Yeah, they lie every waking breath … but when a rare, superficially implausible event happens they’ll make you think it’s a lie because they want to control everyone’s minds as much as possible
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“When I first got into 9/11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10% of the population who would automatically assume that the govt did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10% who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got.” — Gerard Holmgren, A Theory
Dave McGowan is particularly known among the community of analysts of government/media lies for two works: Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon (2014) and Wagging the Moondoggie (2009), however, even among those who respect his work, he is recognised as “limited hangout”. In his post on his website, Moondoggie: Nobody went anywhere
I say “is” a spook, as he is said to have died on 11/22/15. That’s a spook date.
McGowan, who is sporting what I think of as a shit-eating grin in the photo above, ran a website called Center for an Informed America, or CIA for short. No comment.
September 11
One question that has gone unanswered is how a plane was able to penetrate so deeply into the Pentagon’s airspace – even after two other planes had already plowed into the World Trade Center towers.
It was still nearly thirty minutes before the first plane would plow into the WTC and there were already very clear indications that this wasn’t a normal day for air traffic in America; two civilian passenger planes had been hijacked simultaneously, an unprecedented occurrence, and yet no action was immediately taken to avert the tragedy that was to come.
Any 9/11 analyst worth their salt knows that 9/11 was a demolition job (fully evacuated as per standard protocols) and there were no passenger airliners. Anyone who says there was even one passenger airliner is clearly not a good analyst or controlled opposition … and it is obvious that Dave McGowan is way too savvy to be such a poor analyst. Dave pushes planes all the way through his many-parted analysis.
Boston Bombing
The most disturbing of those images, by far, all involved a guy who had reportedly just had both of his legs blown off. The most heavily circulated and iconic of those images are of the legless guy being rolled away from the scene in a wheelchair, his unbelievably graphic wounds uncovered and on full display for the waiting cameras [see image].
How crazy would it sound to suggest that that did not happen by accident — to suggest that not only were his injuries staged, but that they were specifically designed for that high-profile wheelchair ride? Pretty crazy … right? After all, I have in the past been rather critical of other researchers who have alleged that the victims of high-profile mass murders are actually actors. Nothing, it seems to me, could possibly serve to better alienate and offend the general public than attacking the victims as being part of the conspiracy. But what if the evidence is so overwhelming that it simply cannot be ignored?
I need to be very clear here in stating that I am not arguing that no one was injured in the attack and that there was no real suffering. That undoubtedly was not the case.
Oh, please. Cut the crap. Of course, no one was injured – it was your standard anti-terror drill pushed out as real like 9/11 (minus building destructions) and it looked as if they were throwing fake blood around from paint pots.
Moving on.
Wagging the Moondoggie
I am not well-versed enough in the Apollo program to do exposure of Wagging the Moondoggie justice but fortunately there are two guys who do justice at least to the first two parts. “Sensible Site” provides an analysis of Part I of the 14-part series while another blogger analyses Parts I and II. I will simply add a brief comment on an item or two from each of the Parts III to VII and XIV to show conclusively that Wagging the Moondoggie is in its entirety just hot air, lies and clever propaganda.
The unnamed blogger’s analysis is most instructive in that he helpfully applies a category to each piece of text, clearly showing how the propaganda has been built. Essentially, the labels he applies are:
- Meaningless rhetoric (features prominently)
- Logical fallacies featuring:
- poisoning the well – a preemptive attack against one’s opponent in the hopes of discrediting them and their argument before it is presented. It is often associated with logical fallacies because it uses irrelevant information to weaken an opposing argument.
- begging the question – an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
- bare assertion – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true.
- appeal to incredulity – the arguer presumes that something cannot be true because it seems untrue to them.
- false equivalence – equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.
- Poor research / inaccuracies / lies
Excerpt from Analysis of Part I below (blogger’s comments in bold):
The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The world wouldn’t see another mismatch of this magnitude until decades later when Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini came along. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon.
Now we begin. Basically a highly inaccurate statement. America was behind by a few months on all the Soviet achievements. However, they began to forge ahead in all the relevant milestones. First orbital rendezvous, first docking, first extended EVA etc. In addition, the Soviets were experiencing major setbacks with their heavy launch vehicle N1 [fascinating 15m video on the N1 rockets by Curious Droid; we might also apply the logical fallacy, cherry-picking].
Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal.
This is basically either very poor research or a lie. America were well ahead in the Moon landing race. The Soviets also had their own “imported Nazi scientists”! Poisoning the well.
And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven’t quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there? Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this:
Meaningless rhetoric and expanding on his poor research/probable lie. Multiple begging the question. The absence of reoccurrence is not evidence of a hoax.
Excerpt from Analysis of Part II (blogger’s comments in bold)
And the weird thing about those shadows is that, in the very same NASA article, it says that “because the sun was so low to the horizon when the images were made, even subtle variations in topography create long shadows.” And yet while it is perfectly obvious that there are more than just “subtle variations” in the lunar topography in the images, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting the long shadows.
By far the largest thing on the surface, so why wouldn’t they. Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.
Even if we give NASA every benefit of the doubt and assume that the images have not been amateurishly Photoshopped and that the indiscernible white dots are indeed something of man-made origin, the most likely culprit would be those Soviet robotic probes mentioned by Space.com, which presumably did land on the Moon. A number of those probes, which were part of the Apollo-era Luna Program, were very similar in size and shape to the lunar modules – certainly enough so that images of much higher resolution would be required to make a definitive judgment.
Bare assertion. The landing sites match exactly to what is claimed. The LROC pictures also show features that the Apollo team could not possibly have known about. Yet these show up on all the 6 landing films.
Actually, after studying the image above, of one of the alleged Luna probes, I’m going to have to say that the Soviets were lying their asses off almost as much as NASA was. There is no way I’m going to buy into the notion that the Soviets sent a freeform abstract sculpture, which appears to have been constructed by Fred Sanford and Granny Clampett, on a 234,000 mile journey from the Earth to the Moon. Careful study of the central area of the photo, however, does reveal why the spacecraft were known as ‘probes.’ I wonder if they were capable of performing docking maneuvers?
Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The appeal to incredulity.
According to NASA, Japan and India have also sent unmanned orbiting spacecraft to the Moon in recent years, as has China. As with the ESA’s and NASA’s orbiters, they too have failed to return any images of Earthly artifacts left behind on the surface of the Moon. If the hoax ‘debunking’ websites are to be believed, by the way, the reason that no one has returned to the Moon in thirty-seven years is because we pretty much already tapped that celestial body for all the information it had to offer. There’s really, you see, nothing much left to see there.
Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question. The Japanese Selene mission, shows topography that is identical to Apollo images! In addition, thanks to efforts from individual researchers, it can be determined that there is evidence of human activity visible in the images sent back by Japan, China and India. Note that it doesn’t claim to have found equipment as the resolving capabilities aren’t good enough, just evidence of where astronauts disturbed the ground. It’s noticeable in the Chinese images that the more disturbance there is the easier it is to pick it out. Apollo 11’s site, for example, is only just discernible if you squint a bit, whereas the later missions are much more obvious.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/landings.html
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/landingsa15a.html
A ‘debunking’ article posted by ABCNews.com, for example, quoted Val Germann, the president of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association, as saying, “There’s no reason to go back … Quite frankly, the moon is a giant parking lot, there’s just not much there.” I wonder why it is then that just about everyone seems to want to send unmanned probes there, or to train enormously powerful telescopes on the Moon’s surface? What could they possibly learn about the “parking lot” from those distances that our astronauts didn’t already discover by actually being there?
Meaningless rhetoric. Begging the question.
Some True Believers also claim that what was dubbed the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment also proves that we really went to the Moon. As the story goes, the astronauts on Apollo 11, Apollo 14, and Apollo 15 all allegedly left small laser targets sitting on the lunar terrain (one of them can be seen in the official NASA photo reproduced below), so that scientists back home could then bounce lasers off the targets to precisely gauge the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically – most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.
Bare assertion. There is not one scrap of evidence to support unmanned probes to the areas visited to plant laser reflectors. The laser reflectors return an accuray within fractions of a millimeter. The surface bounces were random and had variances of tens of metres!
My comments (in bold after quoted text if there is any) taking a point or two from each part 3-7 and 14
Part III
If it proves not to be the case that this space radiation “showstopper” is a new development, then I suppose that the only explanation that we are left with is that we did indeed have the technology to shield our astronauts from radiation back in the 1960s, but at some time during the last four decades, that technology was simply lost.
False implication: If radiation wasn’t a concern in the Apollo program it makes no sense that it should be a problem now.
The reason that is given for it being problematic now is not concern for people but for the much more delicate instruments. See Van Allen Belts questions. Regardless, hypothetically, it is not unreasonable that the strong impetus to go to the moon at the time may have meant that they concerned themselves less with radiation than now. How many things are done with massive amounts more of safety concern than they used to be?
Part IV
Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540°F temperature fluctuations?
In fact, some photos seemed to show signs of radiation impact although it’s not certain. ChatGPT explanation for both temperature and radiation survival of film.
Part V
Stars are not the only thing missing in the Moon photos. Also conspicuously absent is any indication that the lunar modules actually landed in the locations in which they were photographed. Specifically, there is no crater visible under any of the modules, despite the fact that NASA’s own artist renderings clearly showed the presence of a substantial crater. Also, not a speck of dust appears to have been displaced by the 10,000 lb reverse-thrust engine that powered the alleged descent.
False implication: Stars should be seen in the photos. The astronauts were on the moon at lunar dawn and just as we can’t see stars during earth day apart from the sun, stars couldn’t seen in the lunar photos either due to the extreme brightness of light on the lunar surface necessitating reduction of the aperture in order to capture objects on the lunar surface.
False implication: A crater should be visible. Whatever NASA’s own artist rendered, scientifically there is no expectation of a crater but, in fact, a faint radial exhaust pattern can be seen the extreme subtlety of which is completely unexpected from fakery.
