are WAY TOO many pictures from each mission that is possible to two astronauts to shoot. In the Apollo 11 mission there were only one camera which were change repeatedly between two astronauts. The camera(s) were manual adjustable and so were slow to take pictures and there simply were not enough time to take all those pictures presented to us. I tried to be appropriate this time. You can’t just overtake all those oddities and keep on insisting that official NASA story if You really are real and thinking human being and not work for the NASA. I’m now totally done with You, keep on living in Your fantasy reality if You want.


      1. I responded to this but even though it seemed as though my comment was published it disappeared so I’ll just put a very abbreviated version.

        An explanation for strange closeness of horizon is given here and it is also instructive to read the comments on the explanation.


  4. psycho-illogically (nice, a new one!) speaking

    the existence of probes, machines
    but not humans

    in Space, means
    … this is just a short summary of mad convictions …

    1 – what is the ISS, even without astronots inside, it was per NASA narrative allegedly assembled in Space by human astronots ?
    2 – how do “hanging in there” machines exist (relying on 2 body problems, with ALWAYS, at minimum 4 present …) and keep existing, without ever malfunctioning, despite
    a – storms, earthquakes, driving by buses, anything affecting Earth-bound impossible to reach precisions of “dishes” (made in that specific shape to receive as many signals from a non-point source …)
    b – no maintenance needed, ever, in the allegedly most extreme conditions ever (un)known to mankind (your precious “geostationary” satan-lights (wow, love this one….and I am not the first with this)….exist right inside the Outer Van Allen Belt, filled with all kinds of radiation, rrrrright
    c – decades proven & functioning radio signal technology for ages, cables at the ocean floors accounting for what I’ve heard 99%, and if it’s not, it’s not 9 …, of global communication, crashed and therefore proven (e.g. in Brazil, shown by Conspiracy Music Guru genius truth musician) balloon-based “satellites”
    3 – who repaired the Hubble “Space” Telescope, fixed the Blackened Mirror, per the narrative ofcourseitmakesnosenseanywaysowhocares, if it weren’t those funnily behaving clowns in their bright white non-perforated by micrometeorites suits ??
    4 – how the heck and in which phantastical Universal Picture does NASA communicate with “machines” in the shadow of celestial bodies, be it Earth itself (cause daily revolution, no matter if it’s Tychonian, or geo- or heliocentric, Flat indeed doesn’t work, like never it does …), or at the other side of Mars (for their Devon Island “landers”…), the Moon (Ze Israelis and Chinese are in the modern mix too, believe that ? ), etc. ?

    If you think I ask offensive questions
    meaning ; offending your intelligence

    then you are totally right

    I have that right

    when (I think) I deal with mature, open Piece of Minded thinkers

    but tomorrow it’s Groundhog Day again, so I write these words just for my own insights… 2 nice Newspeak words from it, so my TIME as always paid off.

    keep believing Space normies, the Myth Makers have you Marked !

    for the thinkers ; you know how to find us, 4 podcasts to work through, with 2 new members, with as always meaningful music, mainly about …. Space !

    sign up & keep an Eye am Eye out !


  5. I have not ignored anyone. However, neither of you have convinced me, Petra that there was actually a human on the moon at any time, or you, Gaia, that space travel is impossible. You both make strident arguments, but neither rings true. I assert that it is possible to to generate motion in space, and that no one has ever left LEO due to many considerations. My only question now is if anyone was aboard the Apollo Saturn rockets.


  6. If anyone wants a few laughs… The worm has turned and “maskers” now find themselves subject to the kind of psychological nudging operations they used to use on “anti-maskers” –


    NYC mayor Eric Adams casually brands them all as likely shoplifting perps. NakedCapitalism/ Yves Smith recommends using “public accommodation” law to resist, just as the unmasked did at one time… Step through the looking glass into an alternate dimension..


    1. That is precious, a trip down memory lane. I only rarely wore a mask, as when places like COSTCO enforced it. At our local supermarket, Kings Sooper, never. I did not like drawing attention, but liked even less the idea that I was so stupid as to believe that something supposedly as small as the alleged virus could be stopped by cloth. Once I encountered a woman who singled me out, and as I walked away from her held up my index finger, I don’t know why, just an unplanned reaction. I suffered Dupuytren’s contracture, and my middle finger was frozen in stone, unable to do a proper signal. Nonetheless, the woman, maybe her vision limited by her mask, saw my index finger as the one next to it, and was enraged. Come, do that to my face she yelled. I wish I had.


      1. I had many tense (and absurd, and funny) interactions during that whole time. (Now that is something I probably could fill a radio show with, Gaia, if nothing else.)

        The most intense was at a local library, during a “second wave” – it had all relaxed, then come back harder, due to a “variant” – so believers were in the grip of the recent “uptick” in cases. A school-marmish librarian reprimanded me, and as I began to give my prepared response, she stormed off down a hallway. A few minutes later, as I continued browsing, her superior came up and asked me to leave.

        I explained to him that in Alabama, there is actually a law on the books that it’s illegal to mask in public buildings – it was put in place in response to the KKK. He became flustered and threatened to call the cops. I said fine, that I was sure they’d understand the law – which had not been revoked, and was higher than any “mandate,” being as it was actually passed by the legislature – and that he was actually liable for trying to enforce an illegal mandate. He was very discombobulated, stormed off… Then I heard the first lady asking “Well? Are you going to call them?” And he said, “He’s got a point actually..” Or something. The upshot being that the cops might take my side. And so it was just a bluff – who wants to call the cops over masks and look like an idiot.. Just silly legalese.. I used other tactics sometimes.

        In truth I guess they were probably very stressed out because they were in the grip of that heavy propaganda, but there was still some satisfaction in not caving, and seeing them both meltdown in disbelief that anyone would flaunt the “rules”…


        1. How great that you were able to respond with that one, Tim. Love it!

          In my own case I incurred two hefty fines at the same time on a train, one for being maskless and one for being 5km out of area without “good reason”. If I’d known the law better I would have simply not said a word to the police who nabbed me but I was dumb, dumb, dumb. Then I thought I’d take it to court but was too lazy to get it together. A government-funded legal centre in Sydney who represents the disadvantaged took one of the fines to court, not on the basis of anything to with complete fraud virus/pandemic-wise but on the basis of its wording being unclear or something of that nature. The matter I think has gone to a higher court and is waiting adjudication. I really don’t like the idea of fighting something purely on a technicality when it really should be fought at a much more fundamental level but obviously I’ll be very happy if the case is won as it means my money will be refunded and that was the larger fine (they were $500 and $1,000).

          In Australia now it’s only in hospitals that everyone wears a mask. I was visiting my mother in hospital over days not wearing one and was getting away with it with just the odd admonition here and there that I ignored until someone – not even sure what her position was – gave me a lot of grief over it and it just became very uncomfortable not wearing it … although of course it was very uncomfortable wearing it too. The insanity of it still in hospitals drives me crazy. Actually, prior to my mother I visited over days a friend in another hospital and pretty much didn’t wear a mask the whole time as I recall – they didn’t really bother there to hassle even though everyone was wearing one except me as far as I could see.

          There’s a German guy, Marvin who deliberately incurred a fine so he could go to court. Don’t know where that’s at. He was due to go to court but they postponed. Interesting interview with Sam Bailey.


