In 1794 Captain George Vancouver sailed to Icy Strait. He found it choked with ice, and what was to become Glacier Bay was barely noticeable. The ice was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles wide in places, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. In 1889 John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay and by 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier had retreated 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth. This rapid retreat is found only here in Southeast Alaska. Scientists have been studying the phenomena hoping to learn how glacial activity affects climate change.
Note that the Industrial Revolution did not commence until the late 1800s, so that human use of fossil fuels could not possibly have anything to do with the massive retreat of the Icy Strait. Some other game is afoot.
I decided a while back not to write any more about climate change, as it was a beaten-to-death horse. OK, but just a bit more this morning. I do like the line above, “Scientists have been studying …”. I can ‘splain it, this glacial retreat, not that they would listen since I am not offering any scientific grant money. The reason why the Icy Strait retreated as it did, so rapidly, is that it got warmer here.
Why here and not other places? Nobody knows. But “scientists” are quick to offer that it warms faster in cold places than already warm places. I might also add that the wind sometimes blows harder in places where it is already windy.
We spent yesterday on a vessel that took us up Glacier Bay to Johns Hopkins Glacier, with amazing sights on the way, such as sea lions, mountain goats, a humpback whale and a pod of Orcas. Ice is all about, and melting is all about too. There is a kind of melancholy, mostly unspoken, as in “see it while you can”, as if it is all going away. Glaciers are an interesting phenomenon in that they either grow or shrink, but do not stabilize. Most of them up here are shrinking, but not all. That’s because, as noted above, it’s getting warmer.
Why? Again, nobody knows. Humans are equipped with short-term-thought brains, but there is a bigger picture beyond our grasp. It is this: The planet warms and cools. We’re in a small part of the larger Holocene Interglacial Period, a 14,000 year time of warmth that has fostered civilization, allowed us to multiply our numbers and resources. It is delightful! May it continue to warm us.
Maybe the best explanation for the Holocene is Milankovitch cycles, and that will have to do until some other genius arrives. Within the Holocene, for maybe a couple of hundred years, the Northern Hemishpere got cooler, a period we call the Little Ice Age. Cold is debilitating, and while civilization still advanced it was slowed by shorter summers, crop failures, famines and advancing ice fields. LIA ended, thankfully, and since 1860 or so we’ve been getting warmer, bit by bit. This warming that is going on, whether or not aided by use of fossil fuels (probably not) is nice.
That’s all there is to say about it other than to stop with all the blathering and bitching. It’s better to be warm than cold. Scientists are like children in a playground … we need to keep them occupied. Better now we have them studying Moon landings and trips to Mars to keep them out of our hair. Were not going anywhere, were not getting off this rock anytime soon, (Shhh! Don’t tell them!)
About all of that ice … we were on a catamaran in a bay that opened up these last 250 years. That allows us to see all the melting and its effects. We can do this in summer. In winter it’s a little harder. The glaciers stop with the melting. Gravity moves them downhill, and those massive ice rivers are indeed impressive. Scientists have studied glacial retreat and provide dates when the forward wall of each glacier was at each place. Again the melancholy!
What we don’t see, most of us anyway, are the ice fields. They are at higher altitudes where sunlight and summer warmth affects them less, causing some melting and movement. They are too massive to describe. Usually, to give us perspective, they measure the ice fields in terms of states … this one the size of Connecticut, this one Vermont, etc. What melting is going on is hardly affecting them, so big are they. The Glaciers like the Hopkins one we saw yesterday are the arms of the octopus, that’s all.
There was a time when all the continental glaciers did indeed melt, and the result was catastrophic, but not many of us were around to experience it. It was the onset of the Holocene when, for reasons beyond my grasp, warmth came on like a lion, all of the land-based glaciers melted, and the Arctic caps shrank. Ocean levels rose by 400 feet or more and coastal areas gave way to interior lands that became the new coastlines. Life was precious, preserved in the tropics but barely hanging on in what we now call North America and Siberia.
It cooled after this period of extreme warmth, oceans backed off, land masses recovered, and new glaciers formed. All that we see in the way of continental glaciers is a recent phenomenon. There’s now some shrinkage, as George Costanza once noted when he was exposed to cold water. But it is minimal. If past is prologue we are headed for yet another tIme of ice and starvation. Some hope our technology, and fossil fuels, will preserve our societies.
One thing for sure, the windmills won’t save us. Solar panels will form chasms and valleys upon which ice fields will rest. People might speculate that they were part of some religious ritual if uncovered, and they won’t be wrong. I do hope, as many “scientists” speculate, that fossil fuels are a self-renewing resource. That might get us through to the next interglacial.
Otherwise, think about moving to places closer to the equator. Maybe that is why the NFL is expanding to Brazil this year … ya think?
Piece of Mindful 
If the ambient temperature becomes warmer than 0ºC, ice will melt. But it doesn’t melt instantly. As a general rule, for a given annual average temperature, the larger the mass of ice, the longer it will take to melt. If the mass of ice is large enough, melting could take thousands of years. It’s one of those “lags” that climate scientists only seem to take into account when they find it convenient.
Another factor is the amount of precipitation falling as snow, which can cover the ice or even add to it. As a general rule, for a given annual average temperature, the more snow falls, the longer it will take to melt.
This is basic physics. I don’t see why anyone who has mastered Junior High School Science would find this difficult or mysterious.
Keep writing about climate, Mark, by all means. It’s a very interesting and satisfying field of study, much like astronomy, geology or what used to be called natural history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I knew he had a university named after him, but a glacier too? Who the f was that dude anyway.. must have been some impressive cat. Or “Phoenician” as the case may be.
I’ll second Petra, I hope you’re taking pics of all these animals and post some here. Sounds pretty exciting.
Re archaeologists seeing everything as evidence of religious rituals..
One of the funniest/ cleverest books in the history of publishing had this premise. It was called Motel of the Mysteries, and presented future archaeologists uncovering a common motel of our era, interpreting the toilet seat and its “freshly cleaned” band as religious headwear, etc. Written and illustrated very dryly by David Macaulay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The glacier was named by a graduate to honor his Alma mater. JH had nothing to do with it. So our ranger host told us.
LikeLike
Glad you’re having such a exciting trip, Mark, and like Tim G. I think it’s worthwhile continuing to write about climate change. As a former diehard climate activist I’m still suffering cognitive dissonance over it.
Re the moon landings – Part 1:
The important thing about the moon landings isn’t whether they happened or not, the important thing is, if they DID happen then these are the significant facts that need to be recognised:
— EVEN BEFORE they happened, TPTB started pushing out propaganda deriding the landings with the 30m 1968 BBC drama, The News Benders. Many people take this drama at face value but no way on earth would the BBC tell us the truth about the fabrication of news events and we can see that ultimately everything in this drama is a lie … except the basic fact that news events are fabricated … but because that fact is so dressed up in lies it simply serves as a means to mislead those skeptical of official narratives.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/priming-the-disbelievers-the-moon
— Disbelievers have not worked out that there has been a moon-landings psyop targeted to them nor are they very receptive to its being pointed out.
Many disbelievers of official narratives are wise to controlled opposition and the targeting of us by TPTB with “special” propaganda just for us, however, if the moon landings really happened disbelievers have been massively duped.
I’m willing to accept being duped no problem, I don’t blame myself for being stupid for being duped – my attitude is I didn’t know any better but now I do know better. With climate change I was massively duped but I feel no shame or embarrassment about it – I honestly thought I did due diligence and the thing is climate change is very complex so I can see how easy it is to make AGW look real. It was really only the covid hoax making me recognise how dishonest “science” can be that started me properly confronting it. As I say, however, I’m still suffering cognitive dissonance and really need to do more research.