Inaccuracy: Minute amounts of dust can be seen on the landing pads in high res photos with the magnifier (the extreme subtlety of which would not be expected of fakery) but in any case not much dust would be expected.
Part VI
This part is essentially a rubbishing of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) project. LCROSS was a robotic spacecraft operated by NASA whose mission was conceived as a low-cost means of determining the nature of hydrogen detected at the polar regions of the Moon. Its high impact in October 2009 doesn’t seem to register greatly in images. Regardless of the fact that insufficient understanding of what the impact should look like may be the reason for a sense of anomaly what needs to be kept in mind is that we know NASA lies because the alleged Challenger disaster is the most brazen psyop of all time with six of the seven alleged astronauts walking around with either the same name or the name of an alleged sibling – who could easily be an “identical twin” – so whether the LCROSS project is real or not is not relevant to the moon landings. We need to judge the moon landings purely on the evidence for the moon landings.
Part VII
This part contains more of Soviet moon race firsts, however, as mentioned in the commentary on Part 1, the Soviets weren’t first on the critical steps to actually land on the moon and probably their biggest issue was their N1 rocket. While he may be much despised for his Nazi connections, I think that Wernher von Braun’s extreme enthusiasm and charisma had a lot to do with the success of the US space program. In the fascinating 15m video on the N1 rockets by Curious Droid mentioned earlier which I deem compulsory viewing if you have any real interest in the moon landings it seems that politics played a significant role in the Soviets’ failure to get to the moon first.
This part is full of the “meaningless rhetoric” pointed out by the anonymous blogger in Parts I and II. It focuses on three items:
- a planned mission to send astronauts to the far side of the moon, not to land but to hover stationary in relation to the moon’s orbit around the earth
- a planned unmanned exploration of the moon for rare materials
- alleged atom and hydrogen bombs explosions in the Van Allen radiation belts
The planned mission to send astronauts to the far side of the moon and the planned unmanned exploration of the moon for rare materials have not occurred to date.
As we know that both the hydrogen and atom bomb have never been shown to exist and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fire-bombed just like Tokyo and many other Japanese cities, we have no reason to believe that any testing necessarily occurred.
The entire part says nothing of import in relation to the actual moon landings of 1969-1972. It is all completely irrelevant material.
Conclusion
While Dave McGowan does write some relevant and important truth on 9/11 and on the Boston Bombing (although, unsurprisingly, nothing that no one else is saying) while mixing it with important lies there is ZERO evidence of a single, relevant item in Wagging the Moondoggie that says astronauts didn’t land on the moon. Not one.
I always keep an open mind, however, so if you’ve got one, let me know. And if you haven’t, I think it’s wise to ponder:
- why Dave mixed truth with lies on the subjects of 9/11 and the Boston Bombing (and no doubt other subjects) but was seemingly unable to mix in any relevant truth into his lies on the moon landings
- why the fact that the first moonhoaxer, Bill Kaysing, is a cartoon character who couldn’t possibly have been who he was said to be has remained undetected for 50 years
- why no disbeliever of the moon landings has made any comment on the article I posted specific to the debunking of the film, American Moon.
Piece of Mindful 
Kaysing was asked once by Mae Brussell to guest host on her show while she was out of town. During the broadcast, he fainted. When he came to, he wouldn’t shut up about the missing stars in the imagery, which for him made the hoax sale. He said his passing out was from fasting once a week and the weak tea he was drinking at the studio seems to have flavored his argument. Cameras don’t pick up anywhere near as much as the human eye sees, even from Earth. That issue was never broached.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m writing a post on Bill at the moment and just watched an interview with him by Bart Sibrel. It has provided some chuckles. I must say he passes so well as a serious kind of person but then …
At 27:05 he tells us that after James Irwin, command pilot of Apollo 15, became a born-again Christian, a “Lee Galvani” implored him to confess to the landing hoax. Bill tells us that in early Aug 1991 James Irwin called Bill but because he was worried about his phone being tapped asked Bill to call him at his home on Friday. Bill tells us he called James on Friday but by that time he’d died – so very coincidentally – just the day before, Thursday, 8th August.
https://youtu.be/yvWcKrlZsk4?si=oGCxd-KYNiBgPnYz&t=1626
LikeLike
Actually, it’s even more ridiculous than I first noticed. Which phone was he calling from that he was worried about being tapped and if he was worried about phone tapping wouldn’t he be worried about his home phone being tapped?
LikeLike
Exactly my first thought, you mean they only tap outgoing phone calls?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot help chortling over their nonsense.
LikeLike
Ironically, I was first convinced that the Boston bombing was completely staged (with no injuries or “suffering,” obviously) by an interview with McGowan I watched on YouTube, in which he guided the interviewer through a series of photos taken from a high-rise window overlooking the scene (others would know the source of those now-well-known photos, although I have forgotten).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting that in that interview he didn’t suggest there was any “suffering”. I guess they mix things up.
I learnt about the incredibly key element of psyops, Revelation of the Method, from Ole Dammegard who I strongly suspect is controlled opposition because he doesn’t recognise the staged death and injury of 9/11 and I think he understands psyops too well to be ignorant of that. Can’t be sure though because people’s minds do seem to turn to mush over death and injury for 9/11 where they may recognise the staging elsewhere. Nevertheless just got a feeling he’s CO … but if so I still learnt something very useful from him although I’m sure I would have learnt it eventually from a genuine person at some point.
LikeLike
Dammegard, if memory serves, pushes that the 1986 assassination of Sweden’s Olof Palme was a real thing. Definitely CO. They had Palme and his wife walking down a quiet street at night, like with JFK, as if security was yet to be invented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…. Ole Dammegard who I strongly suspect is controlled opposition ….”
No need to suspect. He basically outs himself as an agent on his own website. As you scroll down, stop and look at who he’s associated with or recommended by: mainly intelligence and celebrity spooks like Hollywood actress Shirley McClain, Bush family’s private assassin Gene Chip Tatum, Lee Harvey Oswald’s mistress Judyth Vary Baker, Emmy Award winner & TV star John Barbour, Pentagon ‘War Games’ expert Robert Harkavy and CIA “whistleblower” Robert David Steele. I’m not making this up.
https://lightonconspiracies.com/
And that’s just the beginning. Further research into his musical career, for instance, further solidifies his role as controlled opposition for the ‘NWO’. To quote:
“On the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks, Ole Dammegard and his friend, acclaimed singer and composer Mo Anton, released their song Wake Up! It became an instant hit and went straight to a German Top 100 chart, where is stayed at No 1 for two months straight. It has already been called ‘Best song of the decade – and maybe even the most important one’.”
https://lightonconspiracies.com/ole-dammegards-fantastic-music/
Would a real truther or outspoken critic of the “Deep State” receive this kind of promotion? Of course not! What use would it be for the ruling elite to promote someone whose whole life mission is to apparently expose their crimes and treachery? Why didn’t they suppress or shadow-ban his work, instead? Since they also run the music industry, it shouldn’t be hard to do.
And in the same second link above, he includes even more spooks from the music world, such as Caprice Records CEO Joey Welz who thus quips:
“The talented Ole from Sweden is a total musical craftsman.… Caprice International was privileged to release two powerful singles to worldwide radio with early positive results. ‘From Prison to Paradise’, title cut of his album, has hit the Top 20 on the Music Review Charts as number 11, based on radio airplay from around the world.“
Again, we see heavy mainstream promotion on his part, which is not something any genuine truther would get. That luxury is reserved for shills like good ol’ Ole here. And speaking of Caprice International, Wikipedia has something revealing to say about it:
“Caprice or Caprice Records is a Swedish state-owned
record label for “narrower” music, and the brands under which Rikskonserter from the late 1960s … until 2011 conducted its phonogram publishing . … When Rikskonserter was closed in 2011, Caprice Records was transferred to the new
state music authority Statens musikverk . According to
the authority’s instructions, the record company’s mission is
to “promote access to artistically interesting music by publishing music recordings that the authority has at its disposal“.“
https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Caprice_Records?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
In other words, it’s basically an official gov’t front whose sole purpose is to promote musical propaganda. So why would the Swedish gov’t, who I suspect Ole implicates in the “death” of Olaf Palme, promote this person’s music on one of their propaganda outlets? Why give him any airtime at all? The answer should be obvious by now.
LikeLike
“…we did indeed have the technology to shield our astronauts from radiation back in the 1960s, but at some time during the last four decades, that technology was simply lost.”
Have you heard or learned about any other contemporary technology, that has been irreversibly lost within 50 years of its invention? No, you haven’t, because there’s none except for this particular tech, which is coincidentally single most important tech that would allow humans to travel safely beyond LEO.
Tens of thousands of NASA people working on Apollo project, couple of hundreds probably just on this radiation shielding alone, yet nobody can recall anything? It boggles my mind how absolutely everybody from this research team is stricken with worst kind of dementia when it comes to radiation shielding. One is working on epic stuff and doesn’t take any notes? From thousands, there’s none with notes?
Nobody, absolutely nobody sane is believing this crap.
“According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded.”
To all the brainiacs around this world – you don’t need any reflection device to bounce the light off the Moon. Remember the moonlight here on Earth? There’s tons of bounced light reaching Earth from Moon without a single device being needed. This is the absolute worst argument I’ve ever heard in terms of physics!
LikeLike
Brilliant scientists at NASA, but plagued by an unfortunate tendency to misplace critical work product and records…
LikeLike
I remember the last time this topic came up here, there were two commenters on opposite sides of the “rockets in a vacuum” question. Both very sure of themselves, one of whom at least had engineering or physics credentials. Both also thought their own preferred view should be obvious to anyone with eyes or a lick of common sense about thought experiments. Sharing links to diagrams, demos, etc. I ended up mostly on the side that a rocket seemed unlikely to work in a vacuum. But not with any absolute confidence in that verdict.