          1. Ugh, I dealt with a lot of hassles but never got any fines or anything. Alabamians disappointed me a lot, but it wasn’t as bad as some places. Hope you get it resolved well.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. The capacity to project in such a way as to create a subjective dissociation will seem to be an object reality of otherness.
    The creative definitions are then ‘hidden’ by the focus set within the imaged symbols of mind as controller of body or limits by which to space or distance and mask in as a unique expression of thoughts given priority or power.
    The trickster is the first to seek to expose itself anywhere or as anyone else.
    A theme I notice currently is ‘you have been/are being lied to’.
    Here’s a new source of gaining function as the teller of truth – except it remains focused in lies or illusions be-lived true.
    The generation of a symbolic modelling image of reality as a replacement is Plato’s cave or a mistaken inheritance of a Prodigal son, Narcissus in self image, and innumerable clues as to the nature of self-illusion that can never of themselves interrupt of undermine the power to have our experience.

    In simple terms, if we are set in our experience on our own terms and conditions, we align in purpose of selecting the ‘witnesses or evidences’ or contrivances to reinforce our current sense of self.
    If we are stirred from beneath what we took to be reality, life, self or world, we start to notice and then actively seek and find of a different purpose – of reintegration or healing back to a true foundation or inherence that had been discarded by a phished sense of self image set in emotional intensity as the dissociative projection of a mythologised and masked past – stamped into every moment of a separated mind as its ‘reality’.

    The means we created to make a world for self-illusion are repurposed as the means to retrace our steps, for there Is nowhere to arrive but our starting place, yet this is beyond time and place, though we chose experience of a projection of all that is in specific terms that are then regarded objective-autonomy.

    Anyway my sense is that when we want to release a futility or conflicted meaninglessness to let reality in, we have an inherent guidance of a process of translation of self-illusion back into the terms of what it conceals.
    So a sense of self-lack seeking a mask that seeks boosting by attacking threat of exposure can be recognised false from a self-connecting extension of self and life. There is no ‘control’, conflict or separation in the Mind of Creator that extends to know, not to get rid of.

    The mythic projection is a use of creative mind to make imaged idols that cannot receive or truly give anything but what we set them as. The precursor to machine or programmed thinking. Whatever the contents, our thinking represents choices, that can be seen to bring outcomes. Feeling the quality of the outcome learns when a thought is aligned true or false. Yet ‘feelings’ are used as meanings assumed true, set in reaction.

    Narrative manipulation is not unlike a movie. We all have a casting and continuity manager. Its illusion running over something real. No one forges 11 dollar bills. But reality is of its own qualities, and not under our terms and conditions, filters and rules.

    The Big Reveal is going on as part of the Show because the Show only reflects what is within, but as if subjecting from without.
    Illusion or lies have only the power we give them.
    But never less, and part of the illusion is that we are powerless, and thus underestimate the power that is ours to give or think we can project to separate from.

    Why would all the props and symbols of our mind not be used to awaken and release from fear of pain of loss?


    1. Is that a ChatGPT driven comment by ‘Binra’? I’ve noticed that some of these AI ‘writers’ don’t add specific examples to their arguments the way a real person might, driven as we humans are by confirmation bias to one degree or another. If I’m wrong, I’ll eat my hat (or equivalent act of contrition)


      1. This person (or thing) has been around for months. He (it) used to comment on Stephers’ posts. I am of the opinion that if a person (or thing) cannot make its points in clear and concise (and brief) verbiage, then the thinking behind it is not clear and concise. Your own writing is clear and concise, so you make my point for me.


    1. Man, I saw that at the drive-in when I was about 6 years old, but don’t remember that scene. They do love to mock us. LOL


      1. They do love to mock us … but we have to be careful of which “us” we’re talking about. Is it the masses “us” or is it the disbelievers “us”. They knew there’d be a small but significant percentage of people who wouldn’t believe their nonsense 9/11 story … and they had a whole lot of mocking propaganda designated just for “us” … the five dancing Israelis caught in the white van with explosives dust being one memorable piece that had me totally sucked in.

        Think about it.

        If something true but easy to find improbable in the extreme were to happen wouldn’t those in power be right onto exploiting it to lead the disbelievers astray and wouldn’t that include pretending to leave signs of their supposed hoaxery? They luurve to fool the disbelievers too not just the believers and having the disbelievers believe something that is actually true is going to hamstring them in making their case for the many lies, isn’t it? They would absolutely 100% positively exploit the true-but-improbable situation, there is absolutely no way they wouldn’t.

        It’s simple. Look at the evidence yourself and see where it corresponds or doesn’t correspond with expectations. It all corresponds with expectations of the unique lunar conditions. It’s just so simple. Leave the rocket science to the rocket scientists – there’s a reason behind the phrase “it’s not rocket science” – rocket science is complicated.


        1. Just for fun let us stick then to more simple geometry and apply it to two of the claimed photographs which we will take straight from the source.

          (1) As we know from any total solar eclipse, the Moon and the Sun appear exactly of the same size when seen from Earth.
          (2) We will accept that the Earth has more than three times the diameter of the Moon, so the Earth seen from Moon will appear more than three times as large than the Moon seen from Earth.
          (3) Since the distance between the Sun and the Earth-Moon system is so much larger than the distance between Earth and Moon (almost 400 times as large), the Sun will appear of similar size no matter whether seen from Earth or Moon.
          (4) Everybody still following? 😉
          (5) Given the above, a little thought will indicate that seen from Moon the Earth must appear more than three times as large as the Sun.

          We have probably all seen this iconic Apollo-17 picture of flag and Earth :

          The famous Hasselblad camera used here did not yet have a zoom lens but a fixed 60-mm lens, so we can compare relative size of things between original pictures on the same roll. (If in doubt, the little embedded cross-hair marks would let us recognize cropped vs. uncropped pictures.)

          Now image what the Sun would have to look like. I would expect a very bright spot, but small (as it has to less than a third of the size of that of the Earth in that picture) and perhaps adorned with some radial and/or ring-shaped flares from reflections within the camera and on the two lens surfaces.

          On the very same roll #134 as the picture above there are a few photographs that include a huge light, the first one is this:

          Remembering that this cannot be a zoom or crop, to me the size of the light– quoting now Petra above–“doesn’t correspond with expectations”. The size of the light is simply monstrous in comparison to what geometry dictates if both images were true as advertised.

          Credit for discovering this goes to the folks as aulis.com (https://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm).

          If I were tasked to “debunk” it I would probably try something with flares and/or special conditions/no atmosphere on the Moon but it would seem quite difficult given the large mismatch. Actually, does anyone know if a “debunker” has given this one a shot?


          1. Brilliant takedown! But as you say, I can just imagine what a StackExchange physicist would say…

            “Hahaha, you fool. The sun obviously doesn’t look the same size from the moon as it does from Earth. Due to lack of atmosphere the sun’s rays, r, meeting refraction R0, remain consistent with r*dD (where d is distance to sun and D is diameter of sun.) The moon photo, ironically, is actually the more accurate depiction, since Earth’s refractive property is not 0. It really is amusing what these jokers will try to come up with though, for those of us who have ascended to advanced levels. Thanks for the laugh.”


          2. So what happened to the strong points in WTM, Wolf? Couldn’t find one? … nor a counter-refutation of any of Sensible Site guy’s refutation points?

            Oh my goodness, am I waiting patiently or what for a clear point from WTM that contradicts the reality of the moon landings.

            Was it the seeming anomaly of sun size that moved you from belief to disbelief in the moon landings? I’m curious to know what it was that shifted your belief if you remember. In my own case, I clearly remember stopping dead in my tracks after being reasonably persuaded by WTM by the audio of the communication between astronauts and mission control which struck me as completely unfakeable – of course, that was just an opinion but then as I looked further I found what I consider irrefutable facts that favoured real over fake.