LikeLike
Moon landings – Part 2
Mark, in a comment on your previous post you mention the alleged destruction of telemetry data. Two questions:
— How and why would telemetry data be involved in fakery?
— Who told us about the missing telemetry data? (Just like who told us that Larry Silverstein had a dermatology appointment on the fateful day … part of the propaganda campaign to make the disbelievers think “selected” people were spared when, in fact, we have no reason to believe other than everyone was spared. This isn’t to say that Silverstein didn’t actually have a dermatology appointment. Maybe he did. But it’s not a significant fact whether he did or not. The significant fact is the buildings were empty.)
Answer to second question: Dave McGowan told us about the missing telemetry data.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
“Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.”
But the fact of telemetry data missing or not is not a significant fact because we have sufficient OTHER data to tell us astronauts landed on the moon. Do we need to try to dig up every alleged person who died in staged events to be sure the event was faked or not? No, we don’t need that information because we have OTHER information to tell us the event was faked.
“Missing telemetry data!” is simply propaganda to mislead us into thinking something important is missing when it isn’t.
LikeLike
Regardless of whether the moon landings were real or not, what’s important to the “news benders” is public perception. They play their hand based on the social reality, not the reality reality.
Currently a large minority are absolutely sure they’re fake, a vast number are skeptical or just unsure (ready to lean with the prevailing winds), and a very large minority are absolutely sure they’re real, that such a thing would be impossible to fake. Therefore – all updates to the narrative, movies that come out, admissions that telemetry data is missing, such and such, are just chicken feed, continued playing with the perception, since it still has legs as a wedge belief. None of it really supports either camp*, because they would fan the flames if it were real, as Petra says, but they would equally fan the flames if it were fake.
*In a meta sense.. as an act in itself. The underlying evidence may support one side or the other, but the “propaganda act” itself is not evidence of anything.
LikeLike
But there is important information relating to the propaganda:
— TPTB have such a strong desire to control our minds that they will push out lies about things that are both true and stated as being true in the mainstream. The moon landings is the only event I know of where they do this. Apollo 13 was a psyop though.
— No one apart from yours truly has worked out that there are agents pushing anti-moon landing propaganda although some believers of the moon landings recognise that a couple of these agents tell lies – they just don’t think the lies are due to their being agents because that’s outside their paradigm of how the world works – and there are disbelievers who recognise these people as agents, they just don’t recognise the lies they say on the moon landings – which is extremely telling, no? Disbelievers recognise these people as agents but cannot see the lies they say on the moon landings.
I don’t think there’s any doubt the moon landings happened simply because, a priori, when there’s mountains of evidence for something that evidence MUST tell the truth. You can’t have mountains of evidence that ultimately tells you a lie, that simply isn’t a thing. Whenever you think there’s mountains of evidence saying one thing but the truth is another those mountains of evidence will prove to be propaganda of some kind as with germ theory, vaccination, etc
So many people try to say the landings didn’t happen but they have no argument. I agree that the astronauts look like dolls in the rovers but there is a reasonable explanation for their stiffness (plus they are too much at a distance to be able to detect small movement if it were happening) and the rovers themselves on the terrain look perfectly real. Missing telemetry data makes no sense as an argument because we wouldn’t expect any kind of telemetry data in fakery. If they weren’t on the moon why would they create telemetry data? Moreover, as already stated we have sufficient evidence without the missing telemetry data.
LikeLike
As I’ve said, I don’t claim any certainty about on the underlying debate, I can only observe the perception management that goes on around it, and would be in play in either case.
WRT your last point on telemetry data, you seem to be getting turned around or maybe too caught up in your own viewpoint? Obviously if the mission were fake, they would need to fake all sorts of data including that (if they wished to address all doubts raised by skeptics), or try to explain it away (as they have done.)
If the landing was real, there are a couple possibilities – one, the bureaucracy really did mishandle and treat historical data carelessly, a possibility. Two, they lost it or didn’t care about it AND they fed it to their faux skeptics as a good funny storyline (“NASA erased the tapes!” etc) to troll people and keep the debate rolling. But that latter applies if it was a fake mission as well.
I guess the only way it would be dispositive is if, as Mark says, they provided the data, and it could be shown to be impossible, phony data. But with no data, you just have their claim, well we lost it, our bad.
LikeLike
“Obviously if the mission were fake, they would need to fake all sorts of data including that (if they wished to address all doubts raised by skeptics), or try to explain it away (as they have done.)”
Questions:
— 1. Where do we see any evidence at all of what might be considered “telemetry data”, assuming the landings were faked?
— 2. How would the fakery occur in such a way that they needed to destroy it? What was different about it than the telemetry data that was supposedly faked but OK?
The bottom line though is we don’t need the missing telemetry data just as we don’t need to dig up the bodies of the alleged dead people on 9/11. We have sufficient information to tell us the landings were real without the missing telemetry data.
Another bottom line is that telemetry data going missing is not exactly evidence. Data gets wiped, it’s a fact of life.
“Missing telemetry data!” is P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A provided to us by good old agent, Dave McGowan.
I really don’t see why you think there’s any argument at all against this Tim. I have so very little to say, so very, very little, but the little I do have is so very hard to get through even though to me it’s just so obvious.
LikeLike
It is indeed the presence of McGowan that tells me that both sides of the Moon matter are part of a larger hoax. The four words Look Here Not There sum it up best. McGowan is an open and obvious spook.
Missing magnetic tapes? Can it be more obvious? Can anyone tell me in simple language what they contained?
NASA is working both sides of this con, messing with us on several levels. If indeed everything we know is false, that would include both the Moon landings and the evidence they are fake, and the ensuing fun and games, just as with JFK, keeps us occupied for decades.
LikeLike
Mark,
Hope you enjoyed the rest of your holiday or are still enjoying it.
No one – as far as I’m aware – has come up with a single thing that says the moon landings were a hoax. I’ll readily admit that the stiffness of the astronauts in the rover makes them look fake but at the same time the rovers moving around looks perfectly real and the explanation for the stiffness I find reasonable. This is a discussion I had with ChatGPT on the subject:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68848307-93b4-800a-8972-eb56f2e7c764
As lay people who are we to say – “No, the astronauts wouldn’t have their arms at that strange stiff-looking 90 degrees due to the pressurisation of their suits,” and how is that claim going to convince others?
I’m not interested in what I think is true or what I believe when it comes to trying to persuade others. I want to be able to lay irrefutable facts before them. I know from bitter experience those irrefutable facts won’t necessarily do that at all but I want – at least – to be able to lay those facts before them.
I don’t believe “the arms of real astronauts wouldn’t look stiffly bent at 90 degrees on the rover” qualifies as an irrefutable fact and when you consider the apparent reality of the movement of the rover, the movement of the dust and the seeming intense light from a single light source against a black sky, it’s a claim that has no persuasive power.
LikeLike
Hi Petra,
We seem to be talking past each other, so I went back and reread Mark’s comment and your chatgpt explanation. I will assume that’s accurate for discussions sake.
I forgot it said there were copies of the telemetry data, just not the original higher res transmission. I’m not expert enough to say what the implications of that are for its use as evidence.
For instance, would a copy quality version be something that could be generated easily, say with software? While it might be difficult to make the hi res version, without forensic evidence that it was not made “naturally”? Maybe there’s very little difference, or it would be just as easy to do one as the other – I don’t know.
I’ll respond further below, my phone is scrunching this up..
LikeLike
I’m always very conscious of where the “burden of proof” lies, Tim, because that eliminates unnecessary concern.
