A while back, when we were engaged with Petra concerning the moon landings, I realized that I was going to have to bite the bullet and not only re-read Dave McGowan’s Wagging the Moondoggie series, but review it as well. I made it through Part I, and then set it all aside. Only later did I come to see that I had already done the sweat labor, and only a couple of years ago, in November of 2021. Comes with old age, I guess. I had no idea I had done that.
I reread my work, and have nothing to add to it as I hit all the bases, McGowan being a limited hangout who faked his death on 11/22/15 (date familiar?). He wrote about Apollo, Lincoln, Boston, and rock stars, missing the boat on all of it. But then, of course, that is the job of the LHO. He will take you this far … and no further.
Off we go.
PART I: The trigger for the series, he says, is the Dutch moon rock. If you are not familiar, NASA gave moon rocks to many countries and museums, and the Dutch proudly displayed theirs until it was pointed out to them that the rock was petrified wood of earthly origin. Anyway, McGowan says he was warned by a few people not to venture into Moondoggie territory, as he would be branded a kook. He has an advantage, he says. He doesn’t care. I am like that, and not a spook. Anyway, as I have noticed, even though it is a giant lie, Apollo was a benign lie. If anything, it lifted people up. McGowan mentions 911, of course buying the official story of 3,000 deaths used to launch illegal wars. People, he says, cling to the moon landings out of fear, knowing that if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything. That is true.
PART II: Moon rocks prove nothing. In fact, the Earth is pelted with such rocks from many places. Antarctica seems the best place to gather them, and indeed Werner van Braun led a mission there prior to Apollo 11. Ever since launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we’ve been promised images of the machinery left behind by the Apollo missions. It has not happened. Others have promised to try to find the landing sites, but none have delivered. Laser targets were allegedly left behind by Apollo astronauts so that signals could be bounced from earth. But that had been going on long before, no targets needed. The Lunar Excursion Module is a flimsy contraption, basically held together by tin foil. The upper half of LEM was more solid, as it had to take off from the moon and find the command module. Communications equipment of the time would not have allowed such a feat. (The Lunar Module, by the way, weighed 33,000 pounds. Just sayin’.) McGowan describes in detail what it would have had to carry. He says the spaceship was so overloaded that they needed to add a roof rack. Without making any changes to the lunar landing, they later added a dune buggy. By the way, NASA launched six lunar modules off the moon, and each docked with the command module. All of this technology was completely untested.
PART III: McGowan believes (and I cannot prove him wrong) that during the Cold War the US and the USSR were really enemies, and that the moon race was real. However, at the time of Apollo landings, perhaps 30% of the American public thought they were fake. That number at the time of McGowan’s writing (2009) was still 25%. (I read somewhere long ago that the two groups most likely to disbelieve the landings were real were blacks and gays, which makes sense as at that time both groups were alienated from normal society.) McGowan lays a lot of the blame for the hoax on Richard Nixon, saying he needed distraction from the Vietnam War. That would indicate that Nixon was really in charge of events, which I doubt, but cannot disprove. McGowan thinks that the entire Apollo program offered a nice diversion from all of the major events of that time, from Mai Lai to the invasion of Cambodia to the Pentagon Papers. I doubt it. We can multitask. Apollo 13 comes up for the first time here in Part III, the mission that got away from them, piloted by Tom Hanks and with Mission Control overseen by Ron Howard. McGowan thinks that Apollo was used to funnel money to the Vietnam effort. NASA today says that for a return trip to the moon, astronauts will have to be protected for the entire trip. But really, don’t they merely have to consult the 1969 playbook? McGowan imparts a good understanding of the Van Allen belts, very useful.
