Mark brings up points that he hasn’t researched and which you, Ray, have accepted at face value. The complete lack of curiosity among the disbelievers is simply staggering. Don’t you want to check if and what the response is to this seemingly earth-shattering claim: “Hey, oils and lubricants used on earth wouldn’t work in space. Gotcha!” As I said to Mark there are responses to every seeming anomaly, OK, Ray. Any seeming anomaly you care to think of there will be a response. I defy you to put forward a seeming anomaly that doesn’t have a response to it. Sure, you may not agree with the response but you need to be able to respond to it, not simply put forward what you think are compelling facts.
Look for an explanation first before holding up something in triumph first.
I’ve decided to put this comment up for scrutiny rather than write a long response to it in the overdone comment section of the post in which it appeared.
There’s a word used, one which I seldom use: “Fact.” I made the claim that there existed on Earth no known substance that could withstand the purported conditions on the Moon, wild swings in temperatures of as much as 500°F. NASA tells us that such substances must exist … after all, they transported machinery to the inhospitable environment of the Moon, and it functioned just fine, including cameras with finely engineered moving parts that depended on those parts moving at very high speeds to open and shut shutters and heavily gloved hands to advance the film. Also, we are told, the astronauts who landed on the moon entered this environment in latex suits that kept them warm and fully functioning throughout. They were not affected by cosmic radiation, so it must not be a problem up there.
Here’s another line from Petra, aimed at me (the one above was in response to You Can Call Me Ray):
What I want to do, Mark, is simply discuss what you think are facts one by one and see if you can make one stick. Otherwise, we can go off on red-herring trails.
So far you haven’t made a fact stick and what I ask you to do is to put out a question into the either about whatever you think a fact is before presenting it as fact – it’s just so simple to do that.
I think in that statement Petra has written an elegant ending to this saga, even though I know it will go on forever. What are “facts”?
Suppose we are a group of competent adults standing around in a circle and looking at a rock. We all agree that it is a rock. One of the group, competent in geology, says the stone is made of gneiss, a metamorphic rock. The rest of us, not so well-studied, are lured into agreement. The person who studied geology is an expert, and spoke to us “ex cathedra,” a term I learned as a Catholic boy meaning that if the Pope says it is so, it is so.
Later, after the group has disassembled, I accidentally step on the rock and discover it is nothing but dog shit. I have to remove it from my shoe. That evening over dinner I tell the group that gneiss was scheiße, the German word for shit. Now we have a problem, as the supposed gneiss, even though we all saw it, is only a visual memory. I know for a fact I stepped in shit, but the others have only their observations, and the words of an “expert”. Who are they going to believe? Me, or the expert?
Petra advances a concept called “facts”. However, we have to follow those “facts” back in time to an incident that many of us witnessed, but only on television. We saw rockets launch, and we were told by experts that those rockets landed on the Moon and came back, astronauts safely transported there and back.
I urge you all who have not done so to watch the movie “Wag the Dog“, which stars Di Niro, Hoffman, Macy, Harrelson, and even Willie Nelson. It is quite entertaining, so it is not a homework assignment, just a field trip. It’s message is that TV is a substitute for reality, and that it is a media of such power that when we dive bare-assed into it, it becomes our reality.
Di Niro’s character, spin-doctor Conrad Brean, repeatedly says that TV is reality, but only speaking sardonically, expressing “reality” to those who know that everything is fake. When informed late in the movie that the war in Albania, created to misdirect the public away from learning that their president, obviously meant to be Clinton, had molested a Girl Scout, he says “The war is over. I saw it on TV.” He states it as a “fact”, TV being the vehicle by which facts are transmitted.
Many of us still alive stood in a circle and observed the Moon landings on TV. Experts told us that is what happened. In the 1990s NASA released photographs supposedly taken on the Moon on those missions, and they have become part of our Internet culture. A man, Bill Kaysing, began to analyze those photos, and found that they contained inconsistencies in lighting, meaning that there was more than one source of light used, meaning that they were done in an undisclosed location here on Earth. What he tells us can be seen with our own eyes.
