I watched a discussion between John Robson of Climate Discussion Nexus and Steven Koonin, author of Unsettled, What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. You can access the discussion here, but I won’t replay it as it is quite long. Over time I’ve become adverse to sending people off to watch or read things just because I did. You’re on your own.
It’s a good discussion highlighting the shortcomings of the Climate Alarmism movement, including lack of rigor in science, failure to make predictions of any kind at any time that actually come true. That is a bit of what I might call a cornerstone of science, to make accurate predictions validating theories, but the movement exists without that benefit. Al Gore was asked recently in some highlighted interview about the predications made in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, and he claimed to be lecturing the sky, as all of the movie’s claims have come to fruition but nobody cares. That is a Burger King-grade lie, a whopper, as just the opposite is true. The movie has disintegrated into a pile of high production values carrying with it not a shred of truth. It is classic propaganda.
Late in the interview Robson and Koonin reflect on the climate skeptics, and offer to viewers what they regard as shortcomings of their own fellow travelers. They cited two defects: use of the words “hoax” and “conspiracy”. They claim that people in the alarmist movement really believe in what they are doing and saying, and should be taken at face.
This is an old shibboleth that might be restated as “I disagree with everything you say, but defend your right to say it.” There’s also another interpretation, that is, that our thought control system of public discourse does not allow the terms “hoax” and “conspiracy” to be used against people actually engaged in those activities. Use of such words carries with it penalties, including cancellation and public ridicule, and certainly removal from public forums.
A hoax is defined as an act intended to deceive or trick, or something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means. Generally speaking, in my mind anyway, it applies to public hoaxes pulled off with full complicity of major media. Little hoaxes, like use car sales or pretending there are goblins and ghouls at Halloween, don’t count. We can all see through those.
Larger ones, say the JFK Assassination or 911, are meant to stick. Government brings out all of its power and weapons to reinforce these.
- Take, for instance, JFK: Its beating heart is called the “Magic Bullet Theory”, a variation on the naked emperor, something a child could see to be false and impossible, but sold with professional intensity and straight faces. It is a layered approach, however, as even if we can see through that ruse, we still end up arguing about the sources of the shots fired that day. The essential question never asked is this: What shots? What bullets? That, man, is one fine and excellent goddamned hoax.
- 911 is another hoax, and we can easily see though it if we but understand a bit of physics, as in Newton’s Third Law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That law is not something made up and put out for debate, but rather a description of reality, as a basketball bouncing off the floor when dropped. And yet we saw on our TVs aluminum aircraft passing through steel and concrete buildings like a knife through butter. Maybe in the 19th century the hoax would not have been such an easy sale, as I have it in my mind that people were better educated then. But in our times such matters don’t stimulate skepticism. The crucial difference, then and now, is electronic mass media.
Koonin and Robson are smart guys, smarter than I am and better at dissembling the Climate Alarmist movement than me. But in my writings here on this blog, going back to 2006, I learned not to fear opinion and ridicule. So in a sense, while these two gentleman are indeed intellectually better at this game than I am, they fail on the level of personal courage. They surely know, as they have examined the details in depth and with scholarship, that Climate Change is indeed a hoax. Maybe they honestly cannot see conspiracy, as that is harder to grasp. It requires a who and a why.
So, is Climate Alarmism both a hoax and a conspiracy? Yes!
These two men want us to genuflect, in a sense, before people who have gone through rigorous indoctrination on their educational paths to arrive at the false impression that climate change is a real existential threat. Are they stupid, then?
Perhaps. Just in everyday life, stupidity is all around us. Einstein is said to have said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Fact checkers will dispute this quote, but I tend to agree with the sentiment, even if not expressed by him, that human stupidity is in abundant quantity all about us. We can easily see it in any corner bar on any evening, but those are just the mutterings of common people who work mindless chore-like jobs. They cannot be expected to be curious and questioning about the lies of our times, especially those told on TV.
What about the educated classes? Are they stupid too? Well, speaking as a college graduate, I can say that I came out of college as stupid as anyone walking upright, and that it has taken decades to unlearn what I was taught. I did learn a profession, and it has helped my in my life immensely. I did take one sophomore-level course in logic (no others were offered). In no other class was any time devoted to simply learning how to think properly.
You can say, and be correct, that I graduated from a land grant college and did not have the best teachers. If, say, I had been accepted at Harvard, I might be like Conan O’Brien, a class valedictorian in high school who graduated magnum cum laude with a degree in history. He, like Koonin and Robson, is smarter and better educated than me, and yet in my years of enjoying his excellent comedic mind, I’ve never had the sense that he ever developed a skeptical and questioning sense of history. Rather, he just read and memorized and regurgitated, and to this day, reinforces what he learned with the new works of professional historians.