LikeLike
My approach is not to focus on elements I cannot be sure of. Assuming rocketry to be a real thing they don’t say “It’s not rocket science” for nothing. Rocket science is complicated and no matter whether you’re an engineer or not I don’t think you should make your determinations of whether something is true or not on your understanding of such a complicated subject unless you really are an expert. There is so much more tangible evidence to work with why would you dwell on such an arcane area?
This is an amusing video alluding to rocket science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
When you focus on the tangible elements of going to the moon and you check all the items that might seem anomalous by simply searching for explanations on the internet I don’t really see any way you cannot accept the evidence presented for the moon landings.
Psyops mislead us into thinking that fakery is easy. Sure, pushing out faked stuff is easy but faking stuff without making the fakery detectable is not easy and I’d say in the case of the moon landings utterly impossible, considering the amount of evidence they have presented including 200 hours of audio for the Apollo 11 mission alone and about 1,000 hours for the entire program.
In psyops they script people and they fake transcripts but these faked artefacts are limited in scope – and, of course, they make it obvious that people are scripted and transcripts are faked according to their Revelation of the Method rule. If you think that you could fake 1,000 hours of communications between the astronauts and mission control without detection of fakery then I put to you that your sense of reality has been distorted by a biased inclination to disbelieve the moon landings. Moreover, that kind of presentation of data is completely antithetical to psyop MO.
“https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html”
And then lining up perfectly with the evidence for going to the moon we have abundantly clear evidence of an intelligence operation designed to mislead people into disbelieving the moon landings whose purpose we can only infer is to undermine them when they call out their many lies Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style as well as to dupe them because any chance they get – believer or disbeliever – they want to dupe us and control our minds. This is a clear FACT and is far more tangible than the explanation for how rockets do or don’t work in a vacuum. And this fact is very hard to marry with fakery. How do you explain the fact that intelligence agents haven’t mixed truth with lies with regard to the moon landings as they generally do but have ONLY told lies or truth that is irrelevant and functions as propaganda?
Making clear facts mean what they must mean is a better path than theorising in areas that you are not expert.
LikeLike
“When you focus on the tangible elements of going to the moon and you check all the items that might seem anomalous by simply searching for explanations on the internet I don’t really see any way you cannot accept the evidence presented for the moon landing.”
https://ibb.co/gRpKCsj
Do you actually believe this shabby hut, made of cardboard and golden duck tape was able to transport anybody or anything through space?
Lunar module was supposed to be hermetically pressurised to accommodate humans onboard – do you really believe the choice of materials and this kind of construction allows pressurising it from within?
What’s really tangible is hard evidence – like Moon rocks or pictures. The former being repeatedly shown as fakes or petrified wood, while the latter is easily doctored. Even if we assume official pictures (*http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) as authentic, there are hundreds of noted anomalies that have no possible scientific explanation.
Have you ever seen an interview with Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo Hasselblad? When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being in the shadow of the lunar module), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That escapes me… why.”
The most tangible point is that people are gullible and have been successfully duped countless times so far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Response to shabby hut –
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Lunar-Module-was-2-foil-sheets-thick
Response to the ‘Moon rock’ that the Dutch national museum had been carefully safeguarding for many years, before discovering, in August of 2009, that they were in reality the proud owners of the most over-insured piece of petrified wood on the planet.
“https://waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com/2018/08/wagging-moondoggie-part-2-debunked.html”
“A complete fabrication and embellishment of an event that did not occur. The Ambassador for the USA, gave the ex-prime minister the gift. Nowhere was this part of the Goodwill tour. The astronauts did not meet with him. They actually handed out tiny fragments encased in resin, on a presentation stand with gold embossed and engraved plaque – in 1970, well after this tour.
Nixon’s idea for the moon rock plaques didn’t actually happen until November 1969, and the plaques themselves were handed out in 1970. The actual gifts given were a replica of a piece of silica engraved with goodwill messages from heads of state that was left on the surface, a magnifying glass to read the disk, a replica of the ‘we came in peace…’ plaque on the LM and photographs. This was to all the heads of state they met. No way would NASA even consider handing out a sizeable rock to an ex-prime minister when even the Queen herself received one of the tiny fragments.
The lunar samples themselves were only released from the lunar receiving laboratory in mid-September 1969 to the world’s scientists after the LRL had carried out their own analyses, so by early October 1969 when Apollo 11 visited Holland the samples had only just been given to scientists to look at.”
You say allegedly moon rocks have been “repeatedly shown” to be petrified wood. Can you cite any other instances than the one above? No surprise, of course, that intel agent, Dave McGowan, is one of the propagators of the petrified wood propaganda.
Response to Jan Lundberg’s lack of ability to explain what looks like a huge spotlight next Buzz Aldrin – scroll down to 1.3. Apparent “Hot Spots” in Some Photographs
“https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37827”
When your attitude is biased it’s easy to find what you’re looking for. You need to research not with the aim to find items that support your premature conclusion but with the aim to find the truth. When you look for the truth you don’t just stop when you find what you think supports your premature conclusion, you do due diligence to ensure it really does.
Those in power wish to control the minds of both the believers and the disbelievers and if you understand that you will thus be able to recognise that the anti-moon landing movement is an intelligence operation whose proponents include Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan.
LikeLike
Kaysing and McGowan are infiltrated spooks, who’s assignment was to control the damage. Which damage? Ever increasing number of ordinary people distrusting the narrative and requesting tangible proof of the alleged landing.
I didn’t ask for links, I asked if you do or do not believe that shabby hut is a real piece of space technology?
I could’ve articulated my sentence better in regards to the alleged moon rocks. Yes, only one example was proven as petrified wood, but isn’t that enough to cast doubt about every single one?
To add some weight to reasonable doubt, check out this site: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks
Most of them “stolen” or “lost”, coincidentally, thus preventing any future analysis. The only allegedly authentic collection out there is remaining with NASA… Just as a thought – here they show a few examples of these rocks and I’m not smart enough to tell them apart from i.e. meteorite rocks found on Earth. How exactly can one know for sure if some rock is from the Moon?
Thanks for your advice. The last thing I actually need is anybody messing with my sanity.
LikeLike
If the Mountain won’t go to Mohammed …
I didn’t give you a “link” Minime. What I gave you was the opportunity to acquaint yourself with an explanation for how what you perceive to be a shabby hut isn’t a shabby hut. The reason you perceive it to be a shabby hut is that you don’t have the first clue about it.
This is what is said about your shabby hut by someone who knows a helluva lot more than either you or I (my emphasis).
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Lunar-Module-was-2-foil-sheets-thick
The Lunar Module (LM) was a lot sturdier than it looked.
It’s easy to get the impression that the LM was really flimsy because when you see the LM in its final form, it looks like it’s made out of aluminum foil and construction paper:
The moon hoaxnuts, who think it’s clever to not know anything about how any of this stuff actually works, point to this and claim that this proves that the Lunar Module was a stage prop, as if NASA couldn’t have been bothered to build a nicer-looking stage prop with 400,000 people and $100 billion at its disposal.
The fact is, the LM wasn’t built to look cool; it was built to actually work in space. Two big problems in spaceflight are solar heat and micrometeorites, and when we look at the LM, we’re seeing an outer covering that attempts to solve those problems. The stuff that looks like gold foil — actually a mylar film — reflects excess sunlight, helping to keep the LM from overheating. The flimsy sheets of aluminum provide heat protection and slow down micrometeorites. (It turns out that even a layer of very thin material, offset from the main hull, can provide protection by causing micrometeorites to disintegrate.) With the thermal blanket and micrometeorite shielding in place, you can’t see the hull of the spacecraft at all.
None of the outer covering provides any structural support, and since the LM travels only in a vacuum, there’s no concern about the effects of airflow disturbing the outer covering. So it can be light and flimsy and still do its job just fine.
The Lunar Module’s hull was made out of aluminum with titanium fasteners, and if you look at the LM during construction, before it has its outer covering in place, you can see that the hull is pretty substantial and looks more like what you’d expect from a spacecraft hull:
etc etc
LikeLike
“Kaysing and McGowan are infiltrated spooks, who’s assignment was to control the damage.”
What damage are they controlling? This makes no sense to me.
Clearly, Kaysing and McGowan are not “infiltrators”, they are at the vanguard of the anti-moon landing movement. As Lenin is cited as saying (although this promulgation is propaganda as all power knows this), “In order to control the opposition we must lead it ourselves.”
‘Ol Billy published his magnum opus in 1976 and my sister told me that what first prompted her to disbelieve the moon landings was what he said. When I told her he was an agent her response was that she didn’t disbelieve the moon landings according to what he said now. No, now she just has equally ridiculous reasons for not believing them. When I started to wake up to psyops, a friend suggested I read Wagging the Moondoggie.
Intelligence agents are front and centre of the anti-moon landing movement. No doubt Massimo Mazzucco who made American Moon is too because he also made a film on 9/11 that – so very unsurprisingly – avoids the staged death and injury fact.
LikeLike
“What damage are they controlling? This makes no sense to me.”
https://imgur.com/a/izowfDh
This kind of damage – trackless rover, for instance. As in tens of other similar pictures (this one is AS17-140-21354, as found at the above link to official archive).
Particularly McGowan was at the public front of this contra-intelligence op, controlling the damage. Unless you think that people need anyone’s opinion about what trackless rover on the Moon really means. He got the spook assignment after his handlers realised there’s exponential growth in number of sceptics with the advent of internet. Talking about poisoning the well…well, there you have an eclatant school-case of such MO, as from the spook guidebook.
