This post follows up on a conversation I had with our friend Petra at Psyop Detective on her post “Testing skills in propaganda detection and expertise evaluation“, where we went full circle back to a post I had written back in 2023, “Moondoggie Reviewed, where I recounted a 14-post series by Dave McGowan called Wagging the Moondoggie. In summary, it is my contention that McGowan was a hired writer, and a very good one, who was given the material he used to write about serial killers, the Boston Marathon Bombings, the Lincoln Assassination, the music scene of the late-sixties early seventies, and the Moon Landings.
In each of his subjects, I contend, he did a classic limited hangout. His objective, then, would be to take us as far as other researchers had already gotten on these topics, and to act as a gatekeeper, allowing for “This far, no further.” On the rock and roll scene, for instance, he told us that most of the stars of the era (65-75) he wrote about had military connections, in fact, came from military families, and that an ungodly number of them had died prematurely. My take after hours and days and months of research here on the blog was that McGowan was stopping short of the truth, which was that they were not “from” military families, but rather “assigned to” them for hands-on management. So John Denver was not a Duetschendorf, Jim not a Morrison, and Janis not a Joplin. Further, their deaths were, as far as we could see here, faked.
In McGowan’s book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, about rock music, he admitted never having interviewed a single person for the book, meaning he had undisclosed sources. It was ironic that the one photograph contained in the book, shown above, of Jim Morrison and his dad, was a fake, a paste-up. Either that, or Jim’s nickname might have been “man-hands Morrison”. (If you look with a discerning eye, you’ll see Jim’s face superimposed on some else’s head.)
Well, to get to the point, we went round the usual circles, Petra and I, but ended up discussing the missing magnetic telemetry tapes from the Apollo 11 mission. There were supposed to be 14,000 (metal canisters) of them, and they supposedly contained the medical data for the astronauts, the telemetry from the spacecraft performances, and the visual signal from the Moon of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin taking those first steps. Needless to say, these tapes are historically significant, so much so, in fact, that they should have been protected by NASA, and eventually turned over to the National Archives for permanent preservation, allowing access to scientists and historians.
I made light of this, poking at Petra a bit by commenting that the tapes had actually been sewn together one-by-one to make the Mylar cover used to shield the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander, and that any left over was glued to the bottom of the Command Module for reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere to protect the astronauts’ asses from being fried alive. But the bottom line is this: They’ve gone missing. One cover story used by NASA was that there was a critical shortage of magnetic tape during the 1970s, so that these tapes were recorded over. However, we now know that shortage did not take place until later, in the 1980s, so the story is bogus.
A person today living on the Moon and looking down on Earth might easily conclude that the tapes never existed, an easy enough conclusion. But according to researcher Randy Walsh, in his book The Apollo Moon Missions, Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight, Part II, page 187,
Once the Apollo 11 signal was converted for US broadcast, the 14,000 reels of telemetry tape were stored in metal cannisters, placed in boxes and shipped by airfreight to the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). After the telemetry tapes were reviewed by GSFC personnel, the telemetry tapes were shipped to the Washington National Records Center (WNRC). It is from the WNRC that the telemetry tapes have mysteriously disappeared sometime within the last few decades or more, but no one really knows for sure, or so we were led to believe.
In Petra’s last comment on the subject, not deliberately “her last” but merely where we left it, she asked “If the moon landings were faked, how would these tapes have existed at all?”. I thought that a very good question, and told her I would answer it here and get back to her. And that brings us to now.
What do we know for sure? For one thing, we know that the tapes do not exist now. According to Walsh, they were over a long period of time checked out of WNRC and not returned, by various NASA personnel, many times anonymously. All that can be said about that is that if the tapes do not exist now, we have no evidence that they ever existed. All we have is NASA’s word on the matter.
Above is a photo of “Mission Control” taken during the Apollo 11 flight. I can count at least 50 computer screens and at least that many men (and one woman) at work. What on Earth are they doing? Given computer technology at the time, and telecommunications ability, I would venture that each was assigned a very small item to track, be it fuel usage or astronaut pulse and respiration. They would not be monitoring radar, as they simply did not have the capability of following a ship 240,000 miles away by that method. There was ongoing chatter between the astronauts and Houston.
One of the questions frequently asked is, if the mission was a hoax, were these people all in on it? I would say, except for the guy front and left-of-center with the shit-eating grin, no! The concept to grasp is compartmentalization, that is, each person there only knows what he needs to know. They might indeed be monitoring respiration and fuel usage, but they would know nothing of the location of the astronauts. So these people would not necessarily know anything beyond their limited assignment. Take relief! They are honest and smart, yet isolated and ignorant. The same goes for the thousands of contractors assigned to produce various gear and services. They would not see the big picture.