            So my second rule of critical thinking that I don’t think you commented on is:

            “Confine analysis to the irrefutable facts in the first instance.”

            What do you think of that as a rule? And do you have a set of rules you apply yourself?


            1. Petra wrote

              So my second rule of critical thinking … is:

              “Confine analysis to the irrefutable facts in the first instance.”

              oh, absolutely agreed upon this

              In my own case, I clearly remember stopping dead in my tracks … by the audio of the communication between astronauts and mission control **which struck me as completely unfakeable** – of course, that was just an opinion but then as I looked further I found what I consider irrefutable facts that favoured real over fake.

              and this you’ll hear for yourself …

              instead of addressing Dave “agent, still alive, not a professional expert” McGowan, or the funny fools over at StackItUpYourAss.gov feeding the same dead Horse …

              take a look at 2, just TWO, minutes of NASA footage “from the Moon” (your allegation)….

              And list how many clear evidences of “””unfakeable””” fakery you count in just those two minutes of NASA footage, brought to us by National Geographic :

              For All Mankind (1989) – 58-60 minutes exact}

              PS: apparently there is an Apple plus series with the same name, that’s how they Great Reset our minds, a form of Mandela Affecting our memories and simple searches…


            2. You ask “’Confine analysis to the irrefutable facts in the first instance.’ What do you think of that as a rule? And do you have a set of rules you apply yourself?”

              I would hesitate excluding a priori things that I do not see as “irrefutable”—how could one be so certain of that before actually having taken a closer look? And what would really qualify as “irrefutable” in a strict sense?

              My own approach is to try and maintain intellectual discipline in judging claims and statements on their plausibility. As more implausibility accumulates overall with respect to a particular narrative it becomes less likely being true in my view.

              Using the plausibility approach the existence of the audio track does not register as very remarkable. For the official narrative to be true, there has to be an audio track of course. But there can be an audio track just the same if the official narrative is false, so it is not a very good discriminator. I do not share your evaluation of “completely unfakeable”, rather I see it as a comparatively easy (if boring) task to read prepared scripts in a studio for a few days which probably would not even necessarily have to happen in a single take.

              The main contribution of WTM I find in the entertaining cumulative presentation of things that are individually not very likely (even if some of some are individually perhaps not completely impossible). That so many of them had to have happened for the narrative to work means the overall probability becomes exceedingly small. So it is really this total that poses an interesting intellectual challenge to anyone believing in the official story. Notice that it does not really matter whether or not an agent wrote WTM and whether the author got everything completely right.

              Of course there are things that are “stronger” than others, some strong enough to even on their own cast serious doubt on the claimed story. I do not however recall any particular item that “shifted” my belief–it was simply a process of having to accept more and more things as individually improbable, eventually so many that the counternarrative became the more plausible one to me. I agree with WTM that one good source for those is in the photographic record. (Incidentally WTM references aulis.com on the very same page where you mistook the Lunokhod rover for the Apollo buggy.)

              As for your own approach, you said:

              “As far as I’m concerned, there cannot be even one thing as evidence doesn’t work that way. 100% of the evidence must ultimately support going to the moon so if you have one thing that will be very interesting.”

              Fair enough, please go ahead and apply this criterion to the contradiction I presented above. As the images are linked directly from the official archive they should qualify as “evidence.” In your view, does it “ultimately support going to the moon”—or is it rather “something interesting”?

              Quoting you again, “I always keep an open mind so I’ll certainly look at something that someone claims contradicts the reality of the moon landings or casts serious doubts on them.” Please do. I claim that the simple (dare I say “irrefutable”?) geometric constraints I laid out leave us with a contradiction in the two pictures above that casts serious doubts on the reality of the moon landings.


              1. If you want a bright and shiny object to bank on the landings being fake (there are actually many – Van Allen Belts, Platex space suits, absence of starlight, amazing photos taken from a chest-high non-zoom camera, photographic anomalies, sudden appearance of the moon buggies in a craft that was already stuffed to the gills (so we are told anyway), Armstrong’s reference to “truth’s protective layers”, inability to go back even fifty years later, inability to land rockets even today (Musk’s are merely backwards movies),etc.,) it is this: A massively complicated engineering task in which everything went exactly right the first time.

                That does not happen in real life. If anything can go wrong, it will, and at the worst time possible.


                1. Nice list–I’d personally add this almost unbearably cringy press conference with the Apollo 11 dudes


                  …with Collins remarking that he did not remember seeing any stars while orbiting(!) the moon. Sure thing.

                  Totally agree on the point you make. The likelihood of the claimed success quickly approaches zero given everything had to work with so many things not even having been tested before.


              2. Petra… You might as well admit it.. Wolf has got you on this one point at least 😂
                And excellent points on how to approach the problem overall as well.


                1. Tim, I absolutely 100% assure you that I wish to believe what is true not have what I believe be true and I’m not someone who particularly wants certain things to be true or not, I’m just not inclined that way. I mean, sure, I’d much prefer that the ruling elite (or anyone) didn’t sacrifice and rape children and that three Australian Prime Ministers that I respected as much as one can respect a politician weren’t included in those people who do heinous things to children. I’d so much prefer that wasn’t true but as the evidence strongly suggests it is true I’m obliged to accept it as true. Similarly, I’d prefer that astronauts really did land on the moon, I’d prefer that that amazing achievement really happened, I like the idea of it … but if it didn’t I’d certainly accept it as I accept the general non-stop lying to us, day in day out.

                  The reason I haven’t responded to Wolf isn’t because I felt I didn’t have an answer it was just I hadn’t gotten around to it – in fact, I didn’t even read his response till just now – I only previously saw in my email that he’d responded.

                  The thing is I don’t think Wolf makes a good point because I completely disagree with going by plausibility over irrefutable facts, that is, I think certain facts are absolutely irrefutable, completely and plausibility is absolutely NOT what to judge by at all because often what seems plausible isn’t actually true and what seems implausible is. Of course, what might seem to be an irrefutable fact turns out not to be one … but until what I see as an irrefutable fact is shown not to be one I accept it as one.

                  These are irrefutable facts in relation to the moon landings. Correct me if I’m wrong.
                  F1. No one has pointed to a single item in WTM that contradicts their reality.
                  F2. No one has detected any fakery in the Apollo communication audio.
                  F3. All the visual imagery of the moon landings is consistent with a single light source, namely, the sun.

                  I could put forward a few more facts – or things I believe to be facts – but I’ll leave it there. I absolutely do not accept that there are no irrefutable facts and that plausibility is something we should use as a guide over irrefutable facts. That is not the way to go at all in my opinion.


                  1. “…I completely disagree with going by plausibility over irrefutable facts…“

                    That is of course your prerogative as we all pick our own intellectual approach to deal with the world and what people claim about it.

                    “Of course, what might seem to be an irrefutable fact turns out not to be one … but until what I see as an irrefutable fact is shown not to be one I accept it as one.”

                    I appreciate your reaffirming to remain open-minded. Let us now see how you live up to that statement in the face of “being shown” wrt to your “irrefutable fact” F3, coming right up.

                    You say “These are irrefutable facts in relation to the moon landings. Correct me if I’m wrong.
                    F1. No one has pointed to a single item in WTM that contradicts their reality.”

                    As I descried above, I derive the value of WTM very differently. You do not share that view, fine–so just for the sake of argument let’s grant you this point.

                    “F2. No one has detected any fakery in the Apollo communication audio.”