PART IV: This part deals with the official NASA photographs. With all of the work I have done with photos, I have come to realize that people do not see with their own eyes, but rather those of authority figures, so this part was of least interest to me. Anyway, I seriously doubt any film (or astronaut) could have withstood the temperatures up there. But to run the mission without photos would leave the audience feeling gypped. So they shot them on earth. I was told that if stuff like film is in a vacuum, even in a hostile environment, that the temperatures do not transmit into that vacuum … which was why the photos are real. I do not believe that. I believe temperature, which is the absence or presence of heat, affects everything. Because there is no atmosphere to filter light, on the moon when the sun shines it is very bright, but only lights objects directly in its path. There is no secondary lighting going on. It is white and black. Most of the moon photos have secondary lighting. NASA’s official explanation for black skies is that the camera apertures had to be set to capture dazzling astronaut uniforms and the Apollo equipment, so that star light faded into the nether. At least they admit there was starlight. As to secondary lighting, they ain’t got shit.
PART V: McGowan here deals with the absence of craters under the lunar modules after allegedly hitting the surface with thousands of pounds of thrust. It is as if the landers were merely moved there by a crane. (They were.) There has been a lot of back and forth on this matter between skeptics and debunkers. Obviously, there should have been blast craters under the landers. The moon walking suits worn by the astronauts were made by Playtex, the same people who make bras and panties. They needed to be able to control the climate inside the suits, where outside temperature could vary by extremes of 590 degrees. They needed to switch from warm to cool in a heartbeat. They also needed to withstand high levels of radiation and microparticles hurtling at 5,000 mph, any one of which would kill the human inside the suit. NASA does not talk about the particle bombardment because they have no answer other than to claim it does not exist. But actual moon rocks prove otherwise, peppered with tiny craters from meteor impacts. If you are looking for actual double-down proof that we never went to the moon, this is it. As for a return trip to the moon, as proposed by President George W. Bush, not gonna happen. Cancel culture got them.
PART VI: NASA (in recent years) had sent a three-stage rocket to crash into a crater on the moon that never sees sunlight. There were to be three explosions, the first one spectacular. Media was on hyper alert, there was a large celebration to be had at the Ames Research Center and many other locations. Pffft. Forty years after five six successful moon landings and returns, crashing a rocket into it, a one-way trip, was the best NASA could manage. The objective was to see if there is a core of water under the surface, which at -400° F would surely be easy to put to use.
PART VII: No news outlet has ever allowed any skepticism about the lunar landings escape from the mouth of any talking head. McGowan, however, spent quite a few hours viewing documentaries which, of course, reinforce the notion that the landings were real (and spectacular). The Science Channel piped in, as did Nova. (I noticed years ago that Nova’s documentaries were very much the stuff of tabloids, littered with fake history and science. I quit watching them.) At the time of JFK’s announcement that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, the United States had a total of 15 minutes of LEO experience, that of Allan Shepard’s Mercury ride. In the meantime the Soviets, we are told, were chapters ahead of us in this story. McGowan lists 26 Soviet accomplishments that all trumped anything the US had done. My question is if their space program, like ours, was real or fake? Another thought I had – was real research being done jointly by the Soviets and NASA, with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo just a sideshow? That would explain the tawdry and cheap nature of US accomplishments, usually fake. The Soviets were said, by the way, to have landed and operated a robotic vehicle on the moon, a far cry ahead of the [alleged] Willies Jeep vehicles that the US worked over to drive in the indoor studios. McGowan acts as if JFK was really in charge of anything at all, saying that he panicked after Gagarin’s orbiting flight around earth. That’s why, he says, that Kennedy made his historic announcement. I doubt it. By the way, debunkers say that it really doesn’t take much fuel to get to the moon once you escape earth’s orbit. I think they overlook something – the moon is held in Earth’s orbit. That takes some gravitational muscle. In 1962 Werner von Braun accepted what would later become the final plan to go to the moon, surprising everyone. Here I agree with McGowan: von Braun finally got the memo. No one was going anywhere. NASA at one time considered shaving astronauts head to toe, but ditched the idea, probably because they would look like aliens.