A priori, without an explanation for why “missing data” is significant, “missing data” of itself doesn’t mean anything in terms of its importance to knowing whether something is true or not. There’s abundant information we don’t have for 9/11 but we certainly have enough to know what kind of event it was essentially. We don’t know that nobody was killed or injured (I’d say it’s very likely that a few people were at least injured) but we know that essentially it was a staged event (apart from the destructions of the buildings of course).
So these are simple facts:
— 1. The missing data is regarded by those who tell us that the moon landings happened as non-controversial. They say, “Yeah, there’s missing data,” and they explain what it is. I’ve looked at the explanation and I think it’s perfectly reasonable. If you don’t think it is then “burden of proof” is on you to say what’s wrong with the explanation and why the fact of missing data is significant.
— 2. Some lost data is not unexpected with such a large project involving tons and tons of data.
— 3. The putting forward of this missing data as something SIGNIFICANT comes from our agent friend, Dave McGowan – however, there is no explanation from him why it is significant. This implied significance is of the same ilk as the supposed significance of Larry Silverstein having a dermatology appointment on the fateful day.
I’ve put into ChatGPT the paragraph from Wagging the Moondoggie referring to missing data and asked for its response. It seems reasonable to me – burden of proof on you to say why it isn’t.
https://chatgpt.com/share/688ebbe8-dac4-800a-bb9a-cc80122cc5ce
So if someone wants to say that the moon landings’ “missing data” is significant, burden of proof is on them to say why and until someone does I have no interest in the subject.
“All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth.”
George Orwell
LikeLike
Petra, I can’t even reply in order to your last comment because these comment trees start to malfunction on my phone.
I addressed some of your points already in my comments way below, not sure if you saw those or not. I raised some points I would really be interested in hearing your response.
LikeLike
As I see it, when there is say an archeological dig, if an artifact is found its location is recorded, photographed, and it is left in place until there is a good record. It is primary source material. The person who discovered it might recall it and the circumstances around finding it, but that person’s recall is secondary source and not as reliable, as it is a memory.
The original telemetry tapes were primary source material, and researchers down the road would treat them with care, and even, perhaps, be able to verify location of origin of transmissions (Moon surface, aboard LM or CM, Houston, for instance) … the tapes would present primary source evidence. Could they be faked? Yes! However, a skilled investigator might uncover trickery, i.e., time lapse between transmissions is a good clue as to distance of source from recording of transmissions. That would all be part of the package, in my view.
As I see it, whether they even faked the transmission tapes from a basement in Houston, it would be found out … so it became necessary to dispose of all of it. The magnetic tape shortage provided a convenient (probably contrived) excuse. Imagine artifacts of such value not stored properly, catalogued, and duplicated for posterity. As long as the tapes were said to exist and NASA claims they were destroyed, we have NASA’s word on their origins, nothing more. It’s not enough.
LikeLike
I can’t believe we are still talking about this, but since we are I’ll put in my 2 cents about the telemetry data, since data analytics is something I do for a living.
I’m just going on common sense, and past experience. Here is why NASA “destroyed” the telemetry data. Because it would extremely hard to fake. We’re not talking about making a movie, which is what they did, and easy to generate a fake reality.
They needed to destroy it because as the decades went on, external researchers would be asking to look at the record. I’m sure in the early years NASA would have told someone looking for the raw data that it was impossible to retrieve, because it was only on a few magnetic tapes Faking large amounts of data is very hard, because there is metadata – e.g. timestamps associated with the data, and everything with have to align with all the other telemetry data. It’s not as easy to do that as you think. And what exactly did they use for a coordinate system while navigating? Really, its extraordinarily complex to get to the moon by “pointing and aiming” at a target 200,000 miles away and moving through space.
LikeLike
I can’t believe we’re still talking about it either, Ray.
Your response is pure speculation.
I asked you this question on Mark’s last post but you didn’t answer. Can you pls answer now? In relation to the moonhoaxers you said:
” … not everything is correct … “
Tell me one thing that is correct, Ray.
Bill Kaysing, Massimo Mazzucco, Dave McGowan and Bart Sibrel have been exposed as agents who have not a signle word of truth on the subject between them … unless you have one.
LikeLike
Back in the day I had a large collection of film and sport on video tapes. One day I decided to save space on my bookshelf but didn’t want to get rid of the videos.
I came up with the so ingenious idea to backup the tapes on digital support.
All it takes is to connect a videotape player to a digital video recorder or PC, press the play button on the player and the rec button on the recorder, then burn the content on a DVD or BD.
Then you can even reuse the tapes if you are so inclined.
But too bright of an idea and too much technology for NASA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good comment. Guess what was on the History Channel today in the gym: yes you guessed it, the Apollo landings again. Talk about re-runs.
Another annoying place it shows up is on USA passports, I got mine renewed and inside is a picture of that claptrap jalopy moon lander.
LikeLike
Missing data of itself isn’t evidence of fakery – we expect data to get lost on such a big project and at archaeological digs there’s loads of missing “data” no? but they still think they can work things out to a degree at least – we know they get it wrong sometimes but archaeological digs are a completely different situation from the moon landings and don’t work as a good analogy. Each piece of data is precious because it’s so rare whereas for the moon landings it’s a completely different situation.
What you have to do is show that the missing data would somehow expose fakery and you haven’t done that.
LikeLike
Archeological digs are not science, they are busy work for flunkies and idiots who can’t do anything else.
LikeLike
You do realize you just asked me to prove a negative?
LikeLike
The whole moon landing show looks like fakery. It would be one thing if the story/science were plausible, and the videos and photos convincing, then we would have an actual question: did they actually do it? Then the telemetry data would matter.
Unfortunately they are riddled with lousy production values, due to limited budget and 1960s film techniques, making the fake completely obvious to an objective observer with a background in critical thinking and college physics/engineering level education.
One more thing – this was the most expensive science experiment in history. So the data is precious. And they say they trashed it. Was that written into the grant proposal? Or did the Masons who got the funding even need to submit a grant? If they did, did it say they would make sure to destroy all the data at the end of the experiment – so that no one else could ever get to the moon? that is the only stupid explanation i can come up with for that story.
LikeLike
Still not answering my question, Ray? Your prerogative but it just means you have no credibility.
LikeLike
There’s another mundane explanation for all this Moon tomfoolery: brand marketing. Has anyone else noticed how many people, especially young people, wear NASA gear? I see it everywhere, clearly NASA is now a trendy brand, like Chanel or Polo. I suspect Petra works for the NASA marketing division to do brand maintenance – I’m not kidding – to ensure the NASA brand keeps selling to the minds and brings in revenue from the young trying to look “hip and scientific”.
LikeLike
What I ask you to do, Mark, is show that there isn’t sufficient data to show that the moon landings happened.
I’ll certainly make the argument for “missing data” myself and recognise it as valid elsewhere, eg, yesterday I saw the argument that a minute of footage in the Epstein “suicide” episode is a GTFOH situation.
I make the argument that the missing audio to go with the transcripts for the 118 firefighter testimonies is highly anomalous.
Missing data can certainly be a significant fact … but it doesn’t have to be and it certainly isn’t in the case of the ML because there’s tons of OTHER evidence that we can use.
LikeLike
Re Epstein I mean “missing minute of footage”.
LikeLike
I take it as a compliment from you Petra that I have no credibility.
That’s a good name if I ever have a blog: no credibility.
LikeLike
there’re mountains of evidence that star trek was real life. It’s called Klingon.
LikeLike
From a propaganda standpoint, leaders don’t care if we believe or not in the Moon landings, only that we do one or the other. The point is to “look here, not there”. It is the “there” that intrigues me. What are they hiding? I do not know, but that’s how secrets are kept, misdirection, and not outright lies.