Extend that thought to the vast majority of our college graduates who study English, history, social studies, medicine, journalism, and on and on … they come out more brainwashed than cognizant of a complex world where truth is hard commodity to find.
So too with climate science. It is not taught now as a theory, but as reality, and at all levels of education from first grade through university cum laude. It is in total contradicted by hard evidence, but set that aside. It’s predictions do not have to come true, and the climate models they generate costing billions of dollars all “run hot”, that is, do not come close to reflecting reality. But the models are accepted as evidence over the real thing, hard data. That is the power of money backing ideas, i.e., conspiracy.
How can one science go so wrong as to be promoting a hoax as it does? Two reasons, among many:
- Groupthink. Never underestimate the power of groups to subdue individuals. It is peer pressure, it is the power of authority, the need to get good grades, and it forces people to collude in forming and believing false conclusions. If a merely weak theory is taught as scientific fact, the majority of students, no matter their SATs, will buy in. There’s no comfort, and certainly no reward, for being skeptical or thinking critically.
- Money. Robson’s group, Climate Discussion Nexus, is now in the YouTube video game hoping to reach a larger audience. There are many CDN videos, and this is just one. In each that I have seen, he devotes a segment to examining the balance sheet of some climate advocacy group. I’ve not heard of any of them, and yet each boasts annual budgets of $40-60 million. Where does the money come from? He doesn’t say, and one would have to examine the 990 (an IRS form for not-for-profit groups) to find the source of funding for each, usually hidden in layers. Robson does not do that. He should, but the point is that the Climate Alarmist Movement is living in luxury, money coming out all of its orifices. On the other side, the Alarmists claim that skeptics are richly financed by the fossil fuel industry, but that’s not true, not even close. If there is one thing I have noticed in this whole charade, it is that the fossil fuels companies are the curious case of the dogs that do not bark.
I regret that Koonin and Robson, as much as I like them and for as long as I have read their published works and watched Robson’s videos, fall prey to the biggest psychological ploy going, the inability to criticize something so obviously a hoax and conspiracy as the Climate Alarmist movement. But censorship abounds, so that the true nature of this movement is part of that 60-80% of life I see that is submerged in our public subconscious.
What would I do if I were them? Let’s get down to basics here: I cannot be them. I cannot speak without saying what I think to be true. I do not hold this against them or claim moral superiority. I understand their frail position. I realize that if Robson starts to harp about hoax and conspiracy, his YouTube days will come to an end.
That is the harsh reality, and so I commend them on excellent work, and accept their failings as ugly necessity.
Perhaps they have internalized the lies, perhaps they really believe they are dealing with essentially honest people.
That happens too.
Piece of Mindful 
One liberal acquaintance of mine does occasional laments about climate doom on facebook. I asked him how he explains that “capitalists” fund and promote the movement so well, throughout academia, media, etc. Because it’s not just Big Oil who ought to bark – “real” capitalists, investors, financiers, of any stripe would presumably all see it as an existential threat. No answer of course. Many people just view scientists as acting independently of power, politics and culture. They’re not pawns of larger forces, or dependent on favor from the wealthy and powerful. And the media likewise – people naively and credulously think they’re just obliged to report whatever the scientists discover, the same way the scientists are obliged to find out the truth, whatever that may be, and wherever the chips may fall.
LikeLike
I know I’m talking to the hand here, Mark, but the same thing about not recognising a hoax can be said about disbelievers of the moon landings.
They will not recognise that they haven’t recognised that there is a hoax saying astronauts didn’t land on the moon (whether they happened or not).
What disbelievers do is try to deflect the existence of the hoax by saying that “Of course there will be controlled opposition agents” but that is a disingenuous response. The mere acceptance of the premise of controlled opposition agents existing in the moon landings scene is very significantly not the same as:
There are controlled opposition agents who:
— do not have a single word of truth between them that undermines the reality of the moon landings
— actively tell lies
— have gone unrecognised by the disbelievers in the specifics of their BS but
— have not gone unrecognised by the believers in the specifics of their BS – believers recognise their BS and in some cases recognise they are actually lying, however, they don’t recognise “psyop” because that is outside their paradigm of how the world works … or they just don’t want to go that far.
The significance of why it is that believers identify the lies and other BS coming from the psyoppers while disbelievers don’t is ignored.
I think Dave McKeegan is the best analyst of the arguments put up against the reality of the moon landings, particularly the nonsense that comes from Bart Sibrel.
https://www.youtube.com/@DaveMcKeegan/search?query=bart%20sibrel
LikeLike
This is old and tired stuff, and tiring.