According to Russian scientists Alexander Popov PhD, Andrei Bulatov, and Dr. Genaddy Ivchenkov, who I wrote about here, the Saturn V used for Apollo 11 was underpowered and could no way have managed Lower Earth Orbit (LEO), and was probably flown that day out over the Atlantic and ditched, no astronauts aboard, of course. They came to these conclusions by analyzing Super 8 film shot by IBM employee Phil Pollacia on the day of the launch. His recording is the only continuous extant visual record of the takeoff of the rocket that day. All others are splices. However, and this is critical, Apollo 11 was under pressure to satisfy JFK’s “before the end of the decade” pledge. Subsequent missions were not so burdened, and might indeed have achieved LEO. To doditched the tapes.
But what of the Washington National Records Center (WNRC)? If you’re like me, you’ve never heard of it. Here is its function, according to Wikipedia:
The Washington National Records Center (WNRC) in Suitland, Maryland, stores and references records of U.S. Federal agencies located in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.[1]
Physical records are transferred to WNRC when they are no longer needed by the respective agencies but have not met their scheduled retention period, including the records of the Federal Courts in DC and the Armed Forces. Those records remain at the WNRC until acceptance as permanent records by the National Archives, or else they are destroyed and recycled. The records are tracked individually in a database from the time they arrive at the WNRC. While court records are freely available to the public, the majority of records are controlled by their respective originating agency, and all records are subject to the access restrictions specific to that agency and national security classification.
That last sentence is a tell, that NASA was the “originating agency”, and so would have been authorized to remove the tapes over time. WNRC would have been charged with recordkeeping, who came and went and checked out what, but apparently, dropped the ball. Many of the tapes checked out were by anonymous sources, such as “NASA, Goddard Space Center” without a name.
Again, we have to step back, perhaps take up residence once more on the Moon, and look at this situation: The greatest scientific achievement of the 20th Century, perhaps in human history, and such a blase’ attitude about it all! NASA and its defenders say, of course, that the information contained on the tapes was also put on paper records. From a history standpoint, those records are only secondary sources, and so are not reliable. The tapes were primary evidence, and they are gone.
We therefore have no telemetric evidence that Apollo 11 went to the Moon.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, nice article. I remember when I found out about the disappearance of the tapes, and that was the clincher for the hoax. The moon shot was not only the supposed greatest scientific achievement in history, but also the most expensive. As a scientist, I understand the cost of generating data – so that if its expensive to generate, you better be damn sure of archiving it well. It would be defensible that is was lost if tourists were regular visiting the moon, as they predicted in the 1960s (2001 space odyssey), but obviously that has not happened, which makes those tapes infinitely more valuable. And I have previously mentioned the reason those fabricated telemetry tapes had to disappear – because digitization of archives – music, film, media, etc. – began in earnest in the 1990s. And researchers would have loved to have had access to that data – which they could not allow the public to see, because frankly it was impossible then to fake a moon landing data set. Nowadays AI could probably create a believable dataset of telemetry that would be very difficult, but not impossible to differentiate from real data.
LikeLike
“NASA and its defenders say, of course, that the information contained on the tapes was also put on paper records.”
If this is correct, then I wonder what researchers have concluded.. plausible? Forged by AI? Etc. Is it publicly available? Was it made so before anyone might have had access to the requisite AI?
LikeLike
Tim, the idea of transcribing tapes onto paper seems rather bizarre to me. How would you transcribe an entire VCR tape, which is probably similar to the technology they were using, onto paper? If it were digitized, that would mean lots of zeroes and ones. So transcribing computer files onto paper records of zeroes and ones? That frankly seems impossible.
LikeLike
What kind of read/write mechanism would you use to translate a magnetic tape onto paper? And then once on paper, how are you supposed to access this paper record, to transcribe the information into a readable form? A scanner with someone feeding paper into it, with a text reader? Code has context, so a simple frame shift would screw up the read function. It seems like a joke, a bunch of medieval monks hand copying tapes onto paper.