Kaysing was from the first wave of damage control assets before the internet, imo, when general public started questioning what they’ve watched on TV. For the sake of the argument, how does one prove for instance his trip to the next city in comparison? Probably with some pictures, bringing in a rock as an evidence for your trip is somehow…naive, imo, to say it generously. Even if I’ve observed you entering your car and driving off somewhere on the horizon, that’s not an evidence of you actually arriving at your claimed destination. Kaysing is fronting this “movement”, controlling the extent of issues brought forward.
I’m surprised you’ve even asked me about this since you’ve studied their MO quite extensively.
LikeLike
In fact, if you view AS17-140-21354 in high res, click the magnifier and scroll to the bottom left of the photo you will see a short stretch of tyre track.
The regolith around the rover has been kicked around a lot but you can clearly see a short stretch of V-shaped tyre track and it is this kind of very subtle evidence that so clearly speaks for the authenticity of the evidence. Who is going to fake something so barely visible that people who don’t look very carefully won’t see it?
Link to photo in high res.
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/AS17/AS17-140-21354.JPG
LikeLike
No, the two parallel tracks you’re mentioning are more evidence of a movie set scenery. Even those two tyre prints are less then 1m in length, as if the rover was able to travel through the air before it stopped where it was photographed.
A flying rover… is de facto the truth, as it was lowered by the crane into the movie scene, apparently. Assuming the pictures are authentic, of course.
LikeLike
Seriously? Why would they show a vehicle but produce tyre tracks from something else? If you wish to assert that it is a movie set that is your prerogative but this is what I assert: the vast expanse lit by only one light source as far as we can tell speaks to the reality of the moon landings.
Where did I mention parallel tracks? In fact, rather hilariously, I completely missed them and was referring to a tiny stretch of tyre track behind the rover.
LikeLike
You got it all wrong, interestingly.
I was describing the two tracks that are visible between the rover and LM, though they seem like they’re boot-prints rather that tire tracks, which is even worse.
I guess your belief doesn’t let you wrap your head around the most glaring issues.
I’m out of this particular discussion. There’s nothing I need to prove here and I don’t need my opinion either validified nor rejected . My intention was to show why there’s been so many questions and doubts about this whole moon landing ordeal, as there’s plenty more.
LikeLike
You’re a “goal post mover”, aren’t you, Minime?
First you say “trackless” and then you when tracks are pointed out you cry fake according to what your perception of the distance between the tracks should be.
–1. If they were going to fake the tracks why wouldn’t they just use the vehicle they had to fake them? To “produce” fake tracks from some other vehicle or whatever other method makes precisely ZERO sense.
–2. Are you an expert on perspective? Why should anyone believe what your judgement is on the width of the tracks? And what is your mathematical calculation to show that the width is wrong?
–3. When you call the LEM a “shabby hut” what you reveal is your shameful ignorance, however, having that shameful ignorance reflected to you makes not a jot of difference. You steamroll on with simply more easily-refuted nonsense and when that nonsense is also refuted you just grab at something else.
LikeLike
It’s difficult to work things out when we’re referring to different things.
I see no tracks between the the LEM and the rover – and nor do you, right, because anything you see, you think is “fake” – I see no pretence of even any tracks – yes it all looks like boot prints.
–1. There are tracks at the top
–2. there is a tiny stretch of track visible behind the rover.
–3. There is a tiny stretch of track visible in front of the LEM.
These three pieces of evidence are perfectly consistent with real. The rover could have driven from the other side of the LEM then in front of it and then in a wide circle beyond the bounds of the photo to come in behind it. No need for flying. You also need to consider that all the walking around the rover has obviously disturbed the tracks.
Links to photos highlighting the three pieces of tyre tracks.
https://imgur.com/a/JrRginE
LikeLike
“You also need to consider that all the walking around the rover has obviously disturbed the tracks.“
Even so, the tracks should still be somewhat (or even slightly) visible in the photo. The fact we don’t see any tire track imprints near the rear of the rover at all is pretty odd to me. Footprints covering it all up isn’t a sufficient explanation, IMO.
LikeLike
Tyre prints. Busted
LikeLike
tyre prints? Man, you MI6 guys are sloppy. What lodge did you take your solemn oath at over there in the British Empire?
LikeLike
In the end, the tire tracks don’t really prove anything, either way, so I wouldn’t use it as the strongest evidence to prove or disprove the story. It’s not like those tracks couldn’t be mimicked in a movie set with sand or dust added or on the moon’s surface.
LikeLike
This is true. However, there is something about the subtlety of the evidence that I find compelling. Also the tracks seem light which is consistent with the low gravity.
Actually, this is quite hilarious. I didn’t see the rather extensive parallel tracks at the top of the photo, I was looking behind the rover and saw just a tiny stretch.
What overwhelmingly speaks to the reality of the moon landings in that image is the light! Oh my goodness. That vast expanse showing only a very bright single light source. A floodlight cannot do that, certainly not back then.
LikeLike
All this proves is that the photo was not fabricated. Or, at least, it’s not the forgeries that we’re familiar with.
As for the lighting in the picture, it could indeed be a natural light source from the sun shining upon the moon. It’s also possible that they used a very different flood light that wasn’t available outside NASA, one that can mimic the sun’s reflection on the lunar surface and was top secret. These people are typically light years ahead in the technology department, and I suspect the same was true in the 60s, so it’s not illogical that they had the ability to craft hyper-realistic special effects even back then. But to each their own, I suppose.
LikeLike
“All this proves is that the photo was not fabricated. Or, at least, it’s not the forgeries that we’re familiar with.
As for the lighting in the picture, it could indeed be a natural light source from the sun shining upon the moon. It’s also possible that they used a very different flood light that wasn’t available outside NASA, one that can mimic the sun’s reflection on the lunar surface and was top secret. These people are typically light years ahead in the technology department, and I suspect the same was true in the 60s, so it’s not illogical that they had the ability to craft hyper-realistic special effects even back then. But to each their own, I suppose.”
If you have evidence that is completely consistent with real then I’d say you have to accept it. A case cannot be made on “could be”. Unless you have clear evidence of fakery then you have no case for fake – in the first place you don’t even have evidence that they had a light that could replicate sunlight so the speculation is really quite extreme – I think they do now though. You couldn’t win a case in court with “could be this or that”. You need evidence of fakery. And the fact that everything is so utterly PERFECTLY consistent with real speaks for its reality.
LikeLike
“In the end, the tire tracks don’t really prove anything,…”
They don’t, but lack of tire tracks in quite some number of photos prove fakery at play. That’s the issue here.
LikeLike
Good point, MiniMe. Had that rover been actually driving around the ground, we should see long tracks left behind its wheels. We see plenty of that in the background, but not in the foreground near the rover. That indicates at least this photo was staged, even if everything else was genuine.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness no it is not a good point. See my comment.
https://pieceofmindful.com/2024/08/06/wagging-the-moondoggie-a-masterwork-of-propaganda/#comment-345431
What also must be kept in mind is that a lot of footwork going on will disturb the tyre tracks.
What also needs to be kept in mind is that the odd seeming anomaly cannot come along and turn over the correct hypothesis. That isn’t the way reality works. There is a preponderance of evidence supporting the reality of the moon landings and the odd seeming anomaly in a photograph doesn’t mean anything … not to mention that when you look closely at a high res photo you get a completely different impression than when you look at a lower res photo … which just goes to show you must be cautious when you make judgements.
LikeLike
“You couldn’t win a case in court with “could be this or that”. You need evidence of fakery.”
Fair point, but I didn’t come into this discussion to sway anyone on this topic, and I don’t expect anyone to accept my stances as gospel. Nor do I feel compelled to, because even if I can prove what I said is correct, they’ll still be doubters who will try to dispel it, just as there are plenty here who argue against your consensus that it was real.
LikeLike
Furthermore, Petra, if they had this technology back then and it’s top secret, how can I prove they used it to fake the Moon landings if it’s not available for independent analysis and testing? It’s not like they’re going to openly admit they had the technology to do it, anyway, so how can I prove my stance correct even if it is?
LikeLike
The nature of reality to me is that when you have two hypotheses that are completely opposing (fake and real) and you have masses of evidence and you have a situation where faking without detection would be incredibly problematic considering the completely alien conditions required to be faked and you have a sense of complete consistency with those alien conditions bar the odd seeming anomaly then “real” is the correct hypothesis.
LikeLike
And those are pretty solid points. I will give it to you, though, compared to the other events we’ve looked at, the Apollo landings do stand better to the test of time, so perhaps they were real. At this point, I’m honestly undecided, but maybe I’ll warm up to the concept in the future. To each their own.
LikeLike
“I ended up mostly on the side that a rocket seemed unlikely to work in a vacuum. But not with any absolute confidence in that verdict.”
To each his own. I revisited that thread and noticed you haven’t made any observation about two recorded experiments showing how rocket physics works in reality – in vacuum, which I left there at the end. It may help you visualise the mechanics. That purpose of visuals is to help understand and conceptualise the theory underneath.
LikeLike
Petra – I was delighted that you wrote this piece for selfish reasons … that there is nothing that cannot be debated openly among us without stooping to ridicule and ad hominem. I deliberately steer clear of engaging you in specifics. That has all been done and redone.
All the moon business aside, I came away when last we went through this with the notion that rockets can indeed operate in a vacuum. The laws of motion endure in space, Newton 1,2,3 etc. The only place I have ever seen where the Third Law of Motion was not in effect, if only for a day, was on 9/11/2001.
I knew a guy in Bozeman, Rob, who worked in a book store on campus and had narcissistic tendencies that made him unpalatable to me. When approached with the idea that what we saw on our TV sets back then was a physical impossibility, he wrote a long drawn out post about how the people in the physics department at Montana State University were scratching their heads in wonder, that the Third Law could be countermined by speed. If you throw that baseball fast enough, it will indeed penetrate a brick wall.
That is the power of the naked king to control perceptions. Nothing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was delighted you published it too, Mark. Thank you. I don’t see it having the effect I might have desired … but that’s only to be expected. As you say, it’s all been done and redone.