                    This may be a fact (I honestly have no idea) but even then it would not help us much in deciding on what’s true regarding the Apollo travels. It just does not qualify as a very useful criterion as an audio record would be amongst the easiest things to fake-create when given time, scripts, and a studio. But again, for the sake of argument, let’s grant you this one, too.

                    “F3. All the visual imagery of the moon landings is consistent with a single light source, namely, the sun.”

                    Now THAT one is pretty rich. On this very page please scroll up to my comment with the two embedded images. Can I ask you to take in the numbered steps (1) through (5) above and the little bit of text right below the first picture again?

                    Petra, do you seriously fail to see the inconsistency I demonstrated? To be sure–I am NOT questioning the single light source in this case, but the claim that this is the sun. If the first one is a real picture of the Earth, the sun is MUCH too big in the second one. If the second one is a real picture of the sun, the Earth is MUCH too small in the first one. No rocket science at all, just plain and simple geometry.

                    Now we didn’t lose you there at step (4), did we? 😉

                    I noticed that you completely skipped over the last part of my most recent comment. That part was not meant to be rhetorical, so allow me to put it in here once again as I would honestly like to see a thoughtful reply from you to points A and B below–

                    (A) As for your own approach, you said: “As far as I’m concerned, there cannot be even one thing as evidence doesn’t work that way. 100% of the evidence must ultimately support going to the moon so if you have one thing that will be very interesting.”
                    Fair enough, please go ahead and apply this criterion to the contradiction I presented above. As the images are linked directly from the official archive they should qualify as “evidence.” In your view, does it “ultimately support going to the moon”—or is it rather “something interesting”?

                    (B) Quoting you again, “I always keep an open mind so I’ll certainly look at something that someone claims contradicts the reality of the moon landings or casts serious doubts on them.” Please do. I claim that the simple (dare I say “irrefutable”?) geometric constraints I laid out leave us with a contradiction in the two pictures above that casts serious doubts on the reality of the moon landings.


                    1. “That is of course your prerogative as we all pick our own intellectual approach to deal with the world and what people claim about it.”

                      I don’t think “picking one’s approach” is really a prerogative, I think that the only choice is the one that gets us to the truth better assuming there is such an approach and I believe there is.

                      Plausibility doesn’t work.

                      Let’s take 9/11 as an example. For someone who knows nothing of psyops and the power of the Emperor’s New Clothes effect (as I didn’t) when my sister tried to tell me it was controlled demolition I simply dismissed her with, “They wouldn’t have had the confidence they could get away with it.”

                      Plausibility often depends on your context of information. The less you know, the more implausible something may seem. When you don’t fully understand perspective and distance things might seem implausible. The sun and moon often look very different sizes to me – I wouldn’t have a clue why and I certainly wouldn’t judge sizes in photos.

                      Re facts.

                      F1: It doesn’t matter the value you take from WTM, the fact that no one has identified anything is hugely significant because it raises the big question why? Obviously, Dave was very knowledgeable about the Apollo missions and it would seem impossible that he wouldn’t actually put something in his 14-chapter book that clearly contradicted their reality. How would it even be possible if we really didn’t go? In absence of evidence to the contrary, this fact massively supports their reality. Even where a fact of itself doesn’t prove anything it can have massive supportive value – in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

                      F2. “It just does not qualify as a very useful criterion as an audio record would be amongst the easiest things to fake-create when given time, scripts, and a studio.”

                      No, absolutely not. I do not accept that it would be amongst the easiest things to fake at all. As I’ve said it stopped me dead in my tendency-to-think-hoax tracks. When you say “easiest” what you’re doing is asserting something that has no evidence. We see no evidence of anyone duplicating this supposed fakery. The point is that you have one opinion, I have another about ease of fakery. What do the facts say? No identification of fakery.

                      F3. Have you done due diligence on these photos, Wolf, that is, have you asked experts? My sister tried to persuade me that the lack of alignment of shadows indicated multiple light sources but then I found experts who talk about how elevation and other elements affect how shadows look. So many seeming anomalies are explained – convincingly – by experts. There seems to be a general attitude of hostility to the StackExchange experts who refute Boethius’s claims about rocketry, however – FACT – no one has counter-refuted their argument. I will endeavour to find an explanation for the sizes of these photos and get back to you.


                    2. Ha! Photographically speaking, you’ve been exposed.

                      I found experts who talk about how elevation and other elements affect how shadows look.

                      The key for me here is the use of the word “expert”. I rarely use it. It is so abused. If I drive by a suspension bridge, I place my faith in experts when I drive across it. I have, right in front of me, thousands of cars crossing every day. That’s an expert, an engineer who builds bridges that do not collapse.

                      In photography, the first photo (1827 or so) might have been real, but the second was faked. Please be patient here, as that is humor, but the point is, photos can never be trusted. In analyzing photos from the 50s to present day, thousands of them, as I have done, fakes are not uncommon. One key to discovery of fakes is analyzing light sources. They cannot be faked, are always apparent.

                      Designating someone an “expert” merely means, in photography, “I give you permission to lie to me.” And they did. And you bought it.

                      [Sometimes there are atmospheric differences, cloudy days, that sort of thing that affect shadows, but light travels in a straight line, and it is rare anything interferes with that. On a place like the moon, there is no atmosphere, so nothing interferes with it. NASA itself says that there were no additional light sources taken there, so if you see odd lighting effects, it is a “Gotcha!” moment. Shadows cast in different directions in photos supposedly taken there are fake. End of story.

                      As Dragline said to Luke in the movie, “You’re beat.Stay down.” Experts, my ass.]


                2. Actually, another rule I’d add is one from Sherlock Holmes.

                  “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

                  Greatest fictional detective doesn’t go by plausibility … and nor do I 🙂


                  1. Fine 🙂

                    So if it is geometrically impossible to have taken those two photographs at the claimed location with the claimed equipment, what do you must conclude regarding these claims, Sherlock-Petra?


  8. Petra wrote
    “Plausibility often depends on your context of information. The less you know, the more implausible something may seem. When you don’t fully understand perspective and distance things might seem implausible. The sun and moon often look very different sizes to me – I wouldn’t have a clue why and I certainly wouldn’t judge sizes in photos.”

    It sounds like it’s you who doesn’t fully understand perspective and distance, or lenses and scale marks, so you’re willing to accept anything as plausible; whereas people who do have some understanding, find it implausible.

    I’ve read literal books on perspective, and many shorter treatments from different authors over the years, in studying art and drawing. It’s not some wishy washy “oh the sun looks big today” type of phenomenon. Yes there are many optical illusions that can effect perception, but that’s why it’s impressive that Wolf’s case is so rigorous in terms of the set lens focal length and consistent hash marks used to divide the frame.

    I hope you manage to find an expert rebuttal because I would LOVE to see that – somehow I doubt any exist, and they will probably just scoff and brush off anyone demanding one. If it became a well-known issue (unlikely due to the subtlety and reading comprehension needed to understand it), they would probably have to “change the rules” somehow to explain it away – ie, claim that ACTUALLY different focal length lenses were used, or otherwise retroactively change the official story.

    If you really weren’t invested in the moon landings as you say, this one point alone ought to make you sit bolt upright and question the whole story.


  9. “It sounds like it’s you who doesn’t fully understand perspective and distance, or lenses and scale marks …”

    Sure I don’t understand perspective and distance, lenses etc, my sense of spatiality generally is woeful. As I repeat ad nauseam, Tim, I focus on what I do understand and leave things I don’t alone. All I require are the pieces of the jigsaw that convincingly make one picture while excluding other possibilities – that’s it, it’s so simple! I believe that moonhoaxers simply indulge in the Dunning-Kruger effect and think they understand more than they do about particular elements. What’s so obvious to me is that Apollo enthusiasts and people expert in particular elements know more than moon hoaxers, they speak so much more authoritatively.