LikeLike
LOL.. Forgive my ignorance, I just thought that “telemetry data” probably referred to some sort of numerical coordinates – so that it would be possible to print them out as some sort of huge spreadsheet or columns of numbers. If they mean they have a paper printout of the raw zeroes and ones, I agree that sounds bizarre-
LikeLike
Time for me to insert story: I started off as a computer science major in 1988, didn’t last too long, I hated it. But I met a lot of computer geniuses who went on to do quite well – including an older friend who was a fraternity brother who co-founded a company making high end PCs at the time. I remember he had a VHS tapedeck in his car as his portable computer storage, since it could hold so much more than floppy disks at the time. So I just looked that up – a VHS tape, which typically was used to record 2-6 hours of audio/video, holds 10-30GB of data. How many tapes did NASA say they had of the moon landings – Mark might know, it had to be several thousand at least.
LikeLike
14,000, each holding, and I am quoting without knowing its accuracy given what you’ve written here, 15 minutes of data.[I originally entered 140,000, adding an extra zero.]
LikeLike
I ran the numbers. one gigabyte of data, printed out in digital code, would require 2.5 million pages, or 10,000 volumes of 250 pages. Picture that. Magnetic tapes is fairly information rich, and I’m thinking of all the sensor readings, for multiple missions, easily 100 GB or more of data, or 1 million volumes of printed out (because that’s what paper is!) data, that someone would need to scan. All because they couldn’t drive to Kmart pick up a bunch of VHS tapes to copy the data to.
LikeLike
To sum up, if NASA had 1000 tapes for six missions, or 166 tapes per mission- a very small amount considering each mission was ~ one week, that would at 10GB per tape be 100 million volumes of printed volumes (250 pages). I don’t think there are any libraries on earth that hold 1/10 that number of volumes.
LikeLike
Speaking of cavalier attitudes, I assume Mark you have seen the moon landing videos where the astronauts are carelessly rolling around in moon dust, which would be strongly suspected of being extremely dangerous (radioactive, capable when airborne of wrecking electronics),and taking little if any precautions from keeping it out of moon lander. Speaking of the moon lander, I had meant to ask this question, but it’s more confirmatory since I believe I know the answer: did the moon lander have an antechamber so the ‘nauts could change out of their moon suits into something more appropriate for the capsule, and keep moon dust from contaminating the capsule as well as possible? I don’t see sufficient space for gowning/de-gowning. FYI I have worked in clean rooms where you need to gown up, and I can tell you it’s a nightmare to keep clean in even a moderately sized changing room.
LikeLike
I came across that information today, the size of the space within The lunar lander. I’ll recap it tomorrow.
LikeLike
Habitable area for astronauts 7x3x9, no seats, restraints to hold them in place. Elsewhere we learn of the flimsy nature of the LM, where an errant kick (as in struggling to get out of the spacesuits) could easily puncture the shell leading to disaster.
LikeLike
Mark, I should have known what you stated about the interior, but it’s almost embarrassing to think about. So we’re supposed to believe these guys just spent a week floating around a prison cell with no chair, or bed, or restraints, sleeping, crapping, peeing, eating, not showering, and then just floating around during the decent at high g forces? Where they could bump into any number of things that would be on the walls of the capsule. Thats pretty rich.
LikeLike
Officially, they landed July 20, walked on the 21st, left on the 22nd.
Unofficially, they were in a basement somewhere watching it all on TV.
LikeLike
“Missing tapes” – which comes to us from the Center for an Informed America (LOL) – is propaganda with regard to fakery as they make no sense for that hypothesis.
If the moon landings were faked why would missing tapes feature? What we’re told was on them was stuff that there are examples of that didn’t go missing so if they faked the stuff that didn’t go missing why not fake the stuff that supposedly did go missing? If what was on the tapes isn’t what they told us was on them why do we know about them at all? Similarly, if nothing was on the tapes why would they create tapes with “nothing” on them?
Missing tapes make no sense for fakery … but they make perfect sense for real landings.
LikeLike
Petra, they weren’t going to all that bother to fake something with a massive budget without putting on the theater of doing an actual experiment. The sensors they are recording could have been from a B29 bomber, the point was most engineers as Mark noted were compartmentalized. They had to destroy these tapes because they were full of nonsense data. Is that clear?
LikeLike
It reminds me a bit of a kerfuffle between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagier over the AIDS virus … the latter claimed to have discovered it, alleging the former to have stolen it, and a lawsuit and settlement. Reality in my view was no virus but a need to create the illusion of one.
With telemetry tapes but no landing there was a need for kerfuffle too. It served as a grand distraction from there being nothing to disappear. This is a classic lesson in how deceit via misdirection is done.
LikeLike
False equivalence.