If all of the video, telemetry, audio recordings that were lost with destruction of the tapes, well, it could be that all of that stuff never existed, and saying it was destroyed is the perfect cover story for that particular lie. Again, misdirection. That’s how I read it.
Historians, and we do have a few of quality, need unpacking material, original source data, and not NASA’s word for things. By means of the tape destruction story, that resource is permanently lost. Now it is NASA’s word against doubters.
By the way, we do not know what percentage of the population, national and worldwide, disbelieve in the landings. There was a survey back at the time, published in Esquire or some other popular source, and the percentage of disbelievers was high, in the twenties. It was homosexuals and blacks least likely to believe, which makes sense as they are disenfranchised and therefore not buying in. I am going on memory here, by the way, and we all know how reliable memories are.
And anyway, liars have exclusive access to school kids. Teachers are the best propaganda asset around.
LikeLike
Mark, very thoughtful reply. I have been thinking along a similar vein since you re-opened this discussion: that to me I don’t care whether they went to the moon or not. I learned nothing from what they have presented to us. And it would only matter if I knew the truth if we could personally vote on whether or not to fund NASA. And my vote would be give them zero dollars. And that any money went going to the moon was a foolish waste of resources, especially since it is a dead end of so-called exploration.
LikeLike
I would say they do care if people believe or not, from a perception management standpoint – it makes a difference if it’s split, or vast majority disbelief or vast majority full belief. Propaganda is a dynamic system that has to meet the public where it is. It will always be true anyway, that whether the public is “right” or “wrong,” they’ll (mostly) be so for the “wrong” reasons. That is, they will reach their conclusion based on nonrational factors. If everyone tipped to disbelief (and if hypothetically we take as given that to be correct) it would not be because everyone saw scientific flaws in the case, or poor evidence – it would be because rhetoric persuaded them, or staged performances, or faith in authorities collapsed, etc.
In the current climate, since imo there’s a large minority that’s either very skeptical of the moon landings, or doubtful, but it’s unlikely to go mainstream, they are toying with that group. It’s become a well worn joke of a conspiracy theory, a hackneyed signifier for all of them – “if you go here, you’d go anywhere.” So Silverman can get some kind of ambiguous street cred from espousing it – while at the same time being ridiculous, a “celeb,” but a nonserious comedian one, can say that. They can’t all across the board say that – unless that were called for by perception management. And she may just be flying solo on it, just her own little thing, or, maybe she was put up to it, part of her role and character.
LikeLike
I was also thinking how nuclear weapons paved the way to belief in space exploration, as documented by NASA. In the 1960s there were likely very few doubters of nuclear weapons – which as a psyop was valuable in so many ways, including the belief that anything was possible – both negative, in blowing up the world Dr. Strangelove style, and cruising to the moon and back in a glorified VW Bus (hardly any more insulation, the g-damn moonlander capsule was so thin you could stick a box cutter through it (OK maybe not, but a sharp screwdriver yes).
So the nuclear physicists, and astrophysicists, are in not so high regard these days. I held such scientists in high regard before carefully studying their so called great feats and theories of the 20th century. IMO the 19th century was far more impressive in regards to scientific achievement, e.g. the periodic table, Maxwells laws, thermodynamics, etc.
LikeLike
Steering this back around to climate change, what I found funny was some of my colleagues in Europe are freezing their butts off right now, namely in northern England, and Austria. I had a couple calls this week with people there and they were complaining how cold it was. It seems when there is very hot weather they are selective in emphasizing that, but find an excuse for cold weather.
LikeLike
As a very avid hiker, especially in my younger years, I understand rocky peaks and glaciers look spectacular. However, notice something: people don’t live there. Humans used to dislike mountains, in general, especially very steep, rocky, barren ones, because they are inhospitable and passing through them was dangerous. My mother has said she hates looking at barren empty mountains. I have come to somewhat agree with her – there is an excessive romantic attachment to mountains as “wilderness” and as “pure” spaces without habitation. I have grown more fond of lowland forests and farmed rural areas, that have some human presence as I get older.
To get to my point: why are so many people crying about glaciers melting? Nothing lives there, and they are dangerous to cross. Sure they look spectacular, but how many people can afford to take cruises or helicopter rides to see this stuff? Mostly upper middle class and rich people.
LikeLike
Continued from above -Petra wrote –
1. Where do we see any evidence at all of what might be considered “telemetry data”, assuming the landings were faked?— 2. How would the fakery occur in such a way that they needed to destroy it? What was different about it than the telemetry data that was supposedly faked but OK?The bottom line though is we don’t need the missing telemetry data just as we don’t need to dig up the bodies of the alleged dead people on 9/11. We have sufficient information to tell us the landings were real without the missing telemetry data.Another bottom line is that telemetry data going missing is not exactly evidence. Data gets wiped, it’s a fact of life.”
1 – I’m confused by this question – your chatgpt quote said there was/ is telemetry data. What difference does it make whether we assume the landings were faked or not? That’s the evidence we’re given, about that part of the claim/ official story.
2. Again a very confusing question, but maybe you’re projecting views onto me that I never stated. I never said they “faked telemetry data, and then needed to destroy it.” IF they faked telemetry data, the data that’s apparently available for review, then I assume it shows nothing conclusive either way. As said above, I don’t know if the lost hi-res version is technically either unfakeable or difficult to fake without leaving forensic clues.
LikeLike
— 1. Yes, there is telemetry data but we – as lay people – don’t bother ourselves with it. We’re looking at video and photos and listening to audio, etc, we’re not looking at automated monitoring data about systems, environment, or health (numbers, measurements)
— 2. I’m not saying you said they faked telemetry data, I’m just saying “if they faked it why would they need to destroy it?”. What I’m saying is it doesn’t make sense to fake telemetry data and then feel the need to destroy it. If they faked the moon landings they would be destroying loads of things – the numerous practice takes, etc – not just “some telemetry data”. Of course, more than telemetry data is said to be missing but there’s still so much data remaining – just like 9/11 – how much data are we missing there? Humungous amounts … but we don’t need it to work out the truth.
LikeLike
9/11 and the moon landings are completely different animals. The moon landings are something they should be very proud of, and release all the data, that would have been preserved if they were doing actual “science”. Clearly this was just BS entertainment for the masses. Again as I said before, what scientific advancement was made by going to the moon?
And these moon landing shills really irritated me this weekend. In Portsmouth NH this weekend they had telescopes setup looking at the moon. And guess what – the people running it had printed brochures of the moon showing that piece of $hit Moon lander held together with Mylar and duct tape – it’s looks like something put together by Red Green (I hope a few of you get that reference). Clearly they, and maybe Petra, are pushing hard to brainwash the young generation, who are going to watch the moonlandings and say “really? this looks like a bad Star Trek episode”
9/11 they can just say F-you it’s national security so you can’t have the “data”.
LikeLike
1 – Mark below says you have only NASA’s word for it, no evidence.. is that correct? NASA claims they have copied of the telemetry data, but it’s not available for review or analysis?
As far as us being laypeople, that’s true, but it makes a difference to me whether evidence is at least available for knowledgeable experts all over the world to examine. Ray explained above, based on his background and experience, how experts are able to assess such evidence – at least when an original source is available. But are there even copies available?
In addition, most laypeople accessible evidence is less conclusive – the type of thing where people bring their subjective view to bear, often based on confirmation bias or predetermined conclusions. Ie, disbelievers look skeptically at video, believers look credulously. (Although I know you claim you first reviewed masses of subjective data with a skeptical mind, before changing your view to belief.)
2 – you’re not saying I said that, but then you refute the point again.. okay. Well who did say that? Is that a common view?