LikeLike
Petra – I never said that rocket physics is the ideal way for laypeople to prove or disprove the story. It just piqued my interest, prompted by Minime and the other commenter both having strong views on opposite sides of the issue.
For physics experts, it would be a way to cut through all the crap and determine at least if there’s any scientific plausibility to rocketing to the moon. IIRC, all the rocket experts in the preceding decades said space flight was impossible, due to space being a vacuum. Then that view suddenly fell by the wayside and wasn’t heard anymore when Kennedy announced the moonshot, and virtually overnight the whole thing became feasible. (I could be misremembering.. maybe the early experts were more concerned about radiation or other things, but I think rockets in a vacuum was a big issue too..)
LikeLike
Fair enough that it piqued your interest, Tim, and obviously the subject is interesting. I guess it didn’t pique mine simply because I don’t understand physics beyond the most basic.
LikeLike
Re “shabby hut”
Thanks for the Quora link to the hull photo and a defense of the cladding. Interesting to see. I still find it odd that the cladding would be applied in such a junky way though – especially for the panels, it seems like you would want those to be designed to fit well and securely, not warped and haphazard. Have any SpaceX landers or other space programs followed this design approach..?
LikeLike
Even if they’re doing things completely differently now I think without clear evidence that the design wouldn’t have worked you need to accept it. Of course, if the moon landings were a psyop then we’d expect in-your-face kind of fakery and the unconvincing look of the LEM might be one of their examples of Revelation of the Method. But that’s just superficially – I think the “fit for purpose” argument is perfectly reasonable and the 1,000 hours of Apollo audio is completely antithetical to psyop MO.
They provided transcripts and video for the USS Liberty “survivors” but they’re obvious hogwash and they’re very limited in scope compared to Apollo. Similarly, with their fakery of the 119 firefighter testimonials (didn’t even bother with audio just gave us transcripts) and Collateral Murder which was actually real snippets of audio stitched together.
1,000 hours of audio for Apollo is just so not psyop type material.
LikeLike
“… the unconvincing look of the LEM might be one of their examples of Revelation of the Method.”
And perhaps it is, but not for the reasons either side is thinking. If Apollo 11 was real, they could’ve intentionally made its outer cover look ridiculous to punk moon landing deniers by using it to make them believe everything else about it was fake when that’s not really so. And believers will instead either downplay or dismiss its appearance by saying they weren’t concerned about how it looked, only about its functionality as an extra protective thin shield, thereby overlooking its greater significance as a psyop tool.
LikeLike
Petra – On the 200+ hours of mission audio – You say you can’t imagine faking such a thing, but that’s an “argument from incredulity.” A principle of magic tricks remember is to go to greater lengths than most can fathom to achieve them. And I’m not so sure it’s that difficult anyway – a few guys in a flight simulator maybe, or running software of a simulated rocket flight, responding to the fake data it generates, and doing some improv..
When was the audio released? Maybe it was a later creation to try to buttress the story, and they were willing to make that much effort.
LikeLike
It’s not an argument from incredulity because:
— no one has detected any evidence of fakery
— there is no precedence of this kind of fakery that has been identified
It is perfectly reasonable to think that it couldn’t be faked. You think it wouldn’t be so difficult? So be it.
Regardless of what either of us thinks is possible or not there is no evidence of it and that’s what counts.
LikeLike
Countless hours of audio tapes isn’t the same as countless hours of recorded video evidence (which reportedly do/did exist for the Apollo missions), as they don’t show us where they were recorded (if they do, let me know). They could’ve been taped here on earth in a NASA simulator or on the moon. I don’t consider them to be the strongest evidence for either scenario regardless of their authenticity.
LikeLike
https://archive.org/details/AFunnyThingHappenedOnTheWayToTheMoon_201903
Worth watching.
LikeLike
Worth reading this response to the film by a person who worked in aerospace for 40 years.
https://www.quora.com/In-consideration-of-the-evidence-seen-in-the-documentary-A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon-why-do-people-still-claim-the-Apollo-11-crew-went-to-the-Moon/answer/Peter-Kosen
Interesting snippet:
“As someone who understands the basics of how all the systems of the Apollo space craft functioned, the fake documentary, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” is my all-time FAVORITE “hoax theory” so-called “evidence” because it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that one of the most popular promoters of the “hoax theory” actually knows that Apollo went to the moon but is willing to paste together lies about it just to make a few bucks.”
My article is about the anti-moon landing psyop. Dave McGowan is an agent, Bill Kaysing is an agent and here we have someone who is obviously not a psyop analyst but recognises that Bart doesn’t genuinely disbelieve the moon landings … he’s an agent too.
LikeLike
Watch before quoting some disinfo agent, except you never do watch/read anything that’s contrary to your moon landing hoax gatekeeping, do you?
LikeLike
I get the impression Petra is sincere in her view, so personally I don’t consider her to be “gatekeeping.” I suspect it may be a type of intellectual vanity, where she’s convinced herself that she’s seen through some sort of 11-dimensional chess on the moon landing, while others are just mindlessly “auto hoaxing” everything. (No offense, Petra, I appreciate your work arguing the “pro” side.)
LikeLike
Sincere? Mark has said in the past that she never read his essays on the moon fakery by NASA, more than once. How can anyone have an unbiased view when dismissing anything contrary to her assignment?
NASA lost the tapes and lost the ability to ‘get back’, seriously? Modules made of cardboard and gold foil. Santa Claus is more plausible.
LikeLike
The alleged anomalies have been responded to endlessly including right on this page the “cardboard and gold foil” claim. Yes, the skin of the LEM is made of gold-coloured foil. Yes, it is! How ’bout that? (Not cardboard though.) But for very good reasons all explained here:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Lunar-Module-was-2-foil-sheets-thick
LikeLike
The best way to get me to watch it, Jackie, is to refute what the guy says. That would really make me sit up and take notice. Obviously, though, if you cannot refute it then why would I watch it?
LikeLike
Lame excuses once more.
LikeLike
If I believed a film made by a documentary maker was genuine and someone came along and said that the documentary maker had manipulated footage deceptively then the first thing I’d do is check to see if they’d done that not call them a disinfo agent.
Who is Bart Sibrel? What are his qualifications? Let’s look up “disinfo agent”, Peter Kosen. He worked in the aerospace industry for over 46 years. https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-kosen-a293aa62/
It’s called due diligence, Jackie, and what the disbelievers of the moon landings show so kind of gobsmackingly really is that they don’t do due diligence.
LikeLike
46 years, not 47? Disinfo agents have fake bios, not watching it purpose is called turning a blind eye, you’re good at avoiding the question. Due diligence? You don’t know the meaning thereof! Due diligence is sifting through ALL the evidence however contrary to your agenda and making your own mind up not cut and pasting disinformation from a corrupt bunch of clatty pseuds. You don’t want to know the truth, because you are a limited hangout like all those other spooks.
Kosen? Who is he? A paid up member of a lying organization who’ve conned billions of taxpayers money with fantasy space travel.
Would you drive a car made from cardboard and gold foil? Wait, you need your answer from another spook.
LikeLike
Yes disinfo agents can have fake bios. Ultimately, it’s never about WHO it’s always about WHAT.
I’ve responded to Mark on the subject of Bart Sibrel and his claim that Apollo 11 was in Lower Earth Orbit when it showed footage of the earth rather than 130,000 miles away as claimed by Neil Armstrong. I think the combination of the footage shown and the explanation make perfect sense. If you continue to believe Bart that is your prerogative. I’d be curious to know what your explanation though is for continuing to believe him.
https://pieceofmindful.com/2024/08/06/wagging-the-moondoggie-a-masterwork-of-propaganda/#comment-345589
LikeLike
I didn’t say one way or another whether I believed him or no. Putting words in my mouth, another spooky action. Some of us have an open mind and do not reject anything because it doesn’t agree with our alternate views. With due diligence one finds out who’s full of BS and who isn’t. NASA has more BS than most.
LikeLike
Petra’s a bot. No use talking with ‘her’ – does not compute!
LikeLike
I inferred from the fact that you recommend his film that you believe at least some things that he says.
So if you do believe at least one thing that he says, Jackie, can you let me know one of the things you do believe.
LikeLike
“What also needs to be kept in mind is that the odd seeming anomaly cannot come along and turn over the correct hypothesis.”
Hence why I never said all the photos were faked or staged. Only that this photo appears to have been staged. It’s possible that they did go to the moon, but that doesn’t mean everything presented about this trip by NASA are genuine, either, even if the majority is.
LikeLike
I said I wouldn’t, but couldn’t resist since Petra called me out.
“You’re a “goal post mover”, aren’t you, Minime?
First you say “trackless” and then you when tracks are pointed out you cry fake according to what your perception of the distance between the tracks should be.”
I did say trackless and I remain 100% sure and positive with what my eyes are telling me.
Trackless – no visible tracks leading to the position of either rover’s wheels at the moment of being photographed.
What you claim to be visible in that particular picture is not consistent with other pictures having rover in the focus, as for instance here: https://imgur.com/a/ZyM2FBe
Do you see the depth of rover’s tracks? You see how the tracks lead directly to rover’s wheels making rover’s position believable? There’s nothing similar in these two photos.
Now inspect this photo: https://imgur.com/a/sCLDRS5
According to the orientation of the seats, the rover was driven into the position from the right side. Look at the dust between the wheels – there is no track leading to the left front wheel. Even if it was driven in reverse, the track should have been there.
How’s debating such glaring inconsistencies interpreted as moving a goal post? You really have some peculiar ways of rationalising what’s happening.
Also, yes, according to the pictures which anybody can see – LEM is a shabby hut considering what it was made for. So can you stop dodging it and finally answer my question – do you really believe this thing made any actual space trip?