Others have followed, and everything about the Moon landings, from the ability of Saturn rockets to escape Earth’s gravity … for a capsule with living men aboard to travel safely through the Van Allen belts and its radiation … latex suits that can supposedly overcome radiation and the extreme temperatures of the Moon … to earth-sourced lubricants to keep machinery functioning in temperature extremes we do not experience here … in fact, every aspect of those missions has been challenged.
If a “fact” is something we all agree on, we have no facts. We have only the assurances of experts. I’ve been at the wheel on this blog since 2006, and so have learned never to trust the words of an expert, and to never to presume that anything is factual. I never to trust news, and always attempt to verify what our eyes see with hard evidence. For the most part, the public believed what their eyes saw on TV about the Moon landings, but according to a survey published in Esquire Magazine (my memory only), two groups were far more likely to doubt the reality of the Moon missions: Blacks and gays. My conclusion: They were disaffected from the mainstream anyway, so their eyes were not properly trained to see what they were told to see. “Authority” and “experts” did not work on them as well as for the rest of us.
Have you ever looked at a painting, let’s say Picasso’s Woman Asleep in an Armchair, above, and wondered why the image is perplexing, even troubling? I’ve been busy reading Wilson Bryan Key lately, an “expert” at spotting sublimely hidden images, and so now when I look at the image above, my eyes are immediately drawn to the erect penis that forms the left half of her face. I cannot escape it. Do you see it now? If not, keep on looking, pervert.
The above video is of an astronaut on the Moon in a Lunar Rover. It is fake. How do I know that? It was pointed out to me that the image is a miniature, that the supposed astronaut is probably no more than a couple of feet high, and that he doesn’t move his head, arms or feet because he (it) can’t! Slow motion footage allowed for the illusion of movement over rough terrain. Once seen, it cannot be unseen.
The above is the supposed Lunar Module Challenger taking off from the Moon for its return flight to Earth on December 14, 1972. It is an elaborate fake. Just a couple of inconsistencies … sparks flying, which would indicate interaction of oxygen and fuel in an environment containing no oxygen. There is ease of movement, a steady consistent speed at the outset without jet propulsion upsetting the surrounding dust. It eases off into flight without the violence of the initial rocket ignition causing it even to wobble. There is a camera tracking it even as there is no human to operate it. But most importantly, it was done in a building on Earth using miniatures.
How do I know this? After all, we are standing in a circle here and none of us know what we are looking at gneiss except for that expert. Our eyes are not trained to see deceit in images. It wasn’t until later, much later in time, that skeptics began to question the Moon landings because of now-obvious inconsistencies in NASA photographs. I did not suspect use of miniatures until it was pointed out to me that the images of the Lunar Rover were done using puppets. It was with that information in hand that I laughed when I first saw the above video. It is not just fake, but painfully, obviously so.
Again, I assert with great force that I am neither black nor gay. I am just disaffected from the crowd of humanity, having learned over time how to spot fakery. Sometimes a penis is just a penis, even if embedded in a painting.
I do not choose to use this forum merely to attack Petra, as I’ve become comfortable with her and expect her challenges and rebuttals to all of our assertions of fakery about the Apollo program. Each and every time it becomes a long and interesting thread, and for that, as any blogger would be, I am deeply grateful. She will challenge us and our perceptions with great force. I am not at all sure what she wills say about Picasso’s penis.
Piece of Mindful 
I put it to you, Mark, that the discourse you choose to use cannot produce facts and can—in fact—only denigrate them.
LikeLike
Good post
Petra might be a Zealot but she is correct, there will always be a response. Maybe because there is a whole industry of shills and agents out there employed to do just that. Doesn’t mean that they are correct though
Facts are facts? Never mind that, what does your common sense tell you? What do your instincts say? Does this moon story feel correct? Does all this ring true?
Of course it doesn’t. It has the feel of a fairy story, it’s far too perfect to be real. Life ain’t like that, stuff happens
In the end it’s a matter of personal opinion, or belief. So why not leave it at that?
I’m weary will all their endless lies now, lies that have been going on since well before the so called “Moon landings”. So my default mode is now not to believe a word that the mainstream tells us. In fact it’s often best to believe the exact opposite
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having, over 40 years ago, read all three of Key’s books and having a commercial artist for a father, I looked the penis in the face! After that, everything became suspect and still is, especially today! All of my new friends and/or acquaintances on this most educating blog, let me know that we are not pessimists, just well-informed optimists. We, I think, for the most part, would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned. Or maybe I just don’t get out much? Anyway, I love a good verbal joust! Touche and thank all of you.