PART VIII: If you’ve ever stopped to gaze at a lunar lander in a museum, or pictures taken of it during the historic landings, you will notice it is draped in gold Mylar. It is paper thin. I guess if you believe this you’ll believe all the other stuff too. It is kind of like Covid and Climate Change, where the white lab coat cancels out natural skepticism. But no, that Mylar craft did not go to the moon. By the way, we have film and sound of the historic moon landing of 11, where the astronauts are sitting atop a column of thrust. I assume the Mylar also acted as a sound barrier. There were two engines aboard the Lunar Lander, one to land, one to take off. I urge that you watch the takeoff of The Eagle as it bolts into space on its mission to find the command module, which is flying around at 17,000 mph. I now know that it was not Grumman that designed it. It was Mrs. Orser’s second grade class. By the way, the LEM after return to Command Module had used up its engines. It was a one-shot deal, as they could not be reused. This meant that such an engine used on 11 could not be tested. NASA was concerned about sunlight and combustible fuels, but not about radiation. That’s odd. NASA used a simulator to teach the astronauts to land on the moon, but it turned out to be “unstable and dangerous.” Ergo, NASA did the logical next thing, to let them land a LEM on the moon, where it would probably perform perfectly. McGowan goes into detail about Apollo 13, the Tom Hanks-led mission. He is doubtful that that mission was real. Hanks is, after all, an actor. But wait! Am I talking about the movie or the real thing? Turns out they are interchangeable. By the way, footage of Mission Control in Houston had rows and rows of TV screens, each having its own operator. What on earth were they doing? It is hard to know. Pong was yet to be invented. The whole array had the computing power of one modern laptop. The spaceship that took them to the moon and back had total memory capacity of 72 kilobytes, or enough to hold one photograph.
PART IX: I have noticed that the two guys who host Mythbusters are clowns. But my noticing this came from watching them go to great effort (with the help of special effects) to debunk 911 critics. I was not aware they also debunked moon landing skeptics. They took the five “most common claims” of conspiracy theorists and debunked them. I won’t list them here, but suffice it to say that McGowan concluded that the guys did a pretty good job of debunking the myth that humans had actually walked on the moon. But TV shows like this are not subjected to real critiques. It is all in house, a softball tournament. Eight aerospace companies had bid to make the suits that the astronauts would use on the moon. International Latex Corporation won out. It was not aerospace, but rather bras and panties. They submitted suits in 1963, but were so hot inside that NASA rejected them, demanding that ILC come up with a cooling system. They had not thought of that before? Well, no. Boobs can get hot and sweaty on a hot day, but no one ever demanded an air conditioned brassier. On June 3, 1965, Astronaut Ed White performed the first American space walk as part of Gemini. Amazingly, he did this before space suits were available for use. He must have used an Elvis impersonation costume. The spacesuits, by the way, had “sanitation management.” They contained urine bags attached to the astronauts’ penises. As to number two, NASA does not say. The Command modules used had to reenter Earth’s atmosphere traveling 25,000 mph. They had no propulsion or steering capability, having shed all that stuff in preparation. If they hit atmosphere too flat, they would bounce off into space. If they hit it too directly, they would burn up. All nine of them hit it just right. (You might think that Houston would be able to make course adjustments. Not so.) [Adding this later, a day after publishing: Reentry into Earth’s atmosphere could not be done! There was no perfect angle. There was no way to avoid being bounced or incinerated. Face palm.] Apollo 1 was the one that burned up with Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White on board, killing all three. Here again, no red flags go up for McGowan. I have a different theory on the matter. I don’t think anyone died, and that all three were shipped off to Santa Catarina to live out their lives. I think the fire, while real, was a hoax done to convince us, in NASA’a usually misdirected way, that the space capsule was loaded with sophisticated equipment that was going to take them to the moon and back. Not so, in my view. It was an empty can. That was the whole point, to burn it up to get us to ask the wrong question. There would follow eighteen months and over 100 design changes … to an empty can? How many times can they change the wallpaper? New seat covers? A new set of dice to hang from the rear view mirror? On Apollo 13 the astronauts describe a return journey with perspiration and breathing creating a maze of water droplets on the walls of the capsule. NASA blew it again. They were in space. The droplets should have been airborne.