Points 2 and 3 from your comment are completely irrelevant since those background tracks were not in question at all.
Pictures: AS16-107-17511HR, AS16-108-17622~orig
LikeLike
Minime, do you accept that trackless is also anomalous for fake? If they’re in Area 51 or wherever they’re faking it wouldn’t you expect tracks equally there? For the image you used initially you said trackless but tracks were found and perhaps if we had greater information we would find ways to explain what looks like an absence of tracks in other images. “Trackless” makes equally no sense for real or fake.
Depth of regolith can vary so in one spot you might have deep tracks and in others shallower just like on earth.
As trackless would be equally anomalous for fake or real I’m not going to put a whole lot of concern on it.
“Also, yes, according to the pictures which anybody can see – LEM is a shabby hut considering what it was made for. So can you stop dodging it and finally answer my question – do you really believe this thing made any actual space trip?”
What you’re judging the LEM by is its skin, you’re judging the LEM like someone judging a Lamborghini by its dust jacket. You’re ignoring that there is a vessel UNDERNEATH the skin which is robust. We’re told the skin was designed to deal with micrometeorites and heat – I see no problem with this explanation.
Yes I do think it made a trip in space. The LEM only travelled from the mothership in a vacuum, of course, not from earth obviously or only as cargo.
What you have to consider is what speaks loudly for the reality of the moon landings. The moon is utterly alien to earth. On earth we have a blue sky in day and a black sky at night while on the moon it’s black sky day and night. If you think you can fake that for the amount of material provided you have a distorted sense of reality. We also have much greater gravity and atmosphere the moon doesn’t have. These three things:
— Black sky during day with very bright light reflected off the surface
— Astronauts moving according to the lower gravity
— Dust moving in accordance with no atmosphere and the appearance of the light
are all displayed completely consistently with the lunar conditions.
And then on top of it all we have the VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE of a TEAM – a whole TEAM – of agents hired to spread lies about the moon landings including Bill Kaysing who gives himself away Revelation of the Method style spectacularly with his nonsense about James Irwin.
If astronauts really didn’t go to the moon why do they need Bill, Dave, Bart, Ralph et al to tell us they didn’t go to the moon? And why has no one picked these people up?
LikeLike
Finally, thank goodness. Many words ago I asked you this question for a good reason – the biggest difference between you and me is in the amount of suspension of belief each of us is investing when observing alleged Moon landing.
For one – lower gravity vs Earth-like gravity – nobody really knows what it would be like to walk on the Moon, since nobody has experienced anything like that before. If my only reference for the lower gravity movement is coming from the grainy TV transmission in 1969-72, than of course I will not accept it as being unconditionally true. From what I have meticulously observed for hundreds of times while watching various alleged moon walks – the astronauts are not convincing, especially their way of getting up after falling. It looks rather as they’re suspended in order to simulate the lower gravity environment.
Secondly, alien like environment on the Moon is….somehow expected since the Moon has no atmosphere, which would also suggest the depth of regolith across the entire moon surface is pretty much equally distributed – in absence of wind, rain, humidity, etc., there’s no real reason for great differences in regolith depth across the surface, unless disturbed by some external force (i.e. meteorite exploding on impact). Right?
The initial picture which I described as trackless is about the trackless rover – I additionally explained to you what was my focus while describing it. You’re trying to rationalise it by saying that astronauts have disturbed rover’s tracks so they’re not visible, while ignoring the fact that nobody was walking within a few inches behind the wheels, since you can’t place a giant boot where the wheel and regolith meet. There’s no tracks in the closest vicinity to the wheels, period. Which made me say it’s trackless. You’re nitpicking by the word here…
” “Trackless” makes equally no sense for real or fake.”
No, not true. In the case of faking the environment (studio vs real), trackless is an explanation how the rover got there – by some crane lowering it into the movie scene, in which case a crane would also be used to place an alleged LEM into the scene. This makes perfect sense to me.
“If you think you can fake that for the amount of material provided you have a distorted sense of reality.”
This is fundamental to understand why we differ in opinion. Since I have no way of confirming the TV narrative for myself (or by somebody whom I trust), I have to rely on my senses and logic. All I have to work with this “reality” is some ancient TV footage, which I know from other cases that can not be trusted. And like in all their psyops, they’ve made some mistakes in consistency and credibility while producing the “moon reality”.
It is expected that as the time goes by, more and more people start questioning authenticity of what was really going on. If you think Kaysing was the first to scream fake, you’re just parroting what you’re being told once again. He only got full-blown promotion as the first, meaning he was the one to control how much fakery is discussed publicly. When Lenin said that about controlling the opposition, he didn’t imply you need to create it, right? That’s what you’re seeing here – tens of thousands of people discussing it, many others sceptical, but only a few get to talk about it publicly.
Instead of constantly looking at and talking about those spooks how about informing your readers about Pascal, White, Konovalov, Amathes and Christodoulides, etc.? There’s literally hundreds of independent experts analysing the whole ordeal for decades, that should be brought to everybody’s attention.
LikeLike
OK, so responding to your points:
I do not think I’m “suspending disbelief” what I think I’m doing is using Occam’s Razor (OR) and respecting facts rather than subjective feelings about things as much as possible and I will illustrate how I think I do that.
Lower gravity
Nobody knows what it looks like – agreed, but there are certain things about the way they move that is consistent with our expectations of lower gravity nevertheless – jumping higher than on earth, for example. You say the astronauts are not convincing, especially their way of getting up after falling but I’d say these are two facts:
— They don’t get up the way we get up on earth
— The way they get up hasn’t been faked on earth and we don’t know how they would fake it.
OR: In absence of evidence to the contrary OR says that the astronauts are on the moon because they’re moving in a way completely differently from how we move on earth and we can see in some movements such as jumping higher consistency with expectations of lower gravity and the way they get up after falling after is different from the way people get up on earth.
For fake we have to ASSUME they have faked it without knowing how they did it.
Your judgement is guided by your subjective feeling about how they get up after falling over rather than any clear facts.
Depth of regolith:
Here I would say you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities or knowledge.
Seriously, how can you make pronouncements on such a subject with so little real study? Why would anyone believe you? I checked with ChatGPT and in addition to meteorite activity – I mean what clue do you have about how much has happened – it also mentioned these other factors: Volcanic Activity, Electrostatic Processes, Geological History. The fact that you don’t mention them displays an ignorance right there doesn’t it?
Trackless
“You’re trying to rationalise it by saying that astronauts have disturbed rover’s tracks so they’re not visible, while ignoring the fact that nobody was walking within a few inches behind the wheels, since you can’t place a giant boot where the wheel and regolith meet. There’s no tracks in the closest vicinity to the wheels, period. Which made me say it’s trackless. You’re nitpicking by the word here…”
As I’ve already said “no tracks” is ALSO ANOMALOUS for faked. In the second image at the link below we can see a short stretch of track a metre or so behind the rover. If they faked it where did it come from? https://imgur.com/a/JrRginE
Moreover, they can kick up regolith that covers the track right up to the tyre can’t they? They don’t have to place their boot right behind the tyre.
Just as evidence that is consistent with two hypotheses cannot be used for evidence to support one of them, an anomaly that applies to both hypotheses cannot be used to dismiss one.
Kaysing
Kaysing was the first PROMINENT disbeliever to scream fake. If you know of an earlier prominent disbeliever please let me know, I’d be most interested.
I’m afraid that I’m 100% convinced of the moon landings. I see their reality everywhere I look, I’m not going to go down rabbit holes in areas I have no understanding and I suggest others not do that either. Seriously, some guy comes out and says the AGC wouldn’t have worked properly – let him – I wouldn’t have a clue one way or the other. I don’t NEED a clue because I see the clear evidence of the sunlight on the lunar surface, the 1,000 hours of communications between the astronauts and mission control that is utterly unfakeable. All the clear facts are right there before me just like 9/11. Someone comes along and says Osama bin Laden blah blah – I’m not going to look am I? because I know how the buildings came down and I know that you cannot fake artificial light for sunlight certainly not in the way that has been demonstrated by the Apollo imagery.
LikeLike
You’ve spent almost entire comment questioning my competence and trustworthiness for giving my educated opinion on this “evidence”. While at it even misusing logic to a degree, where I’d need to spend exponentially more time&words to explain why you’re wrong with each comment.
Sorry, but I’m done here. I’ve absolutely nothing to gain from debating you.
LikeLike
I don’t question your trustworthiness, I think you’re genuine and it’s not so much that I question your competence as that I point out you make judgements based on limited knowledge.
I don’t in any way suggest that my knowledge is greater than yours – the difference between us is that I avoid areas where my knowledge is limited as much as possible and stick to the irrefutable facts.
It is not an irrefutable fact that regolith should be of the same thickness all over the moon. Seriously? And you showed your limited knowledge by only citing one possible factor in any variation (meteorites) when – according to ChatGPT at least – there are more factors. But even with meteorites alone how can we know what role they play in the thickness of the regolith? It’s an unknown quantity – completely – why would you go there?
Making a case about the thickness of the regolith is like getting caught up in what happened in WTC-7 before it came down. I remember reading the NIST report and then the criticism of the NIST report and then finally realising – it’s all so unnecessary. There is zero in common between a CD and a destruction by fire and we can see that WTC-7 came down by CD purely in the manner of its collapse. That is all we need. We don’t need to know what went on inside the building beforehand (and of course there is no data to tell us anyway).
The disbelievers of the moon landings are doing the equivalent of ignoring the controlled demolition right in front of their eyes.
The characteristics of the lunar landscape are completely different to those of the terrestrial landscape and while you may be able to fake them to a degree in a Hollywood movie you cannot fake them without detection in the enormous quantity of evidence provided. Moreover, you cannot fake 1,000 hours of communications between astronauts and mission control without it being detectable. This is an absurdity. Just because verbal communications aren’t affected by the laws of physics doesn’t mean they can be faked without detection OK? You cannot fake that kind of natural communication hour after hour. And they’d NEVER in a million years fake that amount of evidence for a psyop.