LikeLike
You’ve kept Key’s books, I hope. Take a spin to Amaz9n to price them when you have a minute.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regrettably, no. After reading most, I passed them on to others. Who I can only hope, did the same. My son is now the owner of about 150 books. I’m not one to let dust or moss grow on anything. Except my guitars. I find that most are available from archive.org in a pdf.
LikeLike
Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine
Here you can two of his books. However, you aren’t able to download them. I’m unable to locate the third.
LikeLike
“Facts” are things that are observable and can be objectively measured. It is not always straightforward what the facts actually are, but when something has an objective answer, it is worth looking for.
The results of a chemical analysis of the rock are facts. Whether the analysis is a sound one is a separate matter, and could be debated, but basic due diligence re the facts would never result in mistaking dog shit for a rock. It’s like US death records–they are observable (in the database) and objectively measurable (by counting)–therefore, everyone can agree on what the contents of the US mortality database are. If someone finds a superior source of mortality data, or evidence the data is flawed or false, that is a separate matter that could be debated–but it doesn’t change the facts about what is contained in the database.
LikeLike
True. Jessica Hockett has a lot to say on mortality data in NY and Bergamo.
https://woodhouse76.com/about/
LikeLike
The only deaths Hockett has looked at are 26k deaths in 5 New York counties in Spring 2020—saying some undefined form of ‘data fraud’ or ‘staged event’ may have occurred there, whatever that means. Hardly a compelling reason to conclude anything about mortality data from 3000+ counties nationwide.
LikeLike
No but the thing is the spikes may have different causes in different places so concluding a blanket cause of spike for 3000 counties nationwide may not be possible. I think Jessica focused on those because they had such large spikes and were made much of in the media.
Also, do we know that all counties experienced a spike? Similarly, for deaths globally. In Australia, as far as I can tell there was no spike where other countries did have spikes which can partly be explained at least by aggressive drug trials.
LikeLike
are you talking about the moon rock that found to be petrified wood? this is still up on mainstream news and search engines:
‘Moon rock’ in museum is just petrified wood
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a situation where we were just told false facts, right? That is, the display card for the rock told us it was a moon rock, and maybe gave some other info, and we believed it. Did anyone ever actually publish an analysis of the ‘rock’? Or did they just spread BS with no actual evidence to back it up, like they are doing now with US mortality?
LikeLike
Ray, how about the anti-moon landings propaganda campaign to explain the fake moon rock?
Perfect for it, no?
From my post on ChatGPT faker, Signal before Silence, the latest anti-moon landings propagandist.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/chatgpt-fakery-now-featuring-in-the
Fake moon rock gift to the Rijksmuseum
The first question we might ask self-described critical thinker and ChatGPT debater about this segment of the video is why spend 10m out of 45 on a subject that carries very little significance? SbS makes much of the improbability of the anomaly of a piece of petrified rock slipping through the cracks of NASA’s “tight control”. We might also ask though what about the giftee, the Rijksmuseum? Where was its control on the provenance of this alleged moon rock from the estate of Netherlands Prime Minister Willem Drees who’d received it from US ambassador to the Netherlands and Freemason, J. William Middendorf II?
I’m totally with SbS on the improbability of this fake moon rock gift occurring from multiple angles, however, I ask the question: which hypothesis does this highly improbable gift fit better:
— Fakery of the moon landings or
— Element in well-established anti-moon landings propaganda campaign in which Revelation of the Method is a notable feature?
10 minutes of hot air
A single fake moon rock is not inconsistent with real moon rocks and the question is of very low relevance in the context of other evidence from many different angles. Moreover, the “fake moon rock” affair has low plausibility and could easily be part of the anti-moon landings propaganda campaign.
LikeLike
Who exactly is running the anti-moon landing propaganda? Please don’t say the Russians, please.
LikeLike
I’m not really concerned with who’s behind things at the very least because I don’t think it’s possible for me to know if for no other reason.
But really I’m more interested in the WHAT not the WHO. How mind control works, not so much who’s doing it.