Maybe you mean the idea Mark and Ray discussed about, if someone broadcast data from a non-moon location, in order to simulate the data feed, but it would have problematic artifacts in it.. In that case, I think they would only do it if they had some use for the resultant product, subsequently copied or degraded in such a way as to remove the artifacts.. not sure if that’s what you were asking?
LikeLike
I thank everyone for being involved in this discussion because it has crystallised in my mind how ludicrous the “missing data” argument for fakery is and, how, in fact, the nature of the “missing data” very much argues for the reality of the moon landings not against it and if you can’t appreciate that fact all I can say is that there is some kind of blindness going on.
Let’s hypothesise the moon landings were faked and ask about what data would be “missing” in the presentation?
— The data that would be “missing” would be all the takes they needed for the faked movies of the moon landings.
— Data that wouldn’t be missing is trivial-to-produce data such as biometrics.
We have no evidence of all the takes needed for the movies and no one has told us about them, we only know about the trivial-to-produce data such as biometrics … from agent, Dave McGowan. Sure, maybe ALL the footage of the moon landings isn’t still around, however, there’s still hours and hours of it.
Ray says that the ML and 9/11 are completely different animals and the ML should be something they’re very proud of and that they’d release all the data … but they have released tons and tons and tons of data, they are proud of them, you don’t need ALL the data and there are perfectly good reasons for data being lost – that’s what happens in very big projects with an overwhelming amount of data.
I’m not making a false equivalence by speaking of 9/11 and the ML in the same breath. Two very different events can reasonably be compared if you compare them on relevant criteria.
This is the criterion I’m comparing them on: fullness of data available and what we can work out from the data available.
In both cases we do not have full data … but for very different reasons.
The commonality is though that we can work out in each case what essentially happened because we have sufficient data … and in the case of the ML because we can work out there is a small part at least that is a psyop – Apollo 13 (I’d suspect A1 was too) – because of their Revelation of the Method technique. Also, I don’t think Apollo 13 was a complete fake, I think they probably slingshotted around the moon, they just didn’t land, however, I really need to have a very good look at A13.
I cannot say any more on the subject, I’ve made my case as fully as I can. But once again thanks for crystallising in my mind the ludicrousness of “missing data” acting as argument against the reality of the ML … and just remember who told you about it.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of bombast and grandiosity without getting to the point or answering anything.
The one point you make about biometric data being easy to simulate – apparently the telemetry data consists of much more than that. There are craft coordinates etc, see Mark’s comment below. I’m not at all sure it would be easy to simulate because they all have to sync up plausibly, without creating any artifacts showing evidence of fakery – as Ray explained above, and sounds plausible, that’s not easy to do.
But I still don’t have an answer to the basic factual question, whether there are extensive copies of all types of telemetry data (not just video of astronauts), as chatgpt claimed – or that’s only an assertion by NASA without making it available. Since that’s your last word, I’ll go with Mark’s view that it’s just a claim, unless I learn otherwise in my future web stumblings.
LikeLike
It’s funny too because relying on ChatGTP to give you the “correct” answer is not the best idea. I know a prof. at MIT who teaches courses in AI, and he told us ChatGTP is getting worse with each version, because it incorporates more fake data it created itself into each subsequent version. It’s like a closed loop of fake data making new fake stories. And he quite literally said that “AI is really only good at creating fakes now”. That floored me.
LikeLike
Also 10% of my facebook feeds are about the moon landings. I’m not kidding. I don’t spend much time on facebook, so the algorithms targeting my interests are likely fairly neutral. They, like Petra, are pushing the moon landings 24/7. Someone is nervous about something. Maybe they shouldn’t have let India and Japan land crafts that looked like something out of Space Invaders on the moon. It’s like everyone wants in on the hoax and they can’t say no!
LikeLike
Sorry, Tim, but I get impatient when I see poor argument after poor argument.
Are the believers of the hypothesis that moon landings are a hoax in the least bit concerned about the “missing data” for the hoax?
Are they concerned that they don’t have an explanation for how they faked astronauts moving in 1/6th gravity (sped up / hanging by wires doesn’t cut it)?
Are they concerned about how they managed to fake a vast brightly monolit lunar landscape against a black sky?
Are they concerned that no one has managed to duplicate the fakery?
Are they concerned that we don’t have the hundreds of failed takes they would have done in order to fake the landings?
No they are not concerned that there’s masses of data we don’t have access to for the moon landings hoax in order to believe it was a hoax.
“Missing data” of itself doesn’t mean anything OK? It doesn’t mean anything.
” … apparently the telemetry data consists of much more than that. There are craft coordinates etc, see Mark’s comment below. I’m not at all sure it would be easy to simulate because they all have to sync up plausibly, without creating any artifacts showing evidence of fakery – as Ray explained above, and sounds plausible, that’s not easy to do.”
Speculation.
Think about what facts you can present to someone who currently believes the moon landings in relation to the “missing data” that would persuade them that yes, the missing data is significant and supports the hypothesis that they were faked. Do you seriously think speculation about how difficult it would be to fake telemetry data is going to have any impact?
I believe the moon landings and I can tell you that speculation that telemetry data would be difficult to fake has ZERO impact. For one thing, seemingly, it’s not as if all of one type of data is missing. Seemingly, there’s some of each type of data present while some is missing. So the question is: why would SOME of one type of data be easy to fake while OTHER data of the same type wouldn’t be?
Bottom line: I’m simply not interested in missing data because I think the data available tells us the story – same for 9/11. End of, Tim, end of.
LikeLike
The other bottom line is that even if the missing telemetry data would be difficult to fake so what? The reason it’s missing might be exactly the reason they tell us it’s missing mightn’t it not because it’s difficult to fake even if it is?
Then what have you got?
If your only argument is that all the data would have been saved because it would have been treated as precious just as archaeological dig data is treated what you’ve got is an an argumentum ad speculum. All you’ve got is speculation. That is all you’ve got.
You haven’t got anything to persuade someone who believes the moon landings.
When you start grabbing at pieces of information in isolation rather than carefully considering ALL the evidence you’re set for silly arguments.
And what you really should do and what I do naturally is think about the case I’m presenting and why anyone who currently holds an opposing position should accept it. Of course, I know facts don’t mean much to lots of people but at least I know what I’m presenting are facts – as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
WordPress froze up.. I wanted to add – re sufficient evidence. As SMJ says above, there’s an entire Klingon language, which could be asserted as conclusive proof that Klingons exist. After all, who would go to all that trouble to fake such a thing? There must have really been Klingon/ human interaction, at some point in the past, for us to have that mountain of evidence. I suppose if the government and media insisted it were so, many people would eventually be persuaded. Their experts would talk convincingly of how anyone who doubts it is a Klingon denier.
Also, you yourself I think dispute germ theory and climate change – both of which have literally thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of scientific papers all taking their existence as a given, and presenting evidence that fits the theories – at least if viewed through that framework.
I agree with your last point that data going missing is not directly confirming evidence of fakery, though it “looks bad” to lose historic records of such a thing, and is a little odd that the big science geeks who work at NASA would not treat all of it like sacred relics, but instead casually be, oh just another day at the office, that time we first went to the moon.
LikeLike
Tim, “telemetry” refers to transmission by radio of data from the Moon, including TV broadcasts, radio transmissions, chatter between astronauts, along with monitoring of equipment, fuel and oxygen supply, and vitally, the course that LM was going to have to take to hook up with CM, jettison LM and return to Earth. Since ordinary transmissions from Earth were delayed, much of that data had to be kept on board LM and CM for immediate use. There is not much talk about the lunar launch and hookup, but it had to have been done masterfully, and six times no less, over the Apollo run.