    ” … so you’re willing to accept anything as plausible; whereas people who do have some understanding, find it implausible.”

    I have no interest in plausibility, Tim, what I’m interested in is things I can know for sure while leaving things I don’t know for sure out of it. If there are too many things I cannot know for sure then I don’t make claims. If all we had were a few images for the moon landings and all I could see was massive controversy over those things which I didn’t understand I’d simply make no claims.

    Moonhoaxers do not have a case against the reality of the moon landings, all they have are cherry-picked seeming anomalies. There’s no case. For a case you need to have quite a few pieces of the jigsaw and moonhoaxers don’t have those pieces.

    What they have are completely unsupported assertions of possibility and claims about things in which they are not expert.

    There are two very distinct types of claims of possibility:
    — claims where we can easily see how something could have happened or simple precedence
    — completely hypothetical claims where we have no evidence to support the possibility or no precedence or explanation as to how something was done

    There is no precedence of fakery of hours of audio communication that sounds like the Apollo mission communication. Zero and I don’t see how it could be done. Just because you have a studio and a script doesn’t mean something can be faked like that. It doesn’t sound remotely like a Hollywood movie and astronauts aren’t actors. It’s a HYPOTHETICAL claim of possibility not a realistic claim … and, of course, to boot no one has identified any fakery in hours and hours of the stuff.

    Do you see how this audio evidence forms a strong part of the case for the reality of the moon landings while the HYPOTHETICAL claim of possible fakery has zero weight at all?

    On the other hand, it’s perfectly realistic to claim the possibility that ALL the deaths on 9/11 were faked without proving every one was. In fact, we can say it was very probable even though we can’t necessarily prove it for a number of reasons.


    1. Oh no, not another Petra post!
      The only moon hoaxers are NASA, Newton’s laws apply on earth only.
      NASA are still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, 54 years after Apollo 11 was supposed to have done just that.
      In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2023, a computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The Apollo 11 computer had 32k memory.
      In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald back in 1994, the NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin, openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 26 years before, which supposedly went 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit.
      Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from surface is strong enough to illuminate darkness here on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface of Moon would be blinded by the high intensity light reflected back.
      Film footage taken inside the capsule of ALL Apollo missions, shows a light blue haze, and curvature of Earth through capsule window, when they were supposedly half way to the Moon, and in the blackness of space. This proves that capsule was only in Earth orbit.
      The monitored radio/data signals were either pre-recorded, transmitted from Earth and reflected back by bouncing the signal off the Moon, or were transmitted via a leased channel. If such a valuable source of monitoring equipment was left on Moon, then it would be in use today, and not shut down in the 70s.
      Incidentally the day after the fake Apollo 11 Moon landing, NASA administrator, Thomas Paine, was heard telling Intelligence Officer Bob Seaman that China were saying that US faked the mission by bouncing radio communication signals off the Moon.
      Only a NASA gatekeeper or a dolt would believe in the moon landings.


    2. You’re “not interested in plausibility” – reread your own quote above, I was responding to your comments/ “interest” in plausibility – but it’s semantics anyway – the case Wolf made shows a logical contradiction or impossibility in their own evidence – ie, it goes beyond plausible vs implausible. You often try to wiggle out of solid points by these semantic word games, digressing off into big airy rambles that aren’t responsive to the point.

      My point about your quote anyway was not to fault your lack of expertise in perspective etc, but your epistemological claim that the non-expert would likely see implausibility where the expert sees plausibility. No, exactly wrong – the non-expert, as you admit you are on this topic, is likely to look at those photos and say “good enough for me.” Whereas anyone with some basic understanding of perspective etc, who carefully reads the points of the argument, will be brought up short at how impossible those photos are, other than as a product of fakery.

      “Moonhoaxers cherry-pick seeming anomalies”? It was you who kept asking for just one single solid point that couldn’t be debunked or argued away. Then when you’re presented with one, it’s beyond you (you say), uninteresting, etc.

      I hope you’ll still try to find an expert to address it though.. not that any can speak plainly (and I tend to think speaking plainly is a sign you have a strong case.)

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Again, no offense, Petra, but you do seem to jump all over the place in your argumentation. I am juxtaposing two of your recent comments for illustration:

      1 – “As far as I’m concerned, there cannot be even one thing as evidence doesn’t work that way. 100% of the evidence must ultimately support going to the moon so if you have one thing that will be very interesting.”

      2 – “Moonhoaxers do not have a case against the reality of the moon landings, all they have are cherry-picked seeming anomalies. There’s no case. For a case you need to have quite a few pieces of the jigsaw and moonhoaxers don’t have those pieces.”

      Can you reconcile these for me, please? In particular, I see a somewhat dishonest debating style in first asking for one interest thing and then turning around to dismiss the same act as “cherry-picking.”

      Also let’s both make an effort not to fall into the trap of applying derogatory group labels. Using silly terms like “moon hoaxers” will not get us closer to any insights.

      You asked to leave the “rocket science” out because it is too complicated—fair enough. So I showed an example that only relies on geometry.

      You now seem to suggest that recognizing even this simple geometric contradiction is beyond you and me and requires an “expert.” No. All it requires is (1) average intelligence, (2) optionally, paper and pencil (or some electronic pad) for a quick sketch, (3) willingness to think for oneself, and (4) an open mind. I am certain you can easily meet requirements (1) and (2), and probably also (3) even if you like your “experts.” 😉 You also assured us of (4), always keeping an open mind. But I have to ask you, after the many, many strong statements you have made, with plenty of “absolutely”s and other words to that effect thrown in, could you honestly still stomach the loss of face associated with potentially having to change your position?

      You actually seemed to mistake the size mismatch for a discussion on some subjective impression. What we are looking at is a measurable and thus very objective discrepancy—that, as TimR says so well “shows a logical contradiction or impossibility in their own evidence – i.e., it goes beyond plausible vs implausible.”

      “What’s so obvious to me is that Apollo enthusiasts and people expert in particular elements know more than moon hoaxers, they speak so much more authoritatively.” This made me laugh, especially that last word. 😊 Bring ‘em on.

      “I will endeavour to find an explanation for the sizes of these photos and get back to you.” Cool. And who knows, someone may perhaps propose some radical lens flare mechanism here. Knowing a thing or two about these topics myself I would be very curious to evaluate it. I think it is a pretty tall order to convincingly explain what we see in this contradictory evidence.

      Then after we are done with this one, I will show you an even simpler example next (not involving rocket science or funny shadows, not even geometry—promised). But first let’s see what you bring back.


      1. Wolf, I see the term “moonhoaxer” as descriptive like “9/11 truther” even if people use them derogatively. It’s just quicker and easier. I’m an out and proud 9/11 truther! and I would think some people are out and proud moonhoaxers – I take your point but really aren’t the terms simply descriptive even if they’re used derogatively? I guess it’s easy for it to seem as though I’m using the term derogatively but I’m not – I just don’t agree with them – on the issue of the moon landings at least – and I think they undermine themselves and others in trying to tell the truth on the myriad real hoaxes.

        I stick to my arguments, I think there’s nothing wrong with them. I absolutely do not accept the seeming geometric contradiction as “simple”. No way. Distance and perspective can make things look different from what they are. I’ve requested to join the clavius.org site and I will pose the question there and will get back to you.