If they told us data of a unique type was destroyed then yes that might raise questions, however, the data that has gone missing / been destroyed was not of a unique type – there is a wealth of material that is still in existence – all of the same type as the data that has been destroyed. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the data that is no longer in existence and there is certainly nothing missing that we need in order to recognise the reality of the landings.
The only people who are aware of the missing data are:
— the disbelievers who’ve read Wagging the Moondoggie on the Center for an Informed America (LOL) website or read those who’ve read the book and are propagating the “missing data” schtick as if it’s meaningful (not naming any names)
— the believers who are very knowledgeable about all things Apollo-related
— yours truly who recognises psyops including the “we didn’t go” one
LikeLike
No not clear at all.
If they faked the moon landings we would expect, of course, that there was a lot of “rehearsal” and discard of “outtakes” as there is when making a fictional movie … and, of course, we wouldn’t expect to know about this discarded material.
We are told that the material that no longer exists isn’t of a unique type – it is material that there is still a lot of so it makes no sense for fakery (but makes perfect sense for real landings) that SOME of this material of which a lot still exists would go missing while MOST OF IT still exists.
It doesn’t matter which way you spin it “missing tapes” makes sense for real landings while it makes no sense for fakery.
LikeLike
Just to add:
‘Ol Davey Boy (or whoever writes his schtick) doesn’t provide a reason for the missing data – he just implies there’s significance in it.
He just has you guys scrambling to come up with speculative reasons for it … that don’t fit.
LOL.
LikeLike
Petra, you should probably study the JFK assassination more to understand how hoaxes work, especially since there is clearly a lot of overlap with the moon landings. Tyrone wrote an excellent piece on this you can read here.
An analogy for the missing tapes is the “murdered” witnesses, and Oswald. To answer your question why they would need to destroy fake tapes: to sell it as real. And again the government looks complicit, to spin conspiracy theories; e.g. Oswald was CIA and then murdered because he knew too much. I have a feeling the majority, or large number, of people who suspect the moon landings we have been shown are nonsense believe they are covering up aliens on the moon, or that they have much more advanced bases and the film we were shown was fake to hide the “real” space science that is supposed to be going on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Murdered” witnesses is misdirection to the disbelievers just like “missing tapes” is.
You don’t get it – the misdirection is to the disbelievers in both cases.
They’re not using “missing tapes” to sell it as real to the believers – they don’t need “missing tapes” and mostly they don’t even know about them and – if they do – they don’t find any anomaly in them … as I don’t myself.
It’s the disbelievers who find them suspicious – ‘cos that’s how ‘ol Davey boy told you to regard them. He didn’t tell you why you should regard them as suspicious he just told you that you should … and so you swallowed the implied significance of missing tapes.
LikeLike
Petra, your mind is as flexible as the Playtex astronaut suits. It expands or contracts in response to any data provided.
Take Pollacia’s film of the Apollo liftoff, the only continuous version of that event. Why didn’t NASA provide such a film? You would think they wanted documentation, but instead they took several versions of the event and spliced them. Hell. we don’t even know if the spliced version is of the same rocket!
NASA immediately (and without evidence) asserted that the Pollacia film had converted to slomo at a certain time. This assertion was countered exhaustively by the scientists involved down to details such as a bird flying across the view uninterrupted and a bus in transit in the foreground. Further, the conversion from film to video was exhaustively explained in mathematical detail. The conclusion, the NASA assertion of slomo categorically rejected.
Before you say “Yeah, but they’re just lying sad sack Russians”, I remind you that to counter it you first have to read it, which you haven’t. How do I know this? Because the documentation is at Aulis, and you have categorically dismissed this site as not fitting in your Playtex mind.
I’ve read the whole thing beginning to end, and my eyes were bleeding, so long and exhausting is it. Report back.
Also, McGowan and his job have been detailed to you … we agree he is Intel (and I assert he’s still alive, Mission accomplished), but you in your black/white manner refuse to accept the nature of propaganda and how its function is to mislead rather than to tell outright lies. Again I suggest you read Ellul’s Propaganda, it too an eye bleeder, but you’ll walk away with a nuanced and better intellectual grasp of the nature of propaganda. Ellul treats it for what it is, cradle-to-grave thought control.
Regarding the tapes, reduced to utter simplicity. We cannot know they existed then because we know with certainty that they do not exist now.
https://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm
https://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v2.htm
First link is original analysis of Pollacia original, second a rebuttal of NASA.
LikeLike
Mark, we’ve been the Pollacia route before. There is an explanation for the supposed anomaly: they sped up the film at 4m.
LikeLike
“… but you in your black/white manner refuse to accept the nature of propaganda and how its function is to mislead rather than to tell outright lies.”