But this is interesting: the BBC broadcast the controlled opposition The News-Benders (that so many people sadly take at face value) pushing anti-moon landings propaganda in 1968, a year before the first landing! To me, that really takes the cake. I don’t why really but I’m just like, “Are you kidding me? You’re pushing out anti-moon landings propaganda even BEFORE the first landing?”
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/priming-the-disbelievers-the-moon
LikeLike
LOL. I remember that.
LikeLike
Petrified wood=dog shit by the way. Mark’s right
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, Mark, so I would really like to engage on a fact by fact basis because that’s the simplest way to proceed. If you put a bunch of what-you-consider facts together then it immediately becomes unwieldy so do you agree to put forward one fact at a time? If not, OK, we can abandon the discussion but I really think it’s an interesting way to proceed and I hope you agree.
One fact at a time.
Critical thinking housekeeping
Also, very, very important is for the person who’s put forward what they believe to be a fact to acknowledge when that supposed fact is shown not to be a fact. I hope you agree to that too.
Impossibility of filming Apollo 17 lift-off – not a fact
So I’d like acknowledgement that the supposed fact that filming lift-off of Apollo 17 was impossible due to latency isn’t a fact.
Yes, latency would have made it impossible if the footage were made by tracking but we are told it wasn’t done that way, it was done by a programmed method for which there are a number of terrestrial analogues referenced in an earlier comment.
I cannot state as absolute fact that that is the way it was done but we have to consider where the burden of proof lies. Unless you can come up with a FACT that says it couldn’t have been done that way or there is clear evidence it wasn’t done that way then you don’t have anything and whatever else you have needs to be considered separately.
If you have another suggestion for how to proceed I’m certainly willing to consider it, however, it’s so easy for discussions to get unwieldy and “move on” without establishment of what is or isn’t a fact and I’d really like to nail things down as much as possible.
LikeLike
Since I maintain that the entire program was fake, misdirection for some other purpose, then everything from “That’s one small step” to the Challenger takeoff would have to be staged. Right?
So if you really want to have a argument that involves critical thinking, it would have to start with the lynchpin, the underpowered rocket lifting Apollo 11. NASA had hired shills to deal with every objection, and they provide you your fodder. But the one beginning-to-end film of the takeoff of A11 does not show a rocket going anywhere but the Atlantic Ocean. Start there.
And deal with Jan Spreen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That Apollo 17 lifting off on a firecracker is a real howler, like Petra often says the purpose of propaganda is humiliation. I believe Kaysing, or someone who knew something about rocket fuels, pointed out the rocket fuel they claimed they were using would produce huge red clouds after “ignition” or mixing the two chemicals in the rocket chamber. So that a real liftoff or landing video would contain massive red, or opaque clouds, as you see on earth with “rocket” launches. Yet you see nothing upon decent or takeoff from the moon in rocket exhaust, no clouds.
I’m going to guess the answer is the vacuum of space eats it all up so no cloud can form 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what I’m doing for your first claim of fact is putting it to ChatGPT and asking for your response to what it says.
The best I can do is judge what argument seems the most authoritative. You can, of course, insist that your response is good and if I’m too ignorant to understand it that’s my problem.
The reason I accept the reality of the moon landings is that there are significant elements I feel I can understand and these are sufficient to determine they happened. Rocketry isn’t one of them.
From ChatGPT
The Saturn V was the most powerful rocket ever flown (until recently)
Some key numbers:
That thrust produced a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.15–1.2 at liftoff.
This is exactly what engineers want. Rockets should not accelerate extremely fast at launch. Why rockets start “slow”
A common misconception is that a powerful rocket should jump upward instantly. In reality:
So the rocket lifts slowly at first, then accelerates rapidly as fuel burns off and the rocket becomes lighter.
Typical Apollo 11 profile:
That increasing acceleration is exactly what physics predicts. Evidence it was not underpowered
Several simple facts contradict the claim:
Saturn V could place ~118,000 kg into low Earth orbit and send ~43,000 kg toward the Moon.
Those are enormous payloads even today.
Thousands of engineers across NASA, contractors like Boeing, North American Aviation, and Rocketdyne built and tested the engines.
Saturn V flew 13 times (Apollo 4–17 and Skylab) with no loss of payload.
Independent tracking stations worldwide observed the trajectory and velocity of each launch.