LikeLike
Matt, 9/11 is old and so is the JFK assassination – so is Pearl Harbour and so is the Great Fire of London 1666.
Many, many things are old but the truth is still not well known about them so there’s still a reason to keep pushing them, wouldn’t you agree?
In the case of the moon landings hoax, especially as I’m the ONLY one pushing it -as far as I know – I need to keep doing it.
And you are under no obligation to read my ML comments, they’re very easy to ignore.
Of course, if you have a case for Bart Sibrel, Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco and Bill Kaysing not being completely full of shit on the ML … I’m all ears … or alternatively if you have a case for their being full of shit being undetected by the disbelievers but detected by the believers having no significance I’m also all ears.
While you find what I say tiring what I find tiring is the lack of honest response to the pointing out of the lack of detection of the complete full-of-shitness of these people going unresponded to by the disbelievers (while believers have detected it).
LikeLike
Petra, you’re a friend here and I welcome you always. I do ask, however, that this time we refrain from diverting this to a moon landing festival. Please keep this topic this time to your own blog and writings.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I thought of a new term to describe what we commentors on this blog, and in general many of the better “truthers”, for lack of a better term, that we have in common: and it is a “counter-consensus” on many topics. Over the past 6 years, since Covid flipped many people on their head to see reality was upside down, like myself, there has emerged a counter-consensus that most major historical events are hoaxes, or actively planned in advance: Lincoln Assassination, the Titanic, WW1, the Depression, WW2, nuclear bombs, JFK Assassination (and all the big ones in the 1960s), the Moon Landings, 9/11, and finally Covid. And I think thats a good thing. I personally don’t have an issue with Mark, Miles, Simon Shack, etc., and consider our differences small potatoes, and not something to distrust the serious counter-cultural critics of our time. Getting round to Petra, she is trying too hard to find a divisive issue, that really is not divisive, it is rather quite obvious to anyone of the counter-consensus. And I don’t believe a consensus is necessary, but I believe it serves as a counterweight to the so-called “consensus” BS on most topics – history, science.
LikeLike
Trying to divide? That really is a good one.
NO ONE (or almost) – believer or disbeliever – has any interest my claim of ML hoax psyop.
Believers just point out where the psyoppers have got it wrong / are actively lying … but won’t go “Yeah, psyop,” while the disbelievers wave my claim away with, “Oh yeah, of course, always agents, doesn’t mean anything.”
I’m actually trying to do the exact opposite of division – get believers and disbelievers on the same page on one event. If they can both see a psyop is occurring that would be something no? But it ain’t going to happen, I can see that, but I still try anyway.
LikeLike
I am involved in an office reorganization that involved making space for books, God only knows why. I am carefully going through them and ditching many, but I came across a small volume called “The Apollo Moon Missions: Hiding a hoax in Plain Sight, Part I”. Is there are Part II? I don’t know. I had never even opened this book. So add its author, Randy Walsh, to Petra’s list of liars.
Walsh is pretty good at describing not the known, but the obvious impossibility of tracking a capsule with limited mobility in the vast reaches of space between Earth and Moon with virtually no computer guidance, and no tracking from Houston to vessel beyond a certain reach. He’s yet to get into the problems with Van Allen, galactic cosmic rays, solar particles, and coronal mass ejections, all a matter of chance with no protection in place for humans. It is elementary to grasp, they faked it. They had to. There was no Cold War, no Russian space race, no computer or rocketry capability, so no ability to go beyond LEO, if they could even do LEO.
WTF? In my mind, SAII, there was something unstated going on, some reason for the preoccupation with rocketry and putting humans out there having nothing to do with the Moon. I look for people with better grasp of the lies of our times for explanations. I know the what, but not the why.
LikeLike
If you confine your research to the hoaxters, Mark, you’ll always find a what appears a good argument to support hoax.
What not dip your toe elsewhere, canvass a little more widely?
LikeLike
So as not to leave you hanging, I’ll answer one time, hoping that we meet again on your blog. I’m familiar with spooks and false leaders, fake insiders and limited hangouts. At the core of all is a grain of truth.
LikeLike
I reiterate from my earlier comment:
“What disbelievers do is try to deflect the existence of the hoax by saying that “Of course there will be controlled opposition agents” but that is a disingenuous response. The mere acceptance of the premise of controlled opposition agents existing in the moon landings scene is very significantly not the same as [all the points listed].”
LikeLike
Petra, to be honest I cannot figure out the point you’ve making. Can you translate it into layman’s language for dummies like me 😀?
LikeLike
By the way, to be honest i find a lot of the language of logic etc to be straight bullshit and lawyers debating nonsense. Can’t you just make a point without resorting to some rules of logic most people, including myself, find irritating?