PART X: Apollo 8 was a marvelous mission that overcame every problem of the previous missions, including that of Apollo six, which saw stages flaming out. I so remember it, as the Command Module orbited the moon on Christmas Eve (US time) while the astronauts read scripture. I do not read scripture, but love the sound of it, just as I love the quieting peaceful sound of Gregorian chant. No doubt this was a calculated move by NASA, and the boys performed well from their underground bunker, or wherever they were kept when they were supposed to be in space. By the way, this was the first manned test of the Saturn V rocket, and should have been done in low earth orbit. Instead, they took it all the way to the moon! Eyebrows up, anyone? I have this memory of laying on our couch asleep as a high school student, and then waking up to the moonscape, as a vehicle had just landed there, the Surveyor. I don’t know if that part is real, as here in the 21st century we can only smash rockets into the moon. But NASA had two unmanned programs, the Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter, all designed to collect and return data on the moon and its surface. People have wondered how NASA knew so much about the moon’s surface. This, if real, would be how. Otherwise, they just got what they needed from the Soviets, who had landed their own probe. McGowan wonders at the paucity of photos sent back by the Orbiter program, only 3,000. He suspects that NASA held back on film and footage in order to be able to use that footage for the Apollo moon landings. I’ll buy that. McGowan treats the LEO adventures of NASA, the Mercury and Gemini programs, as the real deal. That is troubling to me, perhaps his limited hangout self butting in again. He notes that Gemini astronauts came back down looking haggard and worn out, The Apollo 11 astronauts on return look fresh, as if they had been to the senior prom, maybe even getting lucky. By the way, McGowan shows a comparative image of the rockets used in Mercury and Gemini and Apollo. The latter is so much bigger that all the others could all easily fit inside. A Saturn V rocket was 363 feet tall, 6,000,000 pounds and had either 6 or 9 million parts. A few too many 3’s and 3-derivatives for my taste, spooky. Did I mention that the Lunar Lander weighed 33,000 pounds? McGowan, a spook, would surely see this. By the way, debunkers say that going the first 200 miles to the moon is heavy lifting, the rest a cake walk. Indeed.
PART XI: The US was entering weird times in the 1960s, the (fake) Zodiac killer, the (fake) Tate-Manson affair, the (fake) moon landing – McGowan wants to tie all this together, and since he is McGowan, he does not use the word “fake” for anything but the Moondoggies. The moon buggy did not appear until Apollo 15, and were was no modifications made to the Lunar Lander. Once they got there, it just appeared on the scene, no idea how they unloaded it. On the moon, cameras were placed on the astronauts chest, no viewfinder in use. In those days they had to adjust the aperture for light and focus manually. They had no idea where the camera was pointing. But man, they took some amazing photographs. By the way, does anyone who follows spook markers like 8 and 33 note that the first moon landing was Apollo 11? I notice this kind of stuff, just as I note that the Twin Towers looked an awful lot like an architectural 11. The story of development of the Lunar Rover is covered in this section. I know people who traveled Europe on folding bicycles, so I am totally on board with the Rover. It is said that the Soviets spent ten years researching and building their own Rover, and that the Americans merely stole (or bought) it. This sounds like misdirection. I cannot get it out of my head that the Lunar Rover was actually [allegedly] a modified Willies Jeep.
PART XII: There was this thing called the Constellation Program, promoted by President George W. Bush (I was tempted to call it his brain child, but thought better). It was a fifteen year program to put us (back) on the moon by last year, 2020. It was an $11.5 billion dollar boondoggle, or should I say moondoggle. By the time the program was cancelled, deployment day had been pushed back to 2028. Man, how did they pull that off in the 1960s? There are plans to go to Mars, only an additional 33 million miles. I mean, as long as we are not going to the moon … just keep on going. The moon was to be a stopover on the way to Mars, but one has to wonder, why stop on the moon? Just go to Mars! That mission will be led, of course, by Matt Damon, as Tom Hanks is tied up. But wait – in this day and age, the Mars crew will have to have a strong woman commander, a gay, a transgender, a black, an Asian mathematician, a school teacher, and a virologist and a climate scientist. There is a nice photo series of the evolution of the American space suit in this part of McGowan’s series. Bill Kaysing, another skeptic and possibly controlled opposition, thinks that NASA’s first contract award to MIT without any bidding was done because MIT was able to show NASA how to simulate a fake moon program. Allegedly, MIT was to develop the navigation system to use to go there. Incidentally, there is a silent German film released in 1929 called Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon) that shows procedures to get to the moon that are remarkably similar to 1969. McGowan, I suspect, does not think this a coincidence, since the whole of the NASA saga is nothing but a movie.