        There is no establishment of a case against the reality of the moon landings. Moonhoaxers think that an argument such as “the hours of audio communication and complete consistency of images with a single light source could be faked … with no signs of fakery”. No! That is not a reasonable argument. You have zero precedence of these two kinds of fakery and you cannot describe how this fakery would be achieved. A studio and a script don’t mean something can be faked.

        But there is a compelling .case for the reality: hours of audio communication with no signs of fakery AND hundreds of images consistent with a single light source with no signs of fakery. I let slip by a comment Tim made where he said that the moon landings had the typical signs of a psyop. What signs? The only signs of a psyop are in the people who said we didn’t go – Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan and this guy, deathbed confessor – what a laugh. Tell me a single thing in his confession that casts any illumination.


        1. I was referring to stuff like what SMJ mentions above – NASA admins being former movie execs. All the players involved should make anyone suspicious. Or things like HG Wells and that early French movie about a trip to the moon – where IIRC they got certain details exactly right, decades in advance, in their fiction – despite the skepticism from (probably) actual rocket engineers and physicists of the early days. There’s much more than I can recall offhand – just endless circumstantial stuff that looks as shady as all the psyops you agree are psyops. It seems more like occult myth making and storytelling, on the world stage, than anything else.

          If you acknowledged that sort of thing in your argument, rather than brushing it all aside without a word, you would have more credibility in your tenacious clinging to the points you feel support your view. As it is it’s unclear if you are even familiar with the larger context, or how similar it is to other large scale public rituals and brazen hoaxes.


        2. Regarding Kaysing et al, wouldn’t you say similar figures surround all the psyops you agree are psyops? What does that prove?


        3. Petra, please—just as I was giving you credit for thinking for yourself, you promptly delegate the thinking to a “debunking” site.

          clavius.org: „Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories…”

          What presumption by them, arrogance really, to classify differing views as “bunk” a priori.

          At the same time, by doing so they put themselves inside an intellectual cage. With a mission statement like that, they could never allow for any doubt on the official line as that would collapse their stated reason for being, could they?

          So if they decide to take up your question, the response becomes somewhat predictable. Let’s venture a guess here: They appear smart enough not to question either the geometry of projection or the specs of the claimed equipment (then we’d really have some fun). Acknowledging the contradiction they cannot—as that would put their entire operation in question. They would totally lose face and the word “debunking” would have to go from their self-definition. As I see it, that leaves them only the option to cook up a story about the mother of all lens flares. They’ll perhaps combine it with an attempt to deflect the debate to some of the other up-sun pictures in the Apollo record that actually do show a nice soft ring-shaped flare, such as as14-66-9306.jpg. By the way, had you done even a tiny bit of “due diligence” here yourself you would have surely come across that picture as it used by Wikipedia—to illustrate, guess what, lens flare…! 🙂

          Really it would have been so much more impressive had you made an honest effort to understand this contradiction yourself, it is not at all as hard as you try to make it appear. The next best thing would have been to enlist the help of “experts” that are disinterested in the outcome. By instead going straight to a “debunker” team you give strong indication that you do have succumbed to confirmation bias after all: If they give you any answer, it can only be one that confirms your current position.

          Having made my “prediction,” I am now even more keen to see what you bring back.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “Conspiracy theory” goes back before this, but was seldom used and not necessarily in a derogatory manner. Then in 1967 CIA circulated a memo among their own people and newspapers (all probably having embedded CIA on board anyway) to use the term to discredit people who doubted the Warren Commission conclusions on JFK. When you think about it, it is pure genius. What they did was to invent a way to ridicule and discredit skepticism. They actually scared people away from thinking! People today imagine they are smarter than the average bear when they avoid critical thinking. I am in awe.


          2. So, Petra… who ostensibly believes in multiple conspiracy theories… is joining a conspiracy theory debunking site, in the hopes that they will debunk evidence that a moon photo is fake, so that she can continue believing that “moon landing hoaxers” are nothing more than conspiracy theorists?

            Is this a Monte Python sketch?


            I wouldn’t hold my breath, waiting for the official debunking.
            Sites like that vet the comments pretty closely.
            Assuming that Petra makes it past the gatekeeping for “membership”, they will probably shut her down once she posits her question.
            I doubt they are open/interested in addressing difficult questions.

            Petra might as well ask them how 2 planes supposedly brought down 3 buildings… or how can the PCR test be testing for a “virus” that hasn’t been isolated?

            In fact, I wonder if once Petra is admitted as a member (and has received sufficient explanation regarding the anomalies in the moon photo), she then argues as vehemently for the conspiracy theories that she “absolutely” knows are true, at clavius.org, as she did for the moon landings here?

            I wonder how they’d handle a few sharp occam’s razors thrown their way?


            1. “… who ostensibly believes in multiple conspiracy theories … ”

              Absolutely not, I’m an analyst of psyops and the lens I always bring is that of psyop MO, the deliberate anomalies, etc and while moonhoaxers obviously do that too – up to a point – you don’t do it all the time – and one is really obliged to be consistent in one’s application of the psyop lens. If those in power are absolutely 100% consistent in their psyop MO – and they absolutely are – then we must also be consistent in our analysis.

              Why aren’t moonhoaxers thrown back on their heels by the fact that none of you recognised Bill Kaysing as an agent while I did? Why?

              F1: A reasonable percentage of people who recognise the lies told by power are familiar with the feature of deliberate anomalies.

              F2: Those in power are aware of this familiarity – I’m pretty sure it is quite often they themselves who tell us of this feature – they like to “handicap” themselves in this way, they enjoy chortling to themselves, “Oh, here we are, we’re even TELLING you this is how we do our psyops and you’re STILL not catching on.”

              F3: Despite those in power being aware of a percentage of disbelievers’ familiarity with the deliberate anomaly feature, they make Bill Kaysing as ridiculous as possible, knowing that the disbelievers are not discerning enough, they will simply ASSUME that such a seemingly improbable event will not have happened and they will get carried away with what they think they know rather than focusing on what they can know for sure as I have done … and will be misled by works such as WTM.

              F4. No one has put forward a single item in the 14-chapter WTM that clearly contradicts the reality of the moon landings … nor, of course, anything from Bill Kaysing.

              Stick to the facts you know for sure, it’s so very, very simple, and that will lead to the correct answer.

              Don’t think I made it past Clavius gatekeepers, however, there’s always Quora … will get back to you.

              What needs to be understood is that you cannot simply come up with a seeming anomaly that makes a well-supported hypothesis completely crumble, it’s not the way reality works. No one could come up with an anomaly that’s going to make the “glorified exercise” hypothesis for 9/11 crumble, could they? It’s too well supported and the same applies to the reality of the moon landings but you can’t see its support, you think you can say “could be faked” for ALL the evidence when so much of it is completely internally consistent as well as consistent with the unique lunar conditions and then crumble the hypothesis with the odd seeming anomaly. No! Reality doesn’t work like that. There would be far, far more evidence of fakery if we really didn’t go to the moon and not that really strong sense of consistency with expectations.


                1. It’s not about source, it’s about content. You do get that I don’t believe things because they’re on Quora, right? There are about a million things on Quora which are complete BS but that doesn’t mean everything is. There are people who write convincingly about the Apollo program on Quora … but what they say about 9/11 – oh dear. It’s just like on POM but the other way around 🙂


                  1. Oh yes. Im sure you will find someone who “writes convincingly” enough to support your views.
                    If anyone concurs with Wolf, it probably wont be very “convincing “, though, right?😏


              1. Petra,
                When you said, “dont think i made it past the Clavius gatekeepers…”

                Does that mean you were able to register, and ask the question, and then were shut down?