Of course, I do not believe any of it happened for real, but that is the bone of contention. Say you are NASA, and know you have to archive all this information for future study and that you are caught with pants down. What do you do? Destroy the mythical tapes. This is not hard to fathom.
But that’s just me.
LikeLike
Thanks, I was just vaguely assuming it was some sort of real time coordinates data for the crafts – which I guess was only part of it. I was also under the impression it was being sent live back to mission command, but no, okay.
According to Petra’s chatgpt answer from the previous thread, they DO have all this telemetry data – they only erased the most hi res version, but many copies were made of the data itself.
If that’s incorrect, then I agree it looks very bad for them to “lose” all that key documentation – Petra’s claims notwithstanding that there’s a mountain of other evidence.
LikeLike
she has no evidence to that effect. Only NASA’s word.
LikeLike
I’m just going to make a general comment here in relation to moon landings’ missing data:
When trying to work out the correct hypothesis what has the highest priority are facts that are both irrefutable and significant.
Everyone is agreed that missing data is a fact but so far no one has provided a case for the missing data being a significant fact with regard to the reality of the ML including our source, agent, Dave McGowan which – as the source – needs to be ringing massive alarm bells.
Comparing archaeological digs to ML missing data is a false equivalence. There are tons and tons of ML data which of itself speaks to the reality of the moon landings while with a dig there is scarce material to work with and in the case of the ML it is not unexpected for some of the masses of data to be lost one way or another.
A good exercise for independent thinkers is to put themselves in the shoes of someone who holds an opposing belief and think why they should agree with what you put forward. If I believe the moon landings happened what is persuasive about the dig argument? Why should I accept that as a compelling analogy?
I know that I hardly convince anyone of what I believe to be true but that doesn’t mean I’m not shoving irrefutable, significant facts under their nose. I am. People refuse to recognise them as such. So I guess in a way it may be pointless recommending irrefutable, signficant facts as the way to go … however, I think it’s the best way in terms of determining the truth even if it doesn’t convince others.
LikeLike
i was merely speaking of the nature of historical evidence, and could have used a hundred other examples. There is primary source material, the most reliable, and everything else. A real historian would want to study PSM, and if NASA had it they would preserve it, since it was the most advanced and significant scientific accomplishment in human history. Their “losing” that evidence screams fraud.
I stand by my contention that McGowan is a limited hangout artist. His assignment was to take us this far, no further. They are hiding something far bigger than fake moon landings. That is my quest … what are they hiding, really? All his other work is the same … his Laurel Canyon stuff cued me in on this. it was half-assed and sloppy. Just as with you and the moon, he did not ask the right questions. So the answer did not matter. In his case, he was merely doing his job, misdirection.
There is some agreement here that The Manhattan Project was bogus, that there are no nukes. If so, then what then? What were they doing, really? Does anyone mind my asking?
LikeLike
What were they really doing – great question! Assuring world peace by preventing the hoi polloi from knowing too much? It seems to come down to how much a small cabal, or group, can extract from the masses that quantitates the success of the scam. If you compare the 19th century to 20th century, men became far more specialized, and knowledge became far more diverse. There was no way the common man could be expected to understand physics or chemistry without a strong education in those subjects, and then an even smaller number who advanced to control the technology and knowledge. So the scale of what kind of scams they could run, having near complete control of the media, became immense, worldwide, and something that could be sent around the world near simultaneously. Hence they took the smallest of scales – the atom – and extrapolated to the public that by manipulating the atom they could blow up the world. Or, by extension, they could reach the furthest edges of visible space, like the moon, and edges of the solar system. And extract a pretty profit from controlling the ark of the story. Now, the story is wearing very thin to those who pay attention. So they nearly continuously run some psyop to keep the idea in the subconscious – like Trump ordering some “nuclear” submarines somewhere because Russia said something about something. Same old song and dance, over and over….
LikeLike
I visit Quora now and then, same thing, really pushing it, leading questioning with matter-of-fact no-doubting-it-was-real-answers.
LikeLike
I believe Dinos and space were invented to fill the void filled by the death of Catholicism. The Catholic church ruled the Western world with an iron fist for centuries, with a vast array of mythology and saints you were to believe in. And it was not only advantageous in terms of societal control, but profitable – the church collected a lot of cash. However, the Protestant reformation signaled the death knell for Christianity – it was no longer profitable, and less controllable. So time to blow it up and replace with more scientific, modern myths. Which we pay a lot in taxes to keep going – our awesome nuclear weapon arsenal, and space domination, and supposed continuous exploration, costing us in the USA a quite large % in terms of taxes out of our paycheck. For nothing of course.
LikeLike
Replying here because the nested thread above thwarts my phone –
Petra, I’m not a believer in either side, I’m open to your points, Mark’s, Ray’s, heck even chatgpt if someone stands behind it and says they checked sources..
I was just querying you to expand on your response to Mark, on one specific point. I understand you base your view on the totality, and consider other factors more significant. There are interesting epistemological questions about what evidence to weigh and how to weigh it, but it’s difficult to get anywhere when you try to pin something down, and the other person keeps diverting to “but what does it all mean??” Yes, I agree, an interesting question but not to the point.
From your comments above it sort of sounds like you’re not sure yourself about what telemetry data is or isn’t available – you say “seemingly” this, “seemingly” that – and you add that it’s all totally irrelevant to you too, despite that you asserted it being available in your response to Mark. So I see now that you’re not the person to ask about it – I wasn’t trying to debate you, just to learn more, since you’ve made a point of how deeply you’ve looked into it, before reaching your conclusions.
As far as the evidentiary meaning of missing data, it sounds like you think it should apply to skeptics as well? Ie, they ought to be consistent and demand missing data of fakery? But the burden of proof is on NASA, making the extraordinary claim. They have to provide full, verifiable documentation, not the skeptics. An assertion presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I heard that Wernher von Braun’s German Shepard ate the missing data.
LikeLike
Sure, Tim, I know nothing about the missing telemetry data. Very happy to admit I don’t know anything (although I do know that the missing Slow Scan TV tapes are plausibly justified by the fact they were converted to video even at the time the MLs were broadcast and as, at the time, they couldn’t make use of them other than converting them to the TV format available they weren’t considered so precious – now they have the technology to make a better conversion but too late), however, what is very important to consider, especially when you have masses and masses of data to contend with is where the burden of proof lies.
These are the facts as I see them:
–1. There is missing data – readily admitted to – however that missing data does not contradict the fact that there is still masses of data available and the available data is sufficient to tell us the moon landings happened. Nor, in my opinion, is the missing data anything particularly anomalous but the main point is that there is masses of data to tell us the truth – just like 9/11.
–2. Those who want to say the missing data is significant must prove it. I don’t care about it till someone gives a convincing case that missing telemetry data is significant and it will need to be a very good case because of point 1. What doesn’t qualify as a convincing case is speculation about this that and the other. Not interested in speculation when we have significant facts, eg, masses of data to tell us whether the ML happened or not. And speculations about fakeability of the data are very second-level because lack of ability to fake isn’t inconsistent with the hypothesis that the data was destroyed. If it really was destroyed then whether it would be fakeable or not is irrelevant.
I think it’s perfectly fair to say, I’m not bothering with this argument because the burden of proof is on you and your speculations don’t meet that burden of proof.
LikeLike
Wanted to add – I regret some overly harsh comments in a previous reply I made above. I know you’re admirably tough and thick skinned, but I still apologize for letting my frustration get the better of me. I do value your comments and opinions, and will have to revisit your substack to see what you’ve been discussing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I very much appreciate your apology, Tim, just because you made it – not that I feel that what you said was anything very bad and I understood where it was coming from. Also, as I say, this conversation is helping me clarify my thoughts so I’m perfectly OK with a little narkiness.