LikeLike
Ray, I didn’t think I was doing anything other than spelling out basic facts.
I’ll put them like this and see if they make better sense.
-1. There is a psyop saying astronauts didn’t land on the moon that includes but isn’t limited to agents, Dave McGowan, Bill Kaysing, Massimo Mazzucco, Bart Sibrel and since the advent of AI, AI-faker, Signal before Silence aka Naira.
-2. The response to this claim of psyop by disbelievers is “Yes, we know there are controlled opposition agents but the fact that these people are telling lies about the moon landings doesn’t prove they happened.” The problem with this response is:
-3. No disbeliever has recognised that it’s not merely a case of these people being agents, there’s simply not a word of truth in what they say, ie, it’s not “truth mixed with lies” there’s nothing, nada, niente of truth (or meaningful truth) in any of these people’s works and in some cases there’s clear signs of fakery.
-4. In fact, not only have disbelievers not recognised the actual lies and nonsense from these agents
— they propagate it themselves, eg, “should be a crater under the LEM” when, in fact, there’s no reason to expect a crater under the LEM
— they have not pointed out any lie that I’m aware of
So while disbelievers say, “Oh yeah, we know – agents”, they don’t prove that they know by specifying any of the lies and nonsense.
-5. The believers, on the other hand – while not recognising there’s a psyop per se – have recognised things that aren’t true and actual lies from these people.
Can you see the question that arises?
Why have believers recognised lies from these agents while disbelievers have not?
LikeLike
Petra, it appears your premise is that we are unable to take a wide array of evidence presented from many sources, and run it through our own brains and arrive at cogent conclusions. The agents are fun reading, some, like McGowan, obvious limited hangouts, some, like Popov and Bulatov, a little harder to unravel, since I had long before and on my own deduced that there was no Cold War. “The expression “on my own deduced” seems foreign to your volcabulary. It does not take a rocket scientists to understand Apollo was fake.
LikeLike
The crucial problem is what can be classified as “limited hangout”.
I’d argue that “limited hangout” in general never really applies, that whatever is “hung out” so to speak in some way distorts the truth and I think that the quote from George Orwell is highly apt (although I’m not sure he meant it in the way I take it to mean):
“All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth.”
For example, there is loads of focus on controlled demolition re 9/11. However, even though I think the buildings did come down that way simply because that’s the only known way for high rise steel frame buildings to come down, we can see two very obvious ways in which propaganda applies to the “truth” of CD.
-1. Fakery of the footage
The footage is clearly faked Revelation of the Method style, eg, they show us the Chrysler building peekabooing behind the twin towers when it is 50 blocks uptown in Midtown (BTW, Mark, that is not an accident, OK, not “sloppiness” – it can only be RoM – they definitely had a big laugh over that one).
And they faked it for at least two reasons:
a. Real footage would be too much of a giveaway – you’d see at intervals the explosive material coming out of the buildings so what we see in both the TTs and 7 are what look like CDs only superficially – such a large building as 7 would not just come down all of a piece like that, it would have had explosives laid at intervals and we’d see material being ejected.
b. Having fake footage that didn’t clearly show CD gave scope for all the other nonsense explanations to proliferate – nukes, DEWs, etc.
Ultimately, they actually hid the truth of CD. But a more important way CD was used as propaganda is number 2.
-2. Distraction from the main alleged crime – death and injury
They make it all about the “physics” when all we have to do is look at the images of the injured and see they all fit “drill-injured” and are completely inconsistent with what would be expected if people had been left behind in the buildings … and right there we know it’s one big fat lie – we don’t need to know anything about physics.
No relevant truth in the moon landings works of McGowan et al – zero
What I claim, Mark, is that there is no relevant truth of any kind in the works of the people I’ve nominated as agents – McGowan, Mazzucco, Sibrel, Kaysing and Chat-GPT faker, Naira. There is no “limited hangout”, there is only propaganda or outright lies.
And here are all my posts on them:
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
So what I ask from you is, “Where is the limited hangout?” Where is any single piece of relevant truth in any of their works on the moon landings?
LikeLike
Yes, a limited hangout is a lie, and no one says otherwise. It is using truth to mislead. McGowan did it in Weird Scenes by admitting truth, that rock stars were many times from military families, without adding “These connections are not real, the military families are appointed to manage the careers of the supposed stars.” It’s not complicated. Goebbels himself stated that propaganda should be as truthful as possible. Exposure of a lie destroys its credibility.
I suggest that you stay away from your black/white approach and discover nuance. As the sage Homer Simpson said, it takes two people to lie, one to lie, the other to believe it.