                If so, do you have any thoughts as to why the “gatekeepers” didnt want that question posed?

                Or…did the gatekeepers not even allow you to register at all?

                If so, do you have any thoughts about why clavius wouldnt allow you to register?

                You used the term “gatekeepers”, which implies purpose and intent (not just, say, that there was an error or the forum was full or something innocent). But they didnt want you on the forum asking questions for some reason.


                1. I’d be very interested in this, too. Also, very good call not to count on actually getting an answer from clavius.org–your prediction turned out better than mine! 🙂


              2. Precious: “What needs to be understood…” …or else? 🙂

                Petra, what you call “a seeming anomaly” is really more than 60 images spanning the missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Due diligence: Go to the source, pull up the Lunar Surface Journal and start looking for “up-sun” or similar in the descriptions. ALL of these images with the “sun” in them need a very good explanation why we are not looking into an strong artificial light with a cylindrical housing. To put it simply, within the official narrative NONE of them should exist.

                But for now let’s stay focused on the one I presented as it has that nice Earth picture on the very same roll, which gives us a serious and very obvious contradiction to ponder.


        4. Petra, can I still ask you to reconcile these two statements of yours :

          1 – “As far as I’m concerned, there cannot be even one thing as evidence doesn’t work that way. 100% of the evidence must ultimately support going to the moon so if you have one thing that will be very interesting.”

          2 – “Moonhoaxers do not have a case against the reality of the moon landings, all they have are cherry-picked seeming anomalies. There’s no case. For a case you need to have quite a few pieces of the jigsaw and moonhoaxers don’t have those pieces.”

          As I said, to me this is a dishonest debating style: First asking for one interesting thing, and then turning around to dismiss the same act as “cherry-picking.”


          1. Wolf, you can find something that seems incredibly anomalous, however, things that seem incredibly anomalous have turned out to have perfectly good explanations.

            You are aware that there are a number of websites which go through quite a number of supposed anomalies with regard to the moon landings.

            No one has responded to Sensible Site’s debunkings of American Moon and WTM or the debunking of Boethius. No one, including you, but you don’t make that significant, do you? That has no significance to you. [Not true.]

            What happens if a good explanation is provided for the geometry anomaly. Will you just go look for another one? [Why don’t you provide that “good explanation?]

            What you guys do is ignore the debunking that’s been done and make it have no significance as well as give no significance to the complete consistency with expectations of all imagery showing clearly only one very bright light source that simply does not fit “artificial lighting” in any shape or form or hours and hours of audio communication that shows no signs of fakery, a type of fakery – if it was faked – of which there is no precedence.tives of 9/11, covid, JFK, etc are easily contradicted and any alleged debunking of the supposed “conspiracy theories” is easily counter-debunked with no possibility of counter-counter-debunking – at least when the criticism of the narratives is accurate – so. [Again, not true. The official body of lunar photos provides numerous examples of inconsistent lighting, not the least of which is Aldren’s descent from the LM, well lit even as he was on the dark side of the vehicle, impossible without flood lighting from behind.]

            The official narrame people believe in the 9/11 molten metal, for example (as I did myself) but that’s just truthers not seeing the misleading propaganda. [That’s a strategic retreat on your part. You’re willing to concede things well known as if you had done the necessary research and thinking.]

            [Your links have vanished! Later today I will put forth a blog policy on linking, not fully yet through out, but the least of which is that you name the “debunkers” and their affiliation, and that you give evidence that you have done the necessary thinking to back their conclusions, and are not just parroting.]


            1. Petra, I am reaching my limits with you. You are not banned, but I will have by day’s end a means of dealing with your MO, to flood this website with propaganda links, never taking personal responsibility for their content, never doing original thinking or research. And, as I have been saying from the beginning, to be a credible critic of the agent McGowan, you need to read him first.

              More to follow.


  10. Hey Petra, got a need for critical thinking here. We know who Armstrong, Aldren and Collins were, at least here on Earth. They smiled and waved with their helmets off.

    We do not know if they were in the space capsule when it took off. Russian scientists concluded that Apollo 11 was underpowered, and did not have enough momentum to escape Earth’s gravity that day, and so probably just splashed down in the Atlantic. They did precise measurements, while NATO only supplied spliced footage. A11 was sacrificed to fulfill JFK’s pledge …”before the end of the decade”. Then the real Apollo work got underway, in LEO.

    OK, you don’t know science and have probably never read the POM post about Apollo 11 and the testimony of Russian scientists. Your “I don’t know science” diversion will cover you here.

    But this one cannot: We do not know, cannot know who the guys were in that moon footage. We never saw their faces. Their heads were obscured, unrecognizable. You’re acting on pure faith, not reasoning. You cannot know what you cannot know.


    1. Ah,silence. I’ll have to rerun this this piece tomorrow. What happened is this: there is no continuous footage of Apollo 11 taking off. There are only clip shots at various stages from NASA plus NASA’s ‘official’ record of where the vessel was at various heights. A guy who worked for IBM at that time (and who believed in the moon hoax) had a Super 8 camera and had a continuous shot of A11 from takeoff until it hit some cirrostratus clouds at 26,000 feet, while NASA claims (lies) that A11 was at 79,000 feet at the same time, 107 seconds. There is a reason why the agency did not offer a continuous shot of the blastoff – the vessel was not even one-third of the distance it was supposed to have gone!

      I’ll run the entire piece tomorrow, as there is a lot more in it concerning problems NASA was having with the Saturn rocketry that probably caused those in the agency throw up their hands and give it up, flameouts and undependability. I know, Petra, you’ll probably find some debunking site, as that is far as your “thinking” ever goes (you are impenetrable) , but this is good evidence of a hoax, of an empty rocket headed out to ditch in the ocean.

      The true “moonhoaxers” go by the initials “NASA”. The true “debunkers” are us skeptics. And I hate that term “debunker” as it is a propaganda term, just as referring to 9/11 and Covid skeptics as “deniers” also comes from the bowels of Langley, propaganda central.


  11. OK, I know that I’ve had a few replies that I haven’t responded to but this will be my general reply to all.

    I’m very grateful to you all for continuing to carry on this argument as although it just seems to be going round and round in circles, in fact, I’m getting more refined clarification and I now think I have a clear picture of the distinction between my argument and the disbeliever argument. To summarise:

    — The consistency of all imagery with a single light source against black sky
    — The lack of detection of fakery in the hours of audio communication
    — The wealth of perfectly reasonable refutation of claims of fakery with no counter-refutation

    Less important but still supports my double-pronged hypothesis and is rather difficult to explain for “fake”, astronauts landed on the moon AND those in power encouraged those who tend to disbelieve them to disbelieve this achievement. This was for at least two reasons: they love to fool both believers and disbelievers alike, they really do love that AND it helps undermine the disbelievers in calling out the many lies they do tell boy-who-cried-wolf style.

    — Agents, Bill Kaysing, who they gave, following their rule of deliberate anomaly, the completely unbelievable job title of Head of Publications at Rocketdyne and had him spout complete nonsense and more subtly, Dave McGowan, from whose infamous work, Wagging the Moondoggie, none of you have been able to extract a single item that convincingly contradicts the reality of the moon landings.

    — Anything requiring an understanding I’m not in possession of including the physics of rocketry or seemingly discrepant size of earth and sun in images taken during Apollo 17.