Seriously, Mark, how on earth can you accuse me of that? That’s insane. I say over and over and over and over truth can be used as propaganda and cite Orwell’s “All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth” ad nauseam.
Dave McGowan told the truth (in part) that there is missing data.
He implied this was significant … but most importantly he gave no reason … he let you and the other disbelievers supply your own reasons which are all in the realm of speculation – zero evidence to support them.
LikeLike
Mark, you just make stuff up. It’s quite incredible. I’ve been saying truth can be propaganda for years.
Petra Liverani Sep 24, 2022 3:08 AM
https://off-guardian.org/2022/09/23/deafening-silences-propaganda-through-censorship-smearing-and-coercion/
The other really good quote is:
“All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth.”
George Orwell
LikeLike
I’m grateful to you, Mark, for bringing up the “missing data” schtick because it’s prompted an article I’m going to write which I think I will title: 9/11 and the moon landings – the magic of selective belief in propaganda
When I finally realised that death and injury were faked on 9/11 the realisation led to much more general recognition of how propaganda works … and one way it works is that it relies on selective belief.
If we don’t believe the story of the 19 terrorists and buildings crumbling to the ground from planes crashing into them why, a priori, would we believe the most important crime part of the story – that 3,000 people were murdered and 6,000 were injured – when, for example, protocol for controlled destructions involves prior evacuation.
But the propagandists knew that most people who didn’t buy 19-terrorists-armed-with-boxcutters wouldn’t go, “OK, they’re telling us a big fat lie, I’m not going to believe any part of that story without clear evidence, I’m going to check out the images of the injured and see if they’re consistent with expectations of the destruction of 500,000-tonne steel frame buildings.”
The number of people who took that attitude from the getgo would be miniscule I think – unless they already were extremely well-versed in psyop MO.
As soon as we don’t believe one part of the story we need to ask, “Is any of it true?”
If you don’t believe the moon landings the concept of “missing data” makes no sense and you cannot come up with any good explanation for it other than speculations that fit like a square object in a round hole.
On the other hand, if you do believe in the reality of the moon landings, “missing data” makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
I discussed in a comment above the art of misdirection as a propaganda ploy, never to tell outright lies, but rather to send people off in different directions looking for clues. They did this with JFK and 911, as it is standard operating procedure. Look there, not here! Then look there, but not there! Then look here, but not there! Etc, ad infinitum. It’s almost 63 years now since JFK, and people are still arguing about Russians, CIA, FBI, Oswald, the Mob. All by design.
Since they did not go to the Moon, they wouldn’t be making 14,000 tapes and sending them off for storage. Rather, they would create a story about the tapes, and claim they disappeared! As noted before, since we do not have them now, we have no evidence that they existed before! (They didn’t. That’s clearing up for me now. They were never ‘there’ to look for. It’s all a game.)
So the point of the story about 14,000 tapes that disappeared was done to convince believers that 14,000 tapes existed to reinforce that belief. After all, why would they lie about something that makes them look so bad?)
I am now officially doing a face palm, about me and my credulity, and not you, Petra.
LikeLike
Petra, you’ve said several times that missing tapes make sense for real moon landings, but not for fake –
However this doesn’t address the obvious point, mentioned above, that these would be important historical records worthy of archiving, or at least not casually erased or destroyed.
And it WOULD fit with the “fake” narrative, if it was simulated data from some expedient like tracking a B29 bomber, or who-knows-what. Ie, if they were simulating data somehow, to try to blend truth and fiction for greater verisimilitude. With compartmentalized scientists. But if this simulated data couldn’t stand up to later scrutiny, then it would have to be removed from public access, naturally.
LikeLike
Lots of data was archived, Tim, OK? The missing tapes is only a fraction and none of it is of a unique type. For the missing tapes to have any significance either:
— they need to hold information required to prove the landings happened.
— Information that shows fakery – but why would they tell us about them?
There is no lack of information showing the moon landings happened and there is no reason to think that there are tapes holding faked information … and if there were why would they advertise it?
I can’t make it any clearer. There is ZERO evidence that the missing tapes hold any information other than what we are told they held or any particular reason to believe they held something else or that they didn’t exist at all.
It’s all speculation without foundation.
LikeLike
That may be Petra – as far as the tapes I’m just responding to the claims and assertions made in this thread – I haven’t researched it separately. Just trying to apply logic to what everyone is presenting here.
When or if the facts (as to the evidence) can be agreed on, we ought to be reach some conclusions everyone can agree on.. ha.