LikeLike
Propaganda, by Jacques Ellul, 1965, From introduction by Konrad Kellen
LikeLike
Mark, So Ellul says that propaganda contains a kernel of truth. I don’t know that it’s always true, I’d need evidence.
You say Dave McGowan is limited hangout – all I’m asking is where is the truth in his limited hangout. Where is it?
Just one thing.
I say, “All lies and propaganda, zero truth.”
If you want to say “No, not all lies and propaganda SOME truth,” then please let me know what it is.
LikeLike
Wagging the Moondoggie is 14 parts, all of it true. That is not how he is lying. His lie is that in examining the 14 parts, you’re not seeing the whole story. He is hiding that truth, maybe doesn’t even know it himself, that Apollo was done for a reason, not to go to the Moon, but something else. That’s what makes him a limited hangout …that something else … this far, no further. Note, I speak of him in present tense, as he faked his death. He’s been reassigned or sent abroad or now does a desk job. Who knows. He was very good at his work. That is the true nature of propaganda, to use truth to tell lies.
LikeLike
“Wagging the Moondoggie is 14 parts, all of it true. “
No it isn’t.
I have taken five lies / pieces of propaganda (not propaganda to distract from a hidden purpose but propaganda to mislead those of us inclined to disbelieve official narratives because so many are lies) from a blogger’s analysis of Parts I and II and elsewhere – but easy to comprehend as being accurate:
From Part 1:
-1. WTM starts with a quote from a book by Wernher Von Braun where he speaks about the huge size of a spacecraft required to land on the moon.
It’s true, however, it’s propaganda. The book was written prior to the determination that they only way to land on the moon was using the orbital rendezvous method.
From Part II
-2. “And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that, what with the demanding task of perfecting the hugely complex Saturn V rockets, von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently there was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition.”
A lie. NASA did offer an explanation. They went there to: observe life-support and habitation systems, to learn about managing scientific expeditions and to examine the McMurdo Dry Valleys which are among the most Mars-like environments on Earth.
3. “What is known for sure is that even some of the ‘debunking’ websites have, albeit reluctantly, acknowledged that meteorite samples gathered from Antarctica are virtually indistinguishable from NASA’s collection of Moon rocks.”
Not acknowledged – they only look similar superficially, their composition is completely different, and it has never been “acknowledged” that they are “virtually indistinguishable”.
-4. “The problem, alas, is that the only known source for ‘authenticated’ Moon rocks is NASA, the very same folks who are known to occasionally hand out chunks of petrified wood.”
Geologists all around the globe confirm the authenticity of the rocks and the “fake Dutch moon rocks” story [petrified wood] is itself fake and part of the “we didn’t go” psyop.
Part III
-5. “In fact, word on the street is that one of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead.”
Word on the street? How plausible does the claim of four feet of lead shielding sound at the outset? The Soviets themselves sent a spacecraft to go around the moon (Zond 5) containing some animals carrying radiation sensors.
LikeLike
It is a mistake to quote McGowan. He’s not a researcher, just a parrot. And a good writer. His job is to stick a plug in ongoing research, to stop it up before truth leaks out.
A banker told me at a luncheon back in the 1980s that the true purpose of War Bonds sold during WWII was not to raise money for the war effort, but rather to get money out of circulation, since there were shortages all about and they did not want scarce goods chased by too much money, a recipe for wild inflation. That is public justification with a hidden objective.
That is public policy 101, how they do most everything.
You’re not big picture. Things I have discovered or thought all by myself: McGowan is disinfo; the Cold War was fake; and that an engineering program of the magnitude of the Moon could not possibly have gone off without a hitch, first try. And, McGowan’s website, called “Center for an Informed America”, CIA, c’mon!, is doing propaganda while selling mostly truth. Just not enough of it.
There’s a whole subagency within NASA employed to put out science, pseudoscience, faulty logic, sophistry and falsehoods, ridicule and appeals to authority claiming the moon landings really happened, and never, ever disclosing any alternative purpose for the space program. Please review your remarks to us in your cooment above and remove any that are not based on NASA sources. You’ll have nothing left.
LikeLike
Mark, I’m finding contradiction in what you say:
On the one hand, you say that limited hangout contains a kernel of truth but on the other that limited hangout is a lie.
I say there is no kernel of truth – there is nothing, nada, niente of truth (at least not relevant truth) in the works of McGowan, Mazzucco, Kaysing, Sibrel and Naira.
All I’m asking for is simply one piece of relevant truth in the works of these people. So far, no one has provided any.