Do you guys know what a psyop is? A psyop isn’t about presenting lots of realistic evidence, is it? No, it’s the OPPOSITE. They laugh in our faces with Emperor’s New Clothes nonsense just as ‘ol Billy laughs in our faces when he talks about James Irwin being concerned about phone-tapping and coincidentally dying the day before he and Bill were going to have a chat.
Anyway, I thank you Minime for debating me up to now because it’s helped me clarify some things.
LikeLike
The depth of regolith was our last discussion – we came to this point after I explained the role of McGowan to you extensively, showing you what was his probable mission by using one picture as an example for global scepticism. Then you went nitpicking on my description of this pic, where it was pretty clear what I was referring to. As I showed you other pictures that are not consistent with one another and gave you my reasoning why this is irrational, you ended up accusing me of moving a goal post, questioning my competence in judgment regarding regolith and my ability to articulate the problem at hand by saying I’m suffering from some kind of a horror-movie syndrome.
You’re out of line for a decent debate and acting out of your own shortcomings. You should go and talk to your buddy GPT, it apparently doesn’t mind your arrogance.
LikeLike
I explained the role of Dave McGowan in my article, Minime, but you don’t accept it and have put forward “damage control” which I said made no sense to me and whatever else you’ve said still makes no sense.
This is a clear fact:
Dave McGowan AND EVERY OTHER WELL-KNOWN MOONHOAXER including Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel have had their nonsense refuted.
They do not say a single word – not a single solitary word – that refutes the reality of the moon landings and it is clear that they haven’t just got it wrong, they are LYING. Bart Sibrel clearly manipulated the footage taken from Apollo 11 to support his nonsense claim that the earth was being filmed from a circular window and Bill Kaysing reveals himself in spectacular Revelation-of-the-Method style with his nonsense story about James Irwin calling him and expressing concern about phone-tapping.
Ergo: they are all intelligence assets who perfectly fit the hypothesis that their purpose is to mislead disbeliever-types (generally correct in their disbelief) to believe the ONE TRUE THING that superficially seems implausible in order to undermine them when they call out the real lies.
It’s not very complicated. It’s just so simple … you moon landing disbelievers are EXACTLY like those truthers who get “inside job” but are completely immune to the “staged death and injury” part of 9/11. Staging the death and injury makes PERFECT sense … and yet the 9/11 half-truthers just cannot get it.
The disbelievers cannot get that they will be targeted in the event of a true event that seems superficially implausible … but of course disbelievers will be targeted in this situation and we clearly have been. I’m a disbeliever too but I looked at the evidence carefully and also at all the perfectly reasonable explanations for the alleged anomalies.
Your explanation for Dave McGowan is not better than mine, Minime. My explanation fits all the evidence absolutely perfectly – it is unassailable and you cannot refute it with nonsense about “damage control”.
LikeLike
“believe the ONE TRUE THING” should be “disbelieve”
LikeLike
Petra, just curiosity here, and I am not intending to pile on here. You’re outnumbered by 4-5/1.
My curiosity is this: Bart Sibrel in his book Moon Man, pages 32 et seq, talks about receiving a 90 minute reel of tape from NASA in a mislabeled container (whistleblower?) that has the famous footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts in their space capsule, supposedly 130,000 miles out. There should be a 4-second delay at that distance, and then Armstrong received a clear command (no static interference) that said “Talk.” He did.
According to Sibrel, the astronauts had inserted a transparent image of Earth in the window, and then partly covered it so it appeared that it had a daylight/nighttime dividing line. They claimed that the camera had to be right up against the window to get this image, but then we see a hand or some other object between the camera and window. Sibrel claimed this illusion was very good and that he would never have uncovered it were it not for the unintended-for-public release. He claims this footage proves that Apollo 11 never left LOE. “As all of the following Apollo missions had identical Earth-orbit limited equipment, it means that the United States never put a man on the Moon, not even once.” His words, not mine.
Sibrel, if you recall, confronted astronauts asking them to swear on the Bible that they landed on the Moon. Buzz Aldrin hit him with his fist in anger. Sibrel, to his credit, later apologized to Aldrin, saying his ambush tactic was unfair and unprofessional. Sibrel is a born-again and there exhibited signs of a conscience. Aldrin accepted the apology, ditto.
LikeLike
It all sounds very cloak-and-daggery to me, Mark, and very, very typical of controlled opposition material.
Dave McKeegan has done a video, “The Lies of Bart Sibrel” and it starts with Bart’s claim that Apollo 11 took images of the earth from Lower Earth Orbit not from 130,000 miles away as claimed by Neil Armstrong. It is very detailed and I think explains the ludicrousness of the claim very well.
At 6:29 we see Bart telling Joe Rogan:
“And that’s part of the earth outside of a circular window with a little crescent piece moulded in front of it.”
However, Dave McKeegan tells (and shows) us that the only circular window on the command module was the one on the inside of the hatch which is above the seats while the window in the Apollo 11 footage is a square one next to the left-hand seat.
At 9:09 we clearly see the square window frame.
Dave also shows Apollo 9 taking footage of the earth in Lower Earth Orbit and we see how the clouds are going past while from 130,000 miles away in Apollo 11 the clouds don’t go past because … 130,000 miles away!
LikeLike
Dave McKeegan another NASA debunker.
Debunker (noun) Liar from a government agency who uses the ‘blind them with science’ technique.
Bots don’t think for themselves – they steal from NASA Debunkers Handbook.
LikeLike
The thing is my main concern isn’t the truth it’s mind control and I have to say while at times I find it very frustrating I cannot help finding it funny that it’s so damned obvious that Bill and Bart and Dave and Ralph and whoever else are all agents whose sole purpose is to control the minds of those who (rightly the vast majority of the time) don’t believe them into disbelieving the moon landings. It is soooo obvious – I mean seriously Bill and his phone-tapping and Wagging the Moondoggie not have a shred of relevant truth and Bart and his nonsense about a circular window. Oh my goodness!
LikeLike
While at it, for anybody remembering the last moondoggie debate, here’s an interesting piece by an independent engineer Xavier Pascal, vis-a-vis Apollo Guidance computer (AGC): https://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm
Author states that he is “sufficiently qualified to read and to understand the technical documentation of the Apollo Guidance Computer, and his observations of the (intentional) flaws in the documents form the basis of his article.”
According to his analysis, AGC could never perform the tasks it was supposed to, according to the official documentation and narrative – since it had no working memory, either ROM or RAM. The implications of this interesting finding made me question my belief about the unmanned LEO possibilities, at least in reference to historic timeline.
LikeLike
Why would the “moon landing” be real? I mean this event specific? Anyone can tell me? I consider also the Russian space stuff fake (eg. Yuri Gagaring was a comedian of sorts 😛 Not a cosmonaut).. there stuff is as ridiculous as the USA stuff. Both worked together behind the scenes also re the nuke hoax – or this is suddenly also real Petra _))))?
Is there any evidence a human can land or walk on the “moon” ? Perhaps it is only a light in the sky…
LikeLike
I have been resisting making a comment because I was taught if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
Well, it’s now officially happened. We are living in the twilight zone. My cross country running teammate, whom helped us win the state championships, and lived 5 doors down, is now an Ass-tro-not. I can’t remember who said it, but we are in full simulation mode.
Meet “Kidd” Poteet.
Scott Poteet – Wikipedia
LikeLike
I have edited the wiki entry below for clarity: Scott Poteet is an American pilot working for SpaceX on behalf of Jared Isaacman. During the mission Poteet will serve as the spacecraft pilot, serving as a backup to Issacman, the mission commander, who will also be attempting the first commercial spacewalk.
I hear Miles chirping: Isaccman, are you kidding me? Take a look at his picture, it’s Mr. Bean!
LikeLike
Petra and Minime are suspicious. Not only does Petra write an abysmal piece of total disinformation and propaganda, but he then hijacks the thread of his own story with none other than Minime, the perennial troll who perpetually tries to defend Miles Mathis against any and all criticism. Petra and Minime are just regurgitating all the classic arguments that keep people’s mind running around in dubious circles of denial and acceptance, denial and acceptance. I learned how to spot spooks like Petra and Minime in all the old 9/11 forums.
Their methods were, at one time, effective at derailing rational commentary on how absurd and ridiculous were the events of that morning. But 9/11 is old news and was the biggest psyop ever perpetrated on the human race other than the moon landing. Dave McGowan I’m on the fence about. I know Mark’s opinion, but why belabor that point. He was a writer. His analysis of the Apollo missions is relatively unbiased. But yes, there are some redflags around the man for sure. His Boston Marathon work was revelatory, but that was probably a limited hangout for people like me–people who lost the narrative after uncovering the absurd theater of 9/11.
Petra and Minime, we don’t need the same old arguments anymore. You both exposed yourselves by being sloppy. Anglicisms are always a dead giveaway, but the fact you both used them in consecutive posts shows what sloppy, bottom-of-the-barrel agents you are. Tyre, tyres are not American English spellings. No American would ever use those spellings for any reason whatsoever. The chances that you would both use those spellings in consecutive posts proves, if nothing else, you’re both English. So what are two Englishmen doing here hijacking a thread? But beyond two Englishman coming here and hijacking a thread lurks something more suspicious. Your sloppiness has exposed you. Devil’s in the details, mates.
There’s no way out for either of you. Nothing you will say in response will convince me otherwise. Minime has always been in these threads promoting and defending Miles Mathis and his preposterous idiocies. Some even speculate that Minime is Miles himself. Miles does, by the way, share the same fondness and affinity for Anglicisms and English spellings. Many have proved that. He tried to worm his way out of that accusation. But it failed. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that an American English writer should ever use Anglicisms or English spellings. If they do, they’re either presumptuous, or terrible writers, or both. In Miles’ case, it’s both.