PART XIII: Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong left, we are told, fecal bags on the surface of the moon. The State of California some time back declared those bags “historical resources.” Imagine the fun McGowan has with this. Moving on. He discusses theories about aliens and flying saucers. I find that all a bit outlandish, aware of the irony of that statement. It is rabbit-hole type stuff meant to distract us from the overarching point: Nobody went anywhere. (There is also a theory that Apollo was just a cover story for a real moon landing done in secret. I’ve heard this one, the idea being that if they screwed up and got people killed, no one would find out. This theory has just a wee bit more plausibility, but still, nobody went anywhere.) In addition, these theories operate to blackwash genuine and intelligent skeptics. I was not aware that Buzz Aldrin claimed that Apollo 11 was tailed all the way to the moon by a UFO. That’s rich, being tailed to a place you never went to. One of the objectives of atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs (yes I am aware that current vogue among readers and commenters is that they do not exist) was to blow a hole in the Van Allen Belts to allow passage of humans through. If true, they at least concede the the belts and radiation beyond them forbade space travel. NASA’s recent scientist for Exploration Systems says that space suits made on earth would have turned brittle on the moon. Now he tells us. Space.com has discovered that radiation is a problem in outer space, by the way.
PART XIV: PART XIII was to be the end of this series, so XIV is an afterthought. Anyway, before NASA went all crackers and turned space exploration over to Elon Musk, there was talk of future missions, and McGowan briefly recounts them here. Still, no one is going anywhere.
Piece of Mindful 
Apart from the fact the cameras and film wouldn’t have worked on the moon, the real tell that it’s all fake are the moon suits. The supposed science and engineering of how they work, including providing 1200 watts equivalent air conditioning using a block of ice, is laughable on the face of it. Arguing about ancilliary nonsense when you already have two impossible things staring you in the face is suitably pointless. The problem is we don’t know what actually happened. Maybe they do have electrogravitic engines that were all the rage in the popular science papers of the 1950s then disappeared without a trace by the 1960s. I don’t believe there was every any real rivalry between the Soviets and the West, it’s all as fake as a WWE summer special.
LikeLike
I’m currently staying with a couple of friends on holidays both of whom don’t believe in the moon landings. I’ve learnt not to discuss the subject – or any other subject about which we disagree – with the guy and I think I’ve now learnt after a couple of days of arguing about various subjects not to bother arguing with the woman. I find it incredibly alienating that my way of thinking is so different from virtually all my friends and family even if we agree on certain events with the exception of two friends who align with me – although actually it’s only one now because one very sadly died a few months ago.
The problem starts with your criteria for establishing the truth so if your criteria are different you’re inevitably going to disagree somewhere along the line.
Like some people on POM my friend won’t believe things unless certain anomalies are explained whereas I don’t find unexplained anomalies a stumbling block necessarily. What’s much more important to me is the convincingness of the evidence put forward – is it consistent with expectations and is it consistent internally – that’s what’s important to me. The evidence of only a single light source and the lack of signs of fakery in the audio as I’ve already explained are hugely important to me whereas for my sister, for example, she just waves all that away with “could easily be faked”.
The claim that something could be easily faked is not a fact. We don’t know if faking the moon landings could easily be faked. Considering the vastly different conditions I say, “No, they could not easily be faked,” but either way it’s all just opinion isn’t it? Facts are what count to me and the claim “could be faked” is not a fact, it is an unsubstantiated assertion.
I think the first thing to agree on are your criteria and if your criteria are different then what’s the point?
“Obviously, there should have been blast craters under the landers.”