What I’ve learnt but have learnt before but need to keep relearning is that when you’re discussing something you can’t let things slide by. People both make things slide by and let things slide by and it’s not good in either case.
With covid, as soon as they told us the nonsense that a Chinese research team had found the Chinese cobra and the many-banded krait to be “reservoirs” of the virus I knew right there and then this was a psyop and there wouldn’t be a virus because in psyops they only do things for real that they want for real and I knew they didn’t want a virus, they only wanted us to believe in one.
But people not awake to psyops just let this nonsense – and much other nonsense, of course – slide right by.
Ray didn’t answer my question asking for one thing that was correct coming from any of the Four Horsemen of the Moon Landings Hoax psyop. If Ray really believes in the moon landings and believes these four guys have truth to tell on them then shouldn’t he provide one thing? The fact that he doesn’t tells me he’s not serious about establishing the truth and if someone isn’t serious about establishing the truth then you can’t really have a proper discussion with them, you’re just wasting your time.
What I see people do all the time is pluck things out of the air to defend their arguments, eg, Mark “pulled out” archaeological digs as being equivalent to the MLs but this is a false equivalence. More importantly though, whatever data might be missing there’s absolutely masses present which tells us the truth and if you want to disprove the ML you simply cannot say “this type of event is equivalent to that one and something that happens in that one must happen in the other”. It’s such a weak argument against the fact that there is masses of data available.
LikeLike
Just a word or two to close this thread, in my mind, anyway. Petra, you are determined to advance your ideas in the face of sometimes savage resistance, and I like that about you, the ability to be right when everyone around you is wrong. That takes moral courage, a rare trait.
But I think that you are wrong in your attempt to place burden of proof on people who think Apollo was fake. It’s on you to make it real. To do so, yes, you can haul out the hundreds of hours of evidence supplied by NASA, but in so doing you are confronted at each turn by evidence of the big fake. To deny that evidence, you simply tell us to prove you wrong. It’s been done, a hundred times over, the missing tapes merely another brick in the wall.
Quora is an “authoritative” source on this matter, that is, a Scopes like confidence trick by spooks to garner trust from poor souls who cannot think on their own. I put up a comment now and then, and oddly, though I get a few likes, I get no responses. The people there on the other side of this supposed “debate” turn out to be unable to supply even rhetoric to counter sound criticism. Here is something I recently posted, which garnered six likes and zero responses, to a moron who used the propaganda-supplied term “deniers” to skeptics:
I wish this was the final word on the subject, but I know it is not, as the moon debate is meant to be fodder for endless distraction, the whole purpose of most controversy among the proles to keep us looking here, not there.
[This overlong response was interrupted halfway through and was put up in two (now three) parts due to my iPad hiding the keyboard at critical points along the way. I’d hate this device!]
*The deaths of Grissom, White and Chafee could have been faked as well, the time of the incineration it took to cook them 33 seconds.
LikeLike
Well Petra has courage, or a nice government pension coming, as the reason she is so adamant. I don’t see any of us getting paid to doubt NASA, unless we’re all freakin’ agents. That would be funny – a bunch of agents arguing with each other, which is how MM sees blogs like this.
On Apollo 1 – I believe strongly they faked the deaths. This is where Petra is partly correct – Bill Kaysing is not a completely reliable source. In interviews he strongly pushes the theory is they were murdered for being skeptics and potential whistleblowers, especially Grissom, who was supposedly a straight arrow. I really doubt it. As far as low earth orbit, maybe they got there, but in some kind of extremely high altitude plane, not in a cannonball capsule.
LikeLike
Also I have a theory why there has been such a strong push of Apollo of late. They have really been pushing the limits of how far they will let their actors, like Trump and Musk, go in their roles. For example Musk has been turned into a total clown show, exposing him for what he is – an actor/charlatan trained to front a company, and be a real life Tony Stark character.
And that starts to eat into the credibility of Musk, big time. Musk was exposed that he’s always been Lone Skum, never a genius. So if Musk=SpaceX=Fraud then NASA=SpaceX=Fraud. Space X has a rich history of fakes with their 33 engine Falcon rocket.
LikeLike
I would also note this loops in Bart Sibrel – who supposedly was threatened by Buzz Aldrins’ grandson to have him “waxed” by the CIA live on microphone. All time great joke. As others have said, they want you afraid to to even look at this research – it could get you killed! Just like Kaysing saying the NASA astro-nuts on Apollo 1 for being potential whistleblowers – he’s doing his job of spreading a false conspriacy theory that will make anyone who works for NASA, and reads that book, think twice about “whistleblowing”. I’m filling in the blanks for Petra who missed these conclusions by just saying everything they said was fake, which is a complete lie. Because their core hypothesis is 100% correct, that the moon landing is 100% BS.
LikeLike
Star Wars was an initiative brought forth during the Reagan presidency and during the Cold War, a fake rivalry designed to keep us in a perpetual state of fear. The program was said to be about introduction of weapons in space that would deter nuclear attack. These included lasers and shields and mirrors, but the program was said to have been a failure and was abandoned.
It came about in close enough proximity to Apollo that I suspect the two might have a connection, along with the Space Shuttle program. All I can do is speculate, but I warrant that Apollo’s Saturn rockets, designed for lower-Earth orbit, were powerful enough to carry large payloads, not for any alleged journey to the Moon, but to place equipment in LEO that we have never been told about. [There were never astronauts aboard the Apollo rockets, as they would have had no means of return.] What kind of equipment? It can only be meant to monitor and spy on us, and not on Wal-Mart customers, but rather military bases all over the world. We have a one-world government in place now, but that has not always been the case, and there has been a necessity to keep an eye on certain elements, perhaps the Chinese or Russians, who have always been advanced technologically well enough to present a real challenge to “US” hegemony, that is, the cult of insiders who run this asylum, and not any group that gives two shits about national allegiances.
In this scenario, the equipment was placed in LEO by the 1960s technology, and later fine-tuned by Space Shuttles that might even have had real humans aboard (engineers and technicians who specialize in electronic spying). Space Shuttles were big, clumsy and expensive, maybe even dangerous, but since there is never only one reason for anything within power circles, they also performed a propaganda function, hence the Challenger disaster, whose primary purpose was to dishearten and kill hope for children by destroying a mother-figure before their eyes.
SpaceX has since taken over the role served by Shuttles, and as it appears that most of the work is done or no longer needed in a one-world system, so much of it is carnival, rockets re-landing after launch, automobiles placed in space, other such nonsense. There might be real purposes served by SpaceX, such as routine maintenance and repair missions.
In all of this, there is no reason to keep humans orbiting around the planet, so that the space station is a terrestrial affair in some basement somewhere. The whole idea there, and with SpaceX, is to keep space alive in our minds. Building nuclear reactors on the Moon? To what end? To have the energy needed to run Willy’s Jeeps, excuse me, I mean Lunar Rovers? That, like going to Mars or even “returning” to the Moon, is better served by Marvel Comics than real journalism, the topic I want to write about next, which is also pure fantasy.
LikeLike
the threat of nukes in space started with sputnick’s beep during the igy of course. The igy was dreamt up over van Allen’s ole lady’s chocolate cake per the psilly narrative. The igy gave us NASA and the braintartica treaty.
well, anywho as van allen announced the discovery his belts after the stunning success of the most obvious space movie scam in history(explorer 1) he couldn’t help but announce his plan to nuke said belts.
my point is if you are retarded enough to believe in explorer 1 and the igy you are necessarily retarded enough to believe in spaceships landing on the moon.
LikeLike
This is a great comment, I knew nothing about Explorer 1 until now.