I must say, I’m surprised if the 14k tapes are “only a fraction” and contain trivial, or duplicative, data.. Why didn’t you say so to begin with?!
So they have, what, 100k tapes or something of telemetry data, and other nonsense.. but then came out one day and said “by the way, we erased 14k useless tapes, and kept all the good stuff”?
If that’s the case, I agree it could be a plausible scenario in a “real” landing — and maybe even intentionally misdirecting, feeding the disbelievers’ suspicions.
But then Mark says below the extant tapes aren’t even publicly accessible, so how do we know the alleged 100k or so existing tapes are credible. It certainly is a convoluted business.
LikeLike
The thing is Tim for “missing tapes” to have any significance regardless of what percentage they represent we need to ask the question:
Is there anything missing that we need to prove the moon landings?
And the answer is a resounding No! There is mountains of evidence … and I’m not spelling it out simply because isn’t it obvious? Have you only spent your time among the hoax material and not even looked at the evidence yourself?
LikeLike
To address one of your other points –
“For the missing tapes to have any significance either: ……
— they [need to have] Information that shows fakery – but why would they tell us about them?”
Well, if we assume this was a massive production involving large numbers of real but compartmentalized scientists, who were kept busy spinning their wheels somehow (and happy to collect a hefty paycheck and a wife and kids in the Texas burbs) then, we could assume they may have generated reams of useless data.. which as a matter of government bureaucratic protocol was in the course of time sent by other bureaucrats to the national archives. And inaccessible to the public and difficult to analyze anyway, so who cares – but decades later, it may look like a loose end so they slowly “checked them out” and destroyed them. But it’s known because it’s part of the official records all these compartmentalized bureaucrats keep – possibly if anyone made requests of the archives they were told NASA has what we had. And then when people went there NASA says they’re destroyed. Blah blah, yes speculative but showing how it could fit in a “fake landing” scenario.
LikeLike
Hi Tim,
Glad you’re aboard for this short ride. My understanding is that the 14,000 reels of tape were shipped to Goddard for review, and then to Washington National Records Center, and that is what is curious. WNRC, as I read about it, is merely a placeholder for records to run out their clock so that they can be legally destroyed. I seriously doubt that there were any tapes, and if we know they don’t exist now, why would we assume they existed then unless you take NASA’s word for it? Taking NASA’s word on things is not a wise course.
I am so long past wondering if Apollo 11 was real that this all strikes me as absurdity. Of course it was fake! The Pollacia film offers critical evidence there, an underpowered rocket headed to be ditched in the Atlantic. The later missions, 12-17, maybe real, but never out of LEO. What were they doing really? That is the key question. What were they up to?
But regards these tapes, NASA made them seem real by claiming they disappeared. That’s just cat and mouse, classic misdirection.
LikeLike
Hi Mark
i would suggest the missing tapes are simply invented to mislead people and take attention away from the obviously fake tv footage. That’s what I would do anyway.
i have a vastly different opinion on space fakery than most people. I believe like most fake things it has different goals for different audiences. In the older official rules for faking events it’s clearly stated that events should not be faked only for profits.
I look at what I would do if I was running the show. Number 1 I would pretend all stars are further away than they are. Number 2 I would pretend travel is dangerous or near impossible.
I have argued for a long time that the moon landings are supposed to be obviously fake to all intelligent people while appearing real to the very stupid 98 percent. The only thing to fear as a ruling class is someone starting up an alternative civilisation somewhere else.
We see examples all through history of these same rulers pretending travel is much more difficult and dangerous and time consuming than it really is. The first recorded trip around Africa is a classic example but there are many others.
LikeLike
Alex, I really like your reply. I was thinking this past week, as a devils advocate for Petra, what was it like in Europe around the year 1500 for example – were there skeptics saying America didn’t exist, and that it was fake? However, to align this with the moon landings, we would need to put our historical skeptic in Europe around 1550, or 58 years after Columbus’ discovery. By 1550 there was significant travel to the Americas from Europe, whereas nothing is going to the moon today, save Artemis, which never landed.
What is an interesting question is if a truly private venture to the Moon would even be possible. Based on what some have posted here, if you are trying to launch a rocket above a certain altitude, the feds will have an issue with it. And I don’t include Musk’s and Bozo’s and Richard Bransons “private” fakes.
LikeLike
I would suggest we would have to go back to Leaf son of Eric times or further for America. But even then it’s different because we can see the moon and we all fly. it’s probably more like Sailing a long distance across the open ocean 5000 years ago.