Just to say Mark that the answer below for no blast crater sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Furthermore, the fact that we see only the faintest suggestion of impact only better supports the “real” hypothesis. If they were faking it I’d expect less subtlety.
I will read whatever answer you have in response, Mark, but I’m not going to respond … unless by some incredible chance your answer persuades me that the explanation below is not reasonable and there really should have been blast craters.
Now I really, really am learning that there’s a limited distance that there’s any value in arguing a point. I have nothing more to say. Whatever you say in response, Mark, I will read but I have nothing further to say.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module
Because there was no blast.
Rocket engines are not pressure washers.
A pressure washer will excavate a cavity quickly because it’s pumping out a needle-thin stream of water (1000 times denser than air) at 1,500 pounds per square inch or more.
An optimally designed rocket engine pumps out a high velocity stream of vaporous exhaust at as close to ambient pressure as possible. In the vacuum of space, the ideal pressure is zero.
The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.
Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.
LikeLike
I do not recall having said much about the absence of a crater, though no doubt McGowan addressed the matter. It is not something that moves me to cry foul. What I have noted before about the “debunkers” (I still despise that word) is that they are selective in what they choose to debunk, a strategy known as “look here, not there.” Answering the question not asked is a standard propaganda tool.
https://www.aulis.com/lm_problem.htm
I spent a long time last evening reading the above essay by Xavier Pascal, an aerospace engineer. It is complicated stuff, much of it over my head, but I forced myself to read it anyway. We really need to leave our comfort zones now and then, even by slogging through technical detail, as it is difficult though not incomprehensible. His bottom line appears to be that the lunar module was not capable of making an ordered descent and landing nor of taking off again, as it was poorly designed.
I suggest you give it a look. He has given us elaborate technical drawings and described in detail the thrusting system on the module. My take is that the engineers never tested the thing, did not have to test it, as it was not going anywhere. It was merely loaded off a crane.
Other reading I did last night at Aulis yielded the following, from a man whose name I have misplaced (Aulis is not terribly well organized, just a fire hose of information, and I could not locate the author of the below clips.
Yet he goes on to say that 25% of the public thinks we never went to the moon. That is a significant problem for NASA, and their only defense so far, beyond selective debunking, is the weak debate strategy, the personal attack, ad hominem.
I suspect the reentry problem is insoluble – was not done 50 years ago, and cannot be done now. Technologically impossible.
Since you’ve already warned me that you won’t be answering any queries or addressing evidence, even as you do so without the classic storm-out that usually accompanies such behaviors, I hope others benefit from my reading marathon.
‘Nuff said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure, Mark, it’s hard for some to just admit the truth. After all, the Apollo Mission is such a massive hoax of such massive proportion, that for most people to reconcile the scale of the fraud and the numbers of people defrauded cause extreme dissonance and irrationality. The mind has a breaking point when it tries to comprehend not only the logistical scale of such a fraud, but also the character of the nefarious perpetrators. The idea sends waves of shock and horror through the nervous system. This stunning achievement of science and technology, the grandiose vision of our presidents and leading scientists, proof that America truly is the greatest nation on earth, the massive sum of tax monies in the US Treasury being put to the best use ever in the history of taxation and above and beyond all the foregoing, a monumental achievement for the human race, for the entire planet, for the Animal Kingdom itself!!!!! All of it a complete and utter fraud!!! The current scientists at NASA must certainly know how difficult their position is. The scientists of the 1950s and 1960s made one error just as massive in proportion as the fraud itself: They underestimated how rapidly technology would develop, so that scientists looking back with today’s technology must be, deep in their hearts if they’re honest, utterly embarrassed by what NASA tried to pass off as space travel in the 1960s and 1970s. Even the footage preserved on film and in photographs is starting to look comical and laughable. No surprise the vast archive of all that footage mysteriously vanished from the storage facility in Houston. Just the sheer magnitude of deception on a worldwide scale makes the mind numb. How the propaganda centers at that time could perpetrate, through film, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, textbooks, et al., the single greatest deception ever perpetrated on the human race makes the mind recoil in horror and disbelief. Such is the natural reaction of a rational intellect. But Time, ever-flowing, ever-changing, ever-generating new forms, has proved the ultimate litmus test. Now the Apollo footage looks like a half-baked high school film production. The surface of the moon is an obvious sound stage with a set that looks like something from a kindergarten theatrical production. The geography of the moon surface, especially the undulations and hills on the horizon, is completely plastic. NASA, to today’s skeptics, has been caught with its pants down. The nakedness of the fraud only more damning when juxtaposed against today’s hyper-developments in technology. And yet still no new mission to the moon. No, just the flitting fancy of a detestable president, stalled in the chambers of Congress. You believe Dave McGowan’s work is a limited hangout. While I cannot speak directly to that, simply because I’m still slightly confused by what qualifies a limited hangout, I believe McGowan was a serious journalist. I think he presents the facts upon a context of strong visual evidence with the keen eye of a journalist. Perhaps the fact his work did not achieve widespread mainstream appeal would suggest his work is a limited hangout. But the facts he provides and method through which he states his case seem pretty sound to me. So too with his work on the Boston Marathon. I also feel like the guys over at CF did a splendid job with that textbook military operation and false flag production on Boylston Street. I will admit I’m skeptical about his work on Laurel Canyon, but it does seem strange and non-coincidental that every popular figure of that movement in the 60s had direct or indirect ties to the military and intelligence. I still listen to a lot of that music and compared with today’s mind-rot, there’s a bunch of good music from that era that I still enjoy. Do I feel like I’m being brainwashed when I listen to it? Not really. The passage of time has removed the sociological context of that era from the music itself and much of it is pleasant to my ear. CSNY still has nice melodies and harmonies that I can still listen to driving down the freeway. I lost interest in Jim Morrison and the Doors after that rotten teenage angst met the harsh realities of the real world. Was Jim Morrison an intelligence asset? His behavior on and off stage indicates that he was trying to psychologically affect his fans and enrage his detractors (who, at the time, was about 95% of conservative Americans). His antics certainly added to the mayhem and chaos of that era. But Jim Morrison and the Doors are just a sad afterthought of a time that really didn’t change much at all. The Washington War Machine still carried on with or without Jim Morrison to reject it, or deflect attention from it. What’s left now but a few catchy pop songs from a bygone era that nobody really listens to anyway, but still receive daily airplay on classic-rock radio stations. Morrison never really affected any change in any direction, outside of acting like a drunken buffoon and then mysteriously vanishing in Paris from a drug overdose. But I digress here. NASA is in a very tough spot and as a heavily funded institution, it will proceed with one course and one course only: deny, deny, deny. They will never admit the now naked fraudulence of the Apollo missions. They will never explain even the most rudimentary scientific objections to the idea that men in Playtex space-suits–navigating 250,000 miles through unknown rigors of radiation and space in a bucket-of-bolts, and enduring temperatures that fluctuate from -400 degrees F to +400 degrees F–is utterly preposterous. Just based on surface temperatures of the moon alone, the astronauts would’ve instantly froze to death or been burned alive, never mind the intense waves of radiation penetrating every cell in their bodies. It’s laughable really. And as more papers are written within the scientific community about the utter preposterous scientific claims NASA has made in support of these facts, the more this fraud will crumble into the moondust on those ridiculous sound stage sets. After all, the Apollo missions are still being celebrated and honored in film and textbooks. The 50th anniversary was broadcast through all the major networks. All the pundits and broadcasters joined in one broad chorus of marvel and infatuation that America and Americans could achieve such a spectacular feat. The propaganda machine is still finely tuned and oiled. And it still penetrates through eyes and ears into the hearts of the un-awakened, the herd whose eyes are closed and ears are shut by the blinding and deafening noise of the machine. Thanks, Mark, for offering this forum to discuss what has weighed heavily on my heart for many years. These are not subjects one can casually broach at dinner parties, without being mocked, scorned, and ostracized. Of all the forums I visit from time to time, this one here seems to be the most civil, the most logical, and the most honest. As for Petra, I