    Just to say, Wolf, what you are prepared to accept is that all imagery is consistent with a single light source but not accept seeming discrepancy in size of earth and sun. In reality, it would be so very much more difficult to fake sunlight on the moon than to get the size of earth and sun to be the “right” size. Do you see that, Wolf? Why would they go all out to get that single light source on the moon in the thousands of images but “screw up” with size of earth and sun which would be so much easier to get “right” if the size is, in fact, wrong as you see it?

    — Lots of items they think they understand and see as anomalous but, a priori, I know I don’t understand so I don’t worry about them (also, I see so much reasonable refutation of numerous seeming anomalies) … because I feel the case is so strong for the reality of the moon landings. If I didn’t think there was good evidence supporting the case for their reality I’d opt out, I’d simply say, “I don’t understand enough to have an opinion.”

    OK, Wolf, I’ve decided against chasing an explanation for the sun size anomaly because I realise I’m at the stage where no anomaly could really sway me in the same way one couldn’t for 9/11. No one can come up with an anomaly that changes what we know to be the truth about 9/11, can they? And I feel the same way about the moon landings. Too many seeming anomalies have been explained perfectly well to me for there to be some odd anomaly that cannot be and, in general, I find all the evidence perfectly consistent with expectations.


    1. My goodness. The level of your density is really astounding.

      What is even more mindboggling is the amount of time some people have spent here so far, trying to penetrate your skull while attempting to reason with your absurd stance.

      The most astonishing feature you have is the amount of discord between your perception and your brain telling you it is a lie. You’re allegedly aware of all the lies and fakery going on, but are willing to accept the most outrageous lie at its face value, while even admitting you’re clueless to interpret or understand quite some part of the science / technology needed to accomplish anything alike. What’s up with that?

      You were asking to be presented with evidence of fakery, and once you got what you asked for, discussing it is not on your menu. Just what the actual fuck? You know what would follow hereafter if this was my blog. I’d call you a spook and kick you out of the discussion, which has high-level before your miserable attempt began with diversion. I’ve been on the web ever since it became publicly accessible, which is long enough smell a rat on another continent.

      Are you all blind, guys?

      PS: Here’s a compliment – if all that was your purpose, check with your handlers for a raise. Good job.


  12. “You were asking to be presented with evidence of fakery, and once you got what you asked for, discussing it is not on your menu.”

    So far, I’ve been presented with A SINGLE ITEM (earth/sun size discrepancy) that might seem to be fakery but I don’t accept as fakery because I don’t understand it well enough and I see no reason to chase down an explanation for every seeming anomaly when I think the case for reality is very, very clear based on what I do clearly understand.

    I’ve asked for A SINGLE ITEM in WTM that clearly contradicts the reality of the moon landings and no one has given it to me, Minime, including you.

    So what you’re prepared to accept is that in 14 chapters, Dave McGowan deliberately didn’t include A SINGLE ITEM that clearly contradicted the moon landings even though no one has landed on the moon. That’s what you’re prepared to accept?

    A large number of things have been presented as representing fakery … and have been explained without any refutation of that explanation. I’ve given links to a number of these – Sensible Site guy’s refutations of WTM and American Moon, etc

    What I wonder about is how it isn’t significant to disbelievers that so very many things that have been put forward as representing fakery have an explanation showing their reality. Doesn’t that tell you that the disbelievers are lacking in knowledge when they think so much represents fakery that is shown not to represent it? I simply do not understand why you can’t see that disbelievers lack the knowledge that Apollo enthusiasts and others have. I mean, it’s not as if I tend to accept what supposed experts say a priori – of course not! I don’t accept NIST’s BS, I don’t accept virologists’ BS, there are so many supposed experts out there I have no respect for but when people put forward what they believe to represent fakery and are then in the situation where they cannot respond to the explanation refuting the claim why do they choose to keep believing in fakery and can they not see their knowledge is inferior to those who are able to explain why their claims are wrong?

    It’s one thing to be an independent thinker and it’s another not to recognise another’s superior knowledge. When you are in the position where you cannot counter-refute a refutation you need to accept that you’re wrong.

    I won’t keep repeating the facts I’ve already repeated but the overall clear fact is that the disbelievers of the moon landings do not have arguments against numerous refutations of the moon hoax claims … but it makes not a jot of difference to them.


    1. I’m replying only for other commenters’ attention, hoping they’ll ultimately understand who they’re dealing with. Somebody had to say it and I volunteered, so don’t think I’m engaging into conversation with you.

      Do you really believe above babbling is going to make any difference to the fact I know why you’re still here discussing the irrelevant issues?

      You’re proving my point with your reply.

      Just… go away. There’s plenty of suckers out there to talk to about the subject. Your mission here failed dramatically. Time to send in somebody more adjusted to POM’s commenters and subject at hand. I’m done talking to you.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Lots of words including much repetition again, Petra, but you have still avoided (for the third time now) reconciling these two statements of yours :

      1 – “As far as I’m concerned, there cannot be even one thing as evidence doesn’t work that way. 100% of the evidence must ultimately support going to the moon so if you have one thing that will be very interesting.”

      2 – “Moonhoaxers do not have a case against the reality of the moon landings, all they have are cherry-picked seeming anomalies. There’s no case. For a case you need to have quite a few pieces of the jigsaw and moonhoaxers don’t have those pieces.”

      Don’t you agree that this would exemplify a dishonest debating style: First asking for one interesting thing, and then turning around to dismiss the same act as “cherry-picking.”


      1. I don’t see a lack of reconciliation.

        You don’t have a case, Wolf. Do you not see that? You have cherry-picked anomalies such as sun/earth size but you don’t have a case. You have nothing to say that the imagery of a single light source with a black sky is faked in masses of both footage and still images. That kind of fakery would be a massive undertaking and we have no evidence or precedence of that kind of fakery. You have nothing to say hours and hours of audio communication was faked.

        You also have absolutely nothing to counter-refute all the refutations of the claims of fakery. The sun/earth size discrepancy may not be responded to but a whole host of other seeming anomalies have been responded to. Have you looked at those refutations, have you looked at Sensible Site guy’s refutation of American Moon? The thing is when you look at the refutations of the fakery claims you LEARN things about the moon. The refutations are really quite instructive. The refutations are where I learnt that the sky is black all the time and that lunar day lasts 29 days and the astronauts went during lunar daytime, that kind of thing.

        There is a wealth of evidence you can find nothing wrong with and you don’t recognise that so many seeming anomalies have been explained. So why would I be all set back on my heels about yet one more seeming discrepancy that I don’t feel sufficiently knowledgeable about to make a judgement on when so many other seeming discrepancies have been responded to?

        There is no reason for me to be set back on my heels over one seeming anomaly when so many others have been responded to but there is plenty of reason for you guys to be set back on your heels but you don’t see it.


        1. Petra, I’ve shown far more patience with you than you would have encountered any other place, but you’ve worn thin, are repetitive and intransigent. You’ve also ignored the owner of the blog, not a good idea. You’re done here. I earlier moved all of your most recent comments to trash, but thought better of it and restored them, testimony to your ability to avoid addressing the very real issues raised by Wolf, BM Seattle, Minime, me, and others.

          Bye now. Don’t let the door hit you where the Good Lord Split You.


    3. PL:

      “So far, I’ve been presented with A SINGLE ITEM (earth/sun size discrepancy)”
      And what does that do to all of the photos presented as “real” by NASA?

      Also, you claim to not understand physics, etc., but you keep repeating ‘consistent with the unique lunar conditions…’
      When did you make a trip to the moon to experience the unique lunar conditions? Please share!

      I know you can’t reply for a while now, and this will be forgotten by then. But these two issues have been like a rock in my shoe for a few days now.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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