A truly price venture would not be legal in most countries. But that wasn’t the case 75 years ago. Like I said they might not have the tech to do it, or more likely it’s not yet profitable or worth the risk. But every normal person is now excluded from even trying. Without Apollo I don’t think that could have been done, although I’m not sure there.
LikeLike
There’s mountains of data anyway so there’s no reason to fabricate a small amount that “went missing” when they have mountains.
All you’re doing Tim is trying to come up with some kind of explanation to fit the hypothesis “fake”. There’s really no explanation that works for faking “missing data”. You are simply obliged to use your imagination to fabricate a highly speculative one – exactly what the propagandists intended.
So clever, no? The propagandists get YOU to join the dots, they don’t join them … because they know there’s actually no dots to join and they’d rather have you make a fool of yourself trying to join them.
Unavoidable facts – in great contrast to the fanciful explanations for “missing data”.
-1. Dave told us there was missing data, the implication being there was something suspicious about it – we can see that because all the disbelievers propagate “missing data” as if it’s significant.
-2. Dave himself provided no explanation for this missing data being suspicious he only implied it.
You’ve been duped by the “we didn’t go” propagandists and you refuse to recognise it. It’s simply astounding.
LikeLike
Petra, I’d like to address a topic I don’t recall you have commented on. Which is the behavior of the ‘nauts after Apollo 11 in their interview. I don’t have a degree in psychology, but based on their performance they all seemed extremely nervous and uncomfortable. One of the most painful interviews I have ever watched. What say you about this? That they were told to behave this way to make people believe they did not go to the moon?
LikeLike
“I lean that way because they have form, it was clearly a huge cultural propaganda narrative, and insofar as I understand the science, it seems unlikely.”
I leant that way when I first started to look at the moon landings too, Tim, and I also immediately think “psyop” whenever a button-pushing event is breathlessly reported around the world – or not even reported around the world – it could be some small local event in Sydney but I’ll still immediately think psyop because of general implausibility and typical psyop signs in the dates and times, oddities of expression, items that don’t make sense, etc
However, I think you’ll agree that it is an absolute given that if there is a genuine event (or natural phenomenon such as a very fast-spinning earth) that is easy to perceive as improbable that the propagandists would create a campaign to encourage disbelief of it in order to undermine the disbelievers when they call out the very many real lies … and simply to dupe them and distort their perception of reality because when you can distort people’s perception of reality they’re easier to control … in exactly the same way that for fake events they create a second-tier of propaganda for the disbelievers.
Example: Dave McGowan produces second-tier propaganda on 9/11 and the Boston Bombing AND he produces propaganda on the moon landings saying “we didn’t go”.
Do you agree that that is a given, Tim?
LikeLike
Have you watched the entire press conference or just the bit the hoaxers advertise? I think when you watch the whole conference (or at least more of it) it doesn’t give the same vibes as when you watch that specific bit.
Preamble to answer to your question
My two rules of critical thinking are:
— Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
— Focus on the most relevant, tangible items first
The most relevant items are often the most distinguishing: the lunar features of landscape, atmosphere and sky are completely different animals from the same terrestrial features and we expect completely different things from each.
What I found when I looked, was that – in general – the imagery all matched the completely different expectations of the lunar features vs terrestrial, eg, so much imagery shows a vast area brightly lit against a black sky – totally consistent with expectations of the moon and totally inconsistent with expectations of earth.
It’s true that some imagery SEEMS to show hotspots and other anomalies that indicate fakery, however, these seeming anomalies have what seem perfectly reasonable explanations. Moreover, it’s hard to see how so much imagery would perfectly align with expectations with only a small amount not. If they faked it, surely more of what is presented to us would indicate fakery not just the odd item here and there.
Hoaxers helicopter in on seeming anomalies but reality doesn’t work that way. If they faked the moon landings there would be a degree of consistency in the fakery, not just the odd item here and there.
For me, the actual evidence presented of the moon landings is relevant while odd behaviour in a press conference has little relevance – it simply doesn’t work as evidence. Certainly, if there were concrete evidence of fakery in what has been presented it would work to support the fakery – certainly – but of itself it doesn’t function as evidence so I ignore it. Also, I think it’s important to recognise that those poor guys had to endure 3 weeks of quarantine before the conference and I don’t think that Neil and Buzz liked each other very much – can you imagine?
This is a 30m video by excellent refuter of moon landing hoax claims, Dave McKeegan, on the press conference.
LikeLike
Actually, I just started watching it again – the video starts with snippets of them laughing and joking during the conference – totally different vibe.