For everyone who doesn’t know igy = International Geophysical Year. Whatever that means.
I found a great picture on the explorer 1 wiki. I am posting the link, not sure it will link to photo. In any case, this photo shows a group of women and the caption “Trajectory calculations were done by hand by this group of women.” Not to sound mean, but note the single token right square in the middle of the photo. I’m sure several biographies about her are being written right now. They do really know how to sell the psyops – throw the women and minorities a bone by adding them into the psyop years later, 1984 style.
207469main computers-p-163-500 – Explorer 1 – Wikipedia
LikeLike
What is your opinion on Antarctica? You mention the Brainartica treaty. I have little opinion on the place since we can’t go there. The most reasonable explanation is they hold Antarctica as a wealth reserve with a massive amount of fresh water, oil, and minerals stored in for 1000s of years of future wealth.
I have a partial theory that true power is in land rights, especially mining and oil rights. Guns, germs , and steel was a popular book, with many myths, but had an essential truth – that the owners of the mines have incredible power. By providing all the essential rare elements needed for modern living, along with the most importantly the components of explosives, gunpowder, and ammunition casing (brass). And part of the mass shooting psyops is to get people to hoard ammunition, fearing its ban. Ammunition prices have gone up many times in the past 40 years.
LikeLike
The Brits sent out members of peerage families to settle in new lands and manage properties, called seeding. I refuse to believe that Australia was a prison colony. Seeding was going on there too. Descendents of these families still hold title to that land. If I read correctly and remember it seems that the Starbucks and Folgers families owned adjacent or nearby estates, and that Ben Franklin was related to one or the other or both. By the way, do you recall that Terry Bradshaw was once married to Jojo Starbucks? It’s a real name, a real peerage family.
LikeLike
Mark, Miles provided the answer as to why they are pushing Apollo – to build nuclear reactors on the moon. The credulity of the masses and sheer chutzpah of the government know no bounds. I am sure they do serious polling constantly to make sure they don’t piss off too large a majority of the populace running fake projects on our tax dollars.
LikeLike
“*The deaths of Grissom, White and Chafee could have been faked as well, the time of the incineration it took to cook them 33 seconds.”
Thank you for that very telling number, Mark. After realising the A13 explosion was a hoax I suspected A1 was too. This clear signal will prompt a closer look.
“But I think that you are wrong in your attempt to place burden of proof on people who think Apollo was fake. It’s on you to make it real. To do so, yes, you can haul out the hundreds of hours of evidence supplied by NASA, but in so doing you are confronted at each turn by evidence of the big fake. To deny that evidence, you simply tell us to prove you wrong. It’s been done, a hundred times over, the missing tapes merely another brick in the wall.”
I believe I’ve met the burden of proof of making it real.
This is what I’ve done:
Pointed out that the imagery is consistent with expectations of the alien lunar conditions:
— very brightly monolit lunar surface against a black sky
— astronauts moving in a way consistent with expectations of 1/6th gravity
— subtle details such as minute amounts of regolith only visible with a magnifying tool and a very faint exhaust pattern under the LEM which favour reality over fakery
Provided a great deal of argument against claims of fakery:
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
Shown that Bill Kaysing, Massimo Mazzucco, Bart Sibrel and Dave McGowan are agents pushing anti-moon landing propaganda and do not have a single word of truth between them on the subject.
Mark, I don’t think I’ve seen you acknowledge that these FOUR people are agents (and I’m sure there’s more), you only refer to McGowan if memory serves correctly. Nor do you place any significance on the fact that disbelievers have neither worked out that these four people have not a word of truth between them on the moon landings nor that they are agents. Seriously? That is massively significant. Can you not see that? It can only mean one thing: disbelievers have not done due diligence. That’s the only thing it can mean. Try telling me it doesn’t mean that.
As I’ve already said I do not consider missing data to have any significance in relation to the reality of the moon landings and give my reasons.
LikeLike
Thanks Petra, glad you understand my giving vent to snark.. I guess as far as the masses of data, I see it as similar to the masses of data available for other scientific claims or huge culture shaping narratives that are very important to the mythology of our times.. dinos, climate change, germ theory, etc.
In those cases you’re less impressed by the masses of data, I think? But the distinction seems highly subjective to me, and you might as easily have singled one of those out to adamantly believe in, while classing the moon landings as among the obvious hoaxes.
LikeLike
Sure masses of data doesn’t mean anything necessarily, however, when masses of data is presented the burden of proof immediately switches to the person challenging the data to come up with something that challenges it.
There’s masses of data for 9/11 but it’s easy to meet the burden of proof at every step along the way.
So with the moon landings we have masses of data and the burden of proof is showing that something is wrong with that data and you can’t meet that burden of proof with speculation about whether missing data is difficult to fake and is the reason that it is missing, you need something concrete.
There are certain steps you need to follow:
First, you need to show that the missing data is significant. That hasn’t been done. Only opinion has been expressed on the subject and the nature of the missing data doesn’t particularly suggest it is difficult to fake because there’s only certain data from each type missing not whole types of data missing. Moreover, there’s masses of OTHER data to “work with” so to speak.
What have you got for someone who believes the moon landings? You haven’t got anything. I, as a believer of the moon landings, respond to the significance of missing data argument with, “I accept that data would go missing for such a large project and I see that there is masses of data that is consistent with expectations of the reality of the moon landings so “missing data” doesn’t work as an argument.”
You really must put yourself in the shoes of someone who holds an opposing belief and ask, “What clear facts have I got that I can shove under their nostrils that should persuade them?” Of course, we know that people don’t respond to facts like that but regardless you need to exercise rigour yourself on your argument and ask yourself what clear evidence you have that someone should believe it even if they don’t.
LikeLike
Thanks, Petra. Hope you find this comment, it won’t let me reply in thread.
I guess I would say that masses of data switching the burden of proof.. depends. There’s solid, irrefutable masses of data, or replicable data, that would do that. But simply having masses of data, that’s open to subjective interpretation, when dealing with known fakers, seems to leave the question open – inconclusive.
Each viewer can sort through it and decide subjectively how persuasive they find it – I haven’t spent a great deal of time on it. If you can go point for point and “debunk” all the problems people see in it, then maybe you have something there. I don’t see how it’s necessarily conclusive either way, but maybe the evidence is not dispositive – if your debunkings are really on point and you’re not seeing what you want to see and disregarding red flags. So much of the story, as far as I know it, sounds implausible, and the players involved so suspect, that I lean towards the skeptical view. But I don’t say I know that for a fact.
LikeLike
*replicable data in the sense that other rocket scientists could take it and use it to build their own working moon rocket
LikeLike
Van Allen wanted to nuke the Van Allen belts?? That makes me want to read about Explorer 1 and the IGY and whatever all was going on in that lead up to the space race.
LikeLike
There are different isotopes carbon in our atmosphere, some of which were, I am told, caused by our explosion of nukes in the atmosphere in an attempt to open up the belts. Definitely worth your time and fine mind, especially from the standpoint of no existence of nukes. Please report back!
LikeLike
Mark, that story about the different isotopes is interesting and made me think for a minute. Lets set aside the fact that it would be government sources, or government funded sources, who are tracking the levels of isotopes.
First, mass spectrometers were very primitive before the 1980s, so I would not rely on data produced before that date as accurate.
Next, the amount of radiation from the sun has always dwarfed anything they claimed to be produced from explosions. It seems pretty preposterous that a few hundred explosions could come close to the constant bombardment we receive from the sun and space. So the idea these nukes, exploding in “space”, particularly, could still have an effect on our present atmosphere is pretty hard to believe, even if you believe in nuclear weapons.
LikeLike