LikeLike
Petra, you’ve placed yourself in a comfortable bubble. You are criticized for being wrong and ignorant of evidence from every direction, and you simply assert the the ones who bring the criticism forward are liars, and that they lie all the time and never say anything that is true. I gave you a pretty strong reference regarding propaganda, the French intellectual Jacques Ellul, who wrote a book in the 1960s called Propaganda, in which he analyzed the three major propaganda purveyors of that era, The U.S., USSR, and China. The book is a scientific analysis of the nature and practice of propaganda, cradle to grave. He said propaganda comforts people, gives them reason to live, and that they literally need it! You need to read this book. It’s a classic. In it, he speaks of the essential idea that propaganda must have at its core truth. He says most people cannot grasp this, and think that propaganda can only be all lies all the time. That would be you.
LikeLike
“You are criticized for being wrong and ignorant of evidence from every direction, and you simply assert the the ones who bring the criticism forward are liars, and that they lie all the time and never say anything that is true.”
Disbelievers of the moon landings are also criticized for being wrong and ignorant from every direction – but they don’t accept it just as I certainly don’t accept that I am wrong and ignorant from the disbelievers – well, I’m certainly ignorant … but it’s a known ignorance on my part – not so on the part of the disbelievers.
If there’s a kernel of truth in the propaganda and lies from Dave McGowan et all then all anyone has to do is provide that kernel of truth.
Where is it? It needs to identified, rather than asserted.
LikeLike
Petra, you’re in a bubble, and need to break out of it. It would be great if you were to read Ellul’s tedious but brilliant work. He did not write a good vs evil treatise, but rather a stone-cold analysis of the nature of the art (science?) of propaganda. He drew criticism because he thought propaganda to be a necessary tool, once that gives us comfort and frees us from doubt. The happiest people around are the true believers, but smart people are cognizant of doubt and the difficulty of finding truth. Happy Christians are free from doubt and live in a black white world. So do you.
You’ve committed the most basic of errors, to avoid dealing with the critics and critiques of the Moon affair, and to simply label those who express public doubt as liars. If only it were that simple. McGowan, for instance, did not do original research in any of his writings on the Moon, Laurel, Lincoln, Boston, or serial killers. He admitted that in his Laurel Canyon work he did not interview one solitary soul. From this it is easy to determine that he drew on a body of knowledge that was given to him and told to take it to the allowed limit, to admit what was already shared knowledge, but to stop it from advancing any further. This is the serious work of a propagandist for hire, a good writer who uses truth to tell lies. That last line, “using truth to tell lies”, is your fatal flaw. You cannot see it.
You want evidence of the Moon landings being fake, and I won’t play that game, as any fool can plainly see you’re up to your chin in it, and simply in denial. I’ll go one step further with it, and it is that NASA is saddled with the Moon landings. They are good people for the most part, smart and cognizant, but tasked with keeping the mythology alive. I do not envy them, and even admire their clever use of evidence to preserve the myths, able to produce it at will, to explain every defect, to use sophistry and half-truths, ridicule and slander to achieve their purpose. They are not stupid, and while practicing deceit for pay, probably do so with clenched bowels, as it is ugly work. Pity the fools. And pity you. You’re bought in, a true believer, a poor debater who rather than facing doubt merely insulates and denies.
LikeLike
Imo the majority of climate scientists are probably not intentional hoaxers or conspirators. The whole system of teaching and practicing science just works in a hierarchical, dogmatic way such that new recruits are indoctrinated into the reigning dogma.. and by the time some few of them reach the heights where they could effect the direction of the field, they’ve become company men, politicians, thoroughly committed to being in the club. Nobody would make waves unless consensus among those at the top changed, or they all wanted to change the narrative.
During “normal science” they advance by showing how any results they get prove the dogma, no matter what they seem to show. Thus the “evidence” for the dogma mounts higher and higher. The dogma is true – ergo, any finding or results must prove it. If they seem to contradict it, you don’t question the dogma, you reconcile them with the dogma.
Sometimes you can really make a name for yourself though if you mildly dissent from the dogma – find some results that you claim contradict it, but then attempt a theory that’s only a minor modification of the essential dogma.
For example Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge saw the fossil record as problematic for evolution. They developed “punctuated equilibrium” to explain it, which was radically different from Darwinian gradualism. But, it still affirmed the larger theory. Then you’re an enfant terrible of the field, but still comfortably in the club. And they can all spend decades debating it, with the mildly dissident theory rising and falling in fashion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thats a good way of putting it. I agree most are true believers, a very small minority are the schemers behind the scenes pulling the strings.