Those of us who have been at this long enough can spot these spooks like deers lurking in the brush on the side of the road. The above back-and-forth between these two spooks is a classic hijacking method. Beating the old dead horse ad infinitum. Leaving the argument open-ended to continue on ad infinitum. Sorry, boys, but there are a few of us left who have broken free from that psychological treadmill and are never going back. You must have been redeployed to try the same tricks on Gen Z that you employed on my Gen X.
Here’s the problem for you both though. Pandora’s Box has opened via the interweb. The work done on Apollo, 9/11, Sandyhook, Boston Marathon are so obviously fake and pisspoor, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Luckily you’re dealing with a populace with a general IQ of two. But not me, fellas. NOT ME.
Petra is here pushing those absurd Apollo images as real? You’re kidding, right? I’ll just stop this right now at the absurd and preposterous moonscapes. The backdrops are so patently absurd that only a moron would believe them as something other than CIA sound-stage productions. Enough.
But both of you using “tyre”, “tyre tracks” is beyond suspicious. Had one of you used it, I would’ve raised an eyebrow, or at least determined you were an Englishman. I smell the blood of an Englishman. But for Minime to use that spelling in the following rebuttal post stinks. You guys can explain all you want, call me every ad hominem in the book: You know, employ your usual tactics. While they may work on others, not on me. So spare yourself the effort.
Next Petra will be here trying to tell us how a man severed both femoral arteries and survived for 20 minutes laying on a sidewalk on Boylston St. Maybe he’ll try telling us how two 500,000 ton structures vaporized into dust in less than a minute. How steel beams vaporized in mid air. How citizens running from the collapse all glitched into pisspoor video game figures. Please don’t “tyre” us anymore with your absurdities.
Btw, will you guys ever mention that all the astronauts who played a round of golf on the moon were all 33rd Degree Freemasons. Probably not. You never do. Americans didn’t go to the moon, humanity didn’t go to the moon. The Freemasons went to a sound studio to play golf.
You boys need to “kick the tyres” a little more.
LikeLike
Did not know the English say tyre (this is an ancient city too btw). But Petra is from OZ or NZ perhaps they say it too? But Petra so far failed to give her best 5 reason/proofs of her theory.. (I asked her at substack, my name there is “schlafschaf77” and at BC I am Nexus77 cheers 🙂
LikeLike
Petra, you may or may not know, has written here and elsewhere about the moon landings being real, as she sees it. At one time, to my eternal shame, I banned her, but then relented thinking what is the problem with people disagreeing about stuff?
In my view the moon landings were faked, but I don’t know why. I only speculate it was a distraction for something of a major nature that was being done out of view.
LikeLike
Mark you’re being disingenuous. What’s the old argument: the moon landings can’t be faked because NASA had 4 million employees working on the moon project and they would all have to be in on it? I exaggerate, but the claims are something like 200,000-400,000 – doesn’t matter – it’s all payroll padding and cooking the books with fake employees, yada yada.
For that matter does anyone think its hard to find 200,000 whores who will sign a piece of paper (non disclosure agreement, aka NDA) for a handful of trinkets and a pension? Please wake up people.
LikeLike
I merely wish to respect the ideas of a person for whom I hold respect and with whom I disagree on this matter.
LikeLike
“Petra and Minime,…, both use those spellings in consecutive posts proves, if nothing else, you’re both English. So what are two Englishmen doing here hijacking a thread?”
But, but…. I’m not Englishman. And most certainly not Miles Mathis. You’re just full of it, you know, shite.
Let me clear this up for you – I never claimed Moon landings were real. Quite the opposite, they’re as fake as your reasoning here. However, physics in relation to the rocket engines and basic principles of mechanics involved are spot on. My argument was about that you don’t need to fake a rocket launch in order to fake a Moon landing. I don’t know where the rocket went but I do know that the pysics of rocket engines is realistic and does work in reality. Have you ever noticed a simple fireworks? I bet not, ’cause your head is sucked to far up your bottom. Just speculating here, of course….
Defending Miles Mathis – yes, I do admit I do defend him against pointless trolls. Argue with arguments, show me where he’s wrong or where is the misdirection in his papers. Or just show me anything except empty accusations of him being an agent. Or whatever it is that you’re accusing him of. My goodness how I despise people speaking out of turn…
LikeLike
Sam, you did what needed to be done. The purpose of these agents is to spin our wheels endlessly. I was quite disappointed that such a lame psyop as the moon landing was being documented on this blog. I have way too many things at this point to do that don’t involve arguing about the fakeness of the space race.
The space psyop is quite ridiculous. You are either all in, or out. I am out. One fake means everything is suspicious. Please examine the record. I have, over many years, particularly since 2020 when I had more time on my hands and realized the world is upside down.
As of today I find no evidence of space travel or satellites being possible. As these agents can find out I am one of the top living chemists, so please do not take my opinions lightly. Thank you very much.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, Mr. Oh-so-great-chemist. You’re so high above this, being ultra intelligent or something, that you don’t need to write a single argument about anything, except for your high-flying opinion. I’m so glad you comment here and help make complicated issue easy to see through. You’re a true gift to humanity and readers here.
A couple of questions: where is your own blog or one single paper explaining anything about fakery in this world? What is you contribution to disclosing truth, like, anywhere at any point in time? How does one post with few dozens of comments make you tag Mark as being disingenuous? Is that some kind of new chemistry-based analysis over the net?
Talking about forum trolls….where all written in these few comments is an OPINION about Englishmen and accusing me of being Miles himself? And then elaborating on it, while saying absolutely nothing, nada, zilch about the subject at hand. Yeah, I read it – you’re so important you don’t have time to discuss the most obvious. Just beat it, dude.
LikeLike
I should never have posted on this one. Space, meh. Just keep wasting time throwing cream pies at each other.
I do know it is quite suspicious to be endorsing satellite data on “sun spots” using silly hand-plotted data because you’re supposedly one-upping the air force. How this data is supposed to be reliable I have no idea
space, I’m out. How about you just answer a simple question this time MM. Don’t fudge around, if you’re saying satellites are legit, I assume you are awed by the latest moon landings from Japan, India, etc.
LikeLike
Ray: I missed your specifics on “satellites being [not] possible”, would you elaborate or point me to those facts please. Thanks.
LikeLike
I will try to make this brief.
For homework please read entire cluesforum on space and other hoaxes. I have read the entire cluesforum website, along with Miles work, and many other sites. I’m not going to say I don’t read other peoples work, unlike MM. You get smart by reading and having an open mind.
There is a lot on satellites. I admit this one took the longest to realize is almost certainly fraudulent, in my humble opinion.
Go back to the beginning. Sputnik: was it legit? A beachball painted silver with CB whip antennae’s, launched by a helium filled roman candle. Yuri Gagarin? Terrible fake hoax that is well known even in Russia. Crash landing on the steppe with only a little parachute to slow you down? Just DUMB. Watch the historic videos, as one must to bury the nuke fakes.
Once you see it was fake from the beginning, are you telling me at some point it turned real? Because they are claiming they could launch a refrigerator into space, have it orbit, have the batteries never wear out (whereas a Tesla can only go 300 miles??!!), withstand extreme temperatures and radiation from the sun, then near absolute zero temperatures in the dark, and keep on ticking like the energizer bunny.
Come back and tell me if Sputnik is real. If not, and you still satellite technology is real, we have a big issue. If you think it was legitimate, I don’t know what to say other than NORAD is tracking Santa Claus this December 24, and you can determine when he delivers your presents based on their radar and NASA satellites.
LikeLike
FYI I am willing to admit I am wrong about satellites or space, I just need hard proof. Based on my experience hiking at high altitudes, 15-17,000 feet (Mexico’s dormant volcanos, specifically La Malinche and Ixty), I know the air gets very thin, and solar radiation goes way up. So ostensibly once you reach high altitudes, i.e. “space” radiation goes way up (for UV, X-rays, solar particles).
What do we know orbits earth? The moon? OK. What about the sun? It sure appears to “orbit” the earth. What other proof is there of man made satellites? I have been an avid air rifle and firearms enthusiast since I was 5 or so, memorizing ballistics tables of velocities, energies, trajectories, ballistic coefficients, and so on. A sattelite is like a cannonball fired into the air that never comes down. What proof is there that once an object gets to a particular altitude, there is no more solar wind pushing the object towards the earths surface, or micrometeoroids (supposedly raining on earth all the time), or other objects, and that there is ZERO drag – i.e. ZERO atmosphere, molecules of gas. This actually contradicts present reported observations that suggest the earths “atmosphere” extends out to the moon, at the least, which makes sense from a standard model explation of the earth and moon and how they work together.
Moreover, if you’re saying they somehow managed to nail the math for orbitals in the 1950s, then they would have had to solve a 4 body problem with high confidence: earth, sun, moon, and satellite, knowing all gravitational forces year round, 24/365.
LikeLike
Moreover I really hope these things, these shills, these Mother F-er’s realize time is short, and we’re tired of lies. Our creator hates playing games, cutting corners, taking short-cuts. You play too much.
LikeLike
@Ray
But you don’t actually need any satellite to count the sun spots, do you? A good telescope plus filters are good enough to do the job properly. Like it was done for decades before any satellite was supposed to take over that task.
I said satellites could be real, all tech needed is plausible. What’s your argument against such tech? Rockets don’t work in vacuum or anything as silly as that? I’m curious enough to want to know what’s the reason for your skepticism.
I’m not awed by anything. I didn’t even pay attention to those news. It’s hardly any new thing they did, if they really did it at all. Didn’t look into it so I don’t have any opinion about it other than I don’t really care. This world we live in is so terribly f*cked up I rather spend my time thinking about earthly issues that are impacting my life.
LikeLike