do not mock or ridicule you, sir. I was once you. It was very, very hard for me to accept what I now wholeheartedly accept, not just specifically in regards to the Apollo missions, but generally as widespread deception everywhere, generated by a nameless, faceless group of tremendously powerful and nefarious people. Your guess is as good as mine in that respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Somebody at Aulis (did not note who and their website is very extensive and not searchable) made a list of changes that would have to be made were NASA to come clean. They are extensive, libraries, the Internet, books, movies, reputations, and chronicled history (which is false anyway). Everyone who worked on Apollo is now dead or retired, but the current crop of NASA employees are stuck with that turkey and have to espouse it. They must resent it deeply.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well written, Mark. I read Moondoggie in 2018. I was just starting to face some serious reckonings with what I had been taught my entire life. I studied Latin and Ancient Greek in college, achieving mastery of both now deceased languages. My point being not tout my own little achievements in life, but to offer the source of my perpetual skepticism that eventually led to aforementioned reckoning in 2018, with Moondoggie and Boston Bombing blowing open some frightening and horrific doors in my mind. You do feel like Neo breaking through the embryonic ectoplasm, with your eyes, forever closed and conditioned to see reality in one way, awakening to the horror that all things fed to our brains through media (and I mean every source of information that passes from its source through the middle and into our eyes and ears [smell, taste, and touch are our only free senses}) have been completely false. False is the best word to describe that information. Fake is to weak a term. False is classical and absolute. And what is false can never be true. Fakery can be manufactured to appear true. So in that sense there is some element of truth in fakery. Not, however, what is false. Falsity can never possess even the slightest iota of truth, just as there is no light in darkness and no darkness in light. It was through Plato in my early years when I began contemplating the great Allegory of the Cave. Many, many great minds have contemplated that allegory. Has anyone ever solved that ancient and noble riddle? It was never meant to be solved, but only to serve as a cautionary warning: Never let your mind make what is false true, and what is true false. Once the mind has been convinced that what is false is true, then the mind must stare forever at the flickering shadows on the wall of the cave and be endlessly duped by those making the fire. In today’s age the makers of the fire are deeply, deeply enveloped in vast web of power, wealth and secrecy. The Van Brauns, Buzz Aldrins, Neil Armstrongs, and John Glenns of the world are their frontmen. They are the shadows on the wall, but not the actual fire projecting those shadows that dance before our eyes. Can we turn directly around and the see the men tending the fire? Absolutely not. They are so deeply shrouded in secrecy and mystery they do not even exist. You and I have never seen their pictures, nor ever heard their names. The Morgans, the Rockefellars, the Pierponts, the Rothschilds are their frontmen too, most likely. More shadows dancing on the wall of the cave. But for the few of us who can identify what is false through myriad examples of false events, projected onto the wall of the cave using media in all its forms, most notably television, film, and radio in the 20th Century, we have been given a filter. A glorious filter! The idea that men in those spacesuits and in those rickety little tin cans could navigate 275,000 miles of space, endure waves of radiation of that magnitude for the first time in human history, survive temperatures of -500 degrees celsius, land a Willie’s Jeep and drive it around the surface of the moon, take pictures and film in those temperatures, is so patently false ad absurdum, that no rational mind would ever dare entertain the idea that those events were true.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That is a devastating takedown of the most obvious false event of all time; and a good reminder the pain of having to pretend believe in a moon landing if you don’t want to be branded a tinfoil hatter. I lose a little more of my teeth grinding them up when I am subjected to NASA propaganda. The idea it was harmless and even a positive thing to fake a moon landing is sick. It’s a fascist endeavor to even entertain the idea of space travel – spending billions on some pointless muscle flexing (simulating the supposed single combat of ancient times, USA vs commies), and sending up first fearless hero’s (read stupid guinea pigs – if his shit were real) to “conquer” space, followed by all humanity invited to come along at some time in the distant, distant future which never arrives. Space travel in this age is sick joke, a puerile escapist fantasy, only held onto by Star Wars and Star Trek fanboys with the mentality of a six year old.
LikeLike