What is common amongst these suspect sciences is there a literally impossible for an individual to study – requiring an overwhelming amount of data to “verify” and of their claims, that there is no way of knowing how it was collected, or trying to repeat the tests themselves (nuclear tests, infecting someone with an isolated “virus”, astrophysics, climate – which requires an almost impossible amount of data to model. Do we have any good models for the interior of the earth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Er, well, they have a model they showed in my school textbooks every year… But I don’t know how speculative it is. We have some incredible drills apparently, that you read about from time to time, but probably nothing relative to the scale of the Earth. It reminds me though, speaking of overturning consensus and contrarian views – it’s only fairly recently that plate tectonics became accepted. After spending a long time in the wilderness. That would be an interesting one to find a book about, to read that tale.
LikeLike
It’s as if suddenly the consensus of the earths age went from ~6000 years (according to the Judeo Christians, and yes I asked that question in my Sunday Catholic school, it was the last question and last class I ever took when they gave me a very unconvincing answer that yes, the earth was indeed the age stated in the Old Testament) to 4+ billion years. However, don’t worry, we will all die soon from a nuclear holocaust or climate meltdown, so the Biblical prophecy of revelation and Armageddon yada yada is still viable.
LikeLike
FYI I’ll betcha it ain’t that speculative down to a pretty fair depth into the Earth. Just you know they aren’t going to tell us the truth, because they’d be dumb to. If you knew the true state of oil deposits, and how they formed, why would you tell anyone? No one would believe you anyhow. Only a dummy tells the truth when money is on the line.
LikeLike
The way I see it, there’s no free lunches here on Earth, and never will be. If you get to know any truth it’s by your own hard work and sweat, or you got extremely lucky and were born into the peerage and had someone whispering in your ear. If you expect truth to fall on your head from above that will never happen. Knowledge is the most valuable currency here, and cannot be obtained for free.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark you mention Conan O Brian. When was the last time you watched late night TV? I think the last time for me was about 20 years ago. What drove me crazy was I realized over 90% of the guests were dumb celebrities, pushing their latest TV show or movie. Just unbearable mindless kiss assing and bad humor. Admittedly Conan was the best with his openings. I did like his bit with the Ford Taurus SHO, a car I actually liked as a performance car nerd in the 1980s.
LikeLike
Some things I cannot explain, so why try. He strikes me as a nice person with a great sense of humor. He says had he lived in any other era, say, medieval times, others would have tired of him and killed him. Even his own father said that he was making his living doing something that would have otherwise required treatment.
LikeLike
What I find very intriguing about Conan is that it was at his place that supposedly there was an altercation between Rob Reiner and his son after which his son allegedly killed him and his wife at their place … but that story really looks like a psyop. Surely, Conan … and a number of others had to be in on it? Why this psyop too?
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/rob-reiner-how-do-we-keep-up-or-should
LikeLike
It appears that they used that venue to stage the argument. Conan has an annual star-studded Christmas party. He would not necessarily have to be in on it, but I rule nothing out.
LikeLike
Hi Petra, I did call the Reiner a fake early on, and noted the Conan connection. I was wrong that this event would stay in the headlines. What’s odd is it hasn’t, suggesting Reiner may have wanted to retire to the Elysian fields.
Someone you don’t mention in your moon agents is Ralph Rene. His book NASA mooned America is pretty good from my memory.
Also you’re requirement that moon skeptics provide some sort of absolute proof of fakery is an impossibility. As I have noted of many other high level science psyops is they have an impossible requirement if you want to check their work – we can’t get access to the moon, or their playtex suits, or LEO, to test if this things work, and never will. Which is why I’ve always stuck with verifiable sciences to be an expert – chemistry, polymer science, enzymology, protein structure – things you can actually study and obtain data on.
LikeLike
I think Ralph is an agent too but I’m not bothered to analyse every single one – I’ve looked at five – that’s more than enough, isn’t it?
I don’t demand “absolute proof” of fakery, Ray, I ask for any evidence at all of fakery – I mean, I have realised from the suggestion by a reader on my substack that the explosion on Apollo 13 was faked (which doesn’t mean the whole mission was – I think it was done as an emergency response exercise pushed out as real) and I’ve written a post showing that the explosion on Apollo 1:
— showed signs of fakery
— acted as second-level propaganda to the disbelievers – what was made out to disbelievers is that Freemason astronaut, Gus Grissom, was killed because he was calling out the safety of the spacecraft. A funny part of the GG story is that his wife tells us that a few days before the test GG hung a lemon on the simulator spacecraft – so we’re supposed to believe that GG was a kamikaze astronaut? Disbelievers fell for that one. Did you too, Ray?
LikeLike
No thanks Apollo 1 is pretty ridiculous. It’s played as Grissom was a legitimate insider critic, and could have blown the whistle on the fraudulence of the whole program. So they “moidered” him. Uh, no. And my uncle thinks its when NASA learned not to use 100% oxygen in the capsules. Duh.