A simple physics check
To reach orbit, a rocket must achieve about 7.8 km/s horizontal velocity plus losses.
The Saturn V:
So it had margin, not a deficit. Where the “underpowered” impression comes from
People often compare Saturn V launches to:
But real heavy rockets (including modern ones like SpaceX Starship or Space Launch System) also rise slowly at first for the same reasons.
✅ Bottom line:
The Saturn V was not underpowered—it was the most powerful operational rocket in history for over 50 years, and its slow liftoff is exactly what physics and engineering predict.
LikeLike
That post has more double entendres than I can count. I’ve previously read funny commentaries on American vs Russian rockets – American rockets are deployed and launch fully upright, like a giant obelisk, instead of sideways like a Russian dick (er, I mean rocket).
LikeLike
So the Saturn 5 was such a great rocket it was only launched 13 (THIRTEEN!) times with a burn of 11 minutes?! Ok I’m done.
LikeLike
Why not? I don’t see what’s so surprising about that. All the fuel and energy is used in getting to space and it happens quickly. That’s the nature of the beast.
The program dissolved and that was the end of it. C’est la vie.
LikeLike
This debate has lasted almost as long as the fake Ukraine/Russia war. Just an idea but is there a way to post a Poll on here? “Who’s penis is bigger, Mark’s or Petraliverani’s?”
or “Did we go to the moon yes or no?”
Then after seeing the results, we can all move on to other topics. Although it is nice that nobody on here is discussing the recent Iran charade, so I assume we all agree that is a fake event.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been struggling for a good reason for the staged conflict, but raising energy prices isn’t a bad one. Because they are profiting nicely on that now, thank you very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of Iran – I like to try and stay humble, and I do feel like I know less every day.
But its little things that make me feel better, and not an idiot. For example the latest headline from Washington Post: Russia is providing Iran intelligence to target U.S. forces, officials say.
And I know that is a joke on the face of it. My neighbors are posting on facebook that they think the Iran conflict is the start of WW3. Yes, seriously. I remember when some dipshit girl in my 6th grade class thought the same thing about the Falklands Island war.
LikeLike
It’s not the fact of whether we went to the moon or not that really concerns me though obviously it might look that way.
What interests me is mind control (especially of those who tend to disbelieve the authorities – correctly most of the time) and critical thinking.
I’m finding this an interesting exercise but anyone who doesn’t, of course, can stay away and Mark can opt out at any time himself if he chooses.
LikeLike
Ok Mark, I must insist upon calling you out on your “Penis in Art” conspiracy. (Henceforth called PIA)
First off, I believe in *every* other conspiracy, but it is abundantly clear that PIA is false, and if you’d done a modicum of research, as I have, then you would see that the burden of proof is on the Penis observers, and they have completely failed to spot one single penis.
I repeat, not one single penis has ever been proven to been spotted in any piece of art, ever.
Furthermore, it is well known that shills like Wilson Brian Key are strategically placed to propagate the PIA theory. But he has not ever proven that there is a single penis in any piece of art. I repeat, Key, and others like him, have not discovered one single penis, anywhere.
I don’t understand why Penis observers don’t simply do the research, as I have, as it is simple and easy to discover the facts.
For instance, I asked ChatGPT about the above Picasso painting, and it quickly gave me the facts.
Picasso, during the period of his life living in Paris, developed a taste for the French Cucumber. He then began covertly inserting various hidden images of cucumbers in his art, which was easy to do considering his art sucked.
So Occam’s Razor tells us that what you claim is a penis, is in actuality, a simple cucumber.
In fact, I believe you have fallen for the classic, False Erective Fallacy, wherein you mistakenly see the penis in art and other visual media.
One can simply do a Google search for “Penises in Art are really just cucumbers”, and quickly research the matter, as I have, to get the facts of the matter.
Mark, I have a proposition for you. I suggest that we both present each other with ten images. You find ten of what you claim are penises, and I will respond with ten cucumbers. This is the simplest way to get to the bottom of this.
Please proceed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LMFAO! Some levity!
Dare I say, your being facetious. Or better yet, cucumber in cheek?
Or, maybe even ….. .. cheek?
LikeLike
Mark “Again, I assert with great force that I am neither black nor gay”.
You forgot to add “Not that there’s anything wrong with it!”
LikeLike