I remember seeing the right stuff a few times as a kid and Grissom was played as a bumbler, so of course he f-ed up the Apollo 1 catastrophy.
If you want to look at everyone calling the Apollo landings fake you’ll need to call out a lot more than 5 people. Supposedly over half of the UK are skeptics.
LikeLike
Also Kaysing and Rene had some serious cajónes, or stones, to publish early on about the Apollo fake, so I give them some credence and leeway for getting some things now right. I do remember Kaysing as suggesting the Gemini programs were legit, and they only figured out mid 1960s the moon was an impossibility – when it has been known for a long time it would be extremely irresponsible to send anyone to land on the moon with all the unknowns about making it back safely. With zero purpose.
So Petra considering you think they went do you also consider it extremely reckless and pointless to send a man to the moon, to do donuts in a moon buggie, or do you consider them heroes like the majority of idiots in our populace?
LikeLike
” … so I give them some credence and leeway for getting some things now right.”
Can you please name one, Ray.
Just one.
I’m just asking for one thing correct from the five people I nominate as agents and it still hasn’t materialised.
LikeLike
I don’t want to call out everyone calling the moon landings fake, Ray, I just want to call out those who KNOW the landings happened and put forward propaganda to say they didn’t.
I’ve posted an article on Wagging the Moondoggie that Mark actually published on this website, however, I don’t think anyone here has really taken on how propaganda works its magic in that book – it is a really clever work of propaganda and the analysis of it by an unknown blogger that I used in my post is very much worth studying to understand how the magic propaganda web has been spun.
For those not well-versed in the Apollo program (the vast majority) and who are also skeptical of official narratives it seems extremely compelling … but for those well-versed it is very easily exposed.
I’m not well-versed myself of course but I can appreciate the analysis of those who are whereas disbelievers seem to have an immunity to experts on Apollo. There seems to be an anti-expert attitude whereas while, of course, we can’t always rely on experts we need to be able to appreciate when people really are experts and know more than we do.
This is my post on Wagging the Moondoggie and it is very instructive on how propaganda has worked its magic – thanks to someone well-versed in Apollo and also in logic and reasoning.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/wagging-the-moondoggie-a-masterwork
LikeLike
This moon business is like the Simpsons, it just never ends.
I had a few comments to Petra first – so we need to be able to appreciate experts and know more than we do?
My answer: no. Except in two cases: 1. When your car is broken down in the middle of nowhere, and you want to get home (auto mechanics know more than most people). 2. When you’re learning to fly and the expert is your flight instructor. Reason why? Because I’m an expert in a handful of fields, and it really doesn’t mean anything, except in the case where I parrot the mainstream opinion, people will nod their heads. If I openly attacked some sacred scientific postulate, I would be discredited right away. Being an expert just means you can make some extra bucks sitting on some committee or board to approve what you’ve been asked to.
To answer Mark as to why stage moon landings? I would say how about for pure propaganda – to give further evidence that Americans are the modern scientific gods, and capable of the “impossible”, like nuclear bombs, and towers collapsing on 9/11, and miracle vaccines for Covid, because we’re America, and we can do amazing miraculous things. As far as space travel, it’s likely just cheap airplane/balloon platforms floating at 100-200k feet with lots of sensors and cameras, which are the “satellites”.
LikeLike
Here’s a tip if you are in need of someone help you survive, here are my choices: a redneck from the deep south, or mountains of Appalachia, or a Russian. Why? Because those guys can fix anything, or kill/eat anything if necessary. Runner up are southeast Asians who are physically quite tough (good choice for bodyguards/stamina).
LikeLike
My main point is not about “experts” Ray it is that we need to be able to recognise when people know more than we do on a subject whatever their “expert” status designation is – which doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong on a particular item in that subject where we are right but we still need to have a sense of where someone – generally speaking – knows more on a subject than we do … without completely shutting down our minds and believing everything they say simply because we recognise they know more generally.
To give an example: I recognise that Dave McKeegan knows far more about the Apollo program than I do and understands the physics etc far better but he doesn’t recognise that the evidence for the explosion on Apollo 13 shows signs of being faked and that the mission was essentially an emergency response exercise nor that the explosion on Apollo 1 was faked too.
Interesting item in the Apollo 1 fakery. They show us the reasonably intact spacesuits for two of the astronauts after the explosion. Considering the seeming level of burning, wouldn’t they have cut the spacesuits off the bodies?
https://marsonearthproject.org/space-suit-1
Of course, nor does he recognise (or doesn’t admit to it anyway) that there is a psyop saying astronauts didn’t land.
LikeLike