Just another example, Ray, of how the “we didn’t go” propagandists have used “the truth” to mislead those of us with an inclination (generally justified) to disbelieve the authorities.
LikeLike
Ray, just to add: I must confess I’m not sure I actually watched Dave McKeegan’s video on the press conference before because it doesn’t seem familiar now on my supposed “re”watching.
The thing with Dave McK is that he doesn’t simply present a refutational argument, he presents information in a way that makes it fascinating and believers of the moon landings say they don’t watch his videos just to see claims refuted they watch them to learn things.
I highly recommend spending 30m watching it. I’m curious to know, Ray: how would you assign the percentages of time you’ve spent engaged with:
— material produced by hoaxers (and we KNOW that some of these people at least are paid propagandists)
— the actual evidence itself
— refutational material
LikeLike
I would categorize that as a generalization (logical fallacy), and further that you’ve no critical basis for saying it since you’ve not accessed any NASA archived data. How do I know this? Because none of us have, nor can we. It is not available to the public.
What we can do is go to museums. The Museum of Natural History in NYC has T-Rex and buddies there, but they are replicas, and not the real thing. How do we know this? Because museums cannot risk having originals on display.
How do we know the replicas are true to the original? As with NASA displays, we don’t.
LikeLike
When I say archived, I simply mean information that has been kept, Mark, I wasn’t meaning in the very specific sense of “held in archives”.
Apollo in Real Time is a great way to access the historical record of Apollo missions 11, 13 and 17.
https://apolloinrealtime.org/
Apollo in Real Time is an interactive, multimedia website that presents the Apollo 11, Apollo 13, and Apollo 17 missions as they happened at the time by compiling and synchronizing thousands of hours of audio and video recordings, transcripts, and photographs. Apollo historian Ben Feist created the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 real-time sites, and was a NASA contractor by the time he created the Apollo 13 real-time site. Air & Space magazine describes the Apollo 13 site as “one of the most ambitious multimedia history sites ever created”.
LikeLike
so you mean they turned the Apollo landings into video games? Cool.
LikeLike
Im thinking this whole space race was just a spinoff of the Cold War – but IN SPACE! Where the freemasons could create a bunch of cushy grifter jobs plus all the contracts that go out to supply houses and small manufacturers . Note the Space centers were put in nice warm locations in California, Florida, Texas. And you had super shady Masons like Jack Parsons at the JPL in on it at the beginning.
I partly came upon this realization when at work some place that does simple aging tests gave me an outrageous quote, because i work for a corporation and half the money is profits off the top. Everyone wants a piece of the action.
LikeLike
Speaking of Masons, the weight of the combined Lunar Lander and Lunar Module (return vehicle) was 33,000 pounds. Armstrong’s training on the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle and unarmed Landing Training Vehicle, 3 hours and 30 minutes.
LikeLike
Each flight in the vehicle only lasted a few minutes, Mark, so if each flight lasted 6 minutes, 3.5 hours means 35 flights – quite a lot – and there was so much OTHER training involved.
Truth as propaganda, Mark, truth as propaganda and … a little learning is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, you believe that you can know the odd fact here and there to work out the truth of the moon landings but the odd fact here and there is so vastly insufficient to do that.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a657550-7e60-83ec-924f-5b1b8471a511
LikeLike
Kind of a whoosh! here Petra, in that the reason I brought the numbers to Ray’s attention is that they are each a form of the Masonic “33”, a signal among them that what is being said is not true and to move along anyway. Just as with JFK, date of death 11/22, time of first shot 12:30, two ’33’s. In case you don’t see it yet, there are two ’33’s embedded in the information with Apollo and with JFK.
Anyway, neither you nor I have any way of knowing how much training Armstrong underwent, but it would help if we knew exactly when NASA figured out that going to the Moon was not feasible.
LikeLike
Mark
I still believe your thinking here is only first level, and I find it frustrating.
I would suggest it is the opposite. They realised that space travel was possible (maybe even easy, like air travel or ocean travel). Now they need to make it look hard or impossible or fake. They would then push a method that doesn’t work well like rockets, while keeping quite about the rest.
PS I am not suggesting there is any secret space program any more than there may have been secret trips to America. It would be on such a small scale if it existed at all. Which I doubt. But it is important to be controlled so you get on the move early and make up a bunch of laws etc
LikeLike
Thanks Alex, I appreciate the insight. The scope here in this blog is broad and occasionally deep, but never enough depth to say that something is fully understood.
Regarding Apollo, I have long maintained that something other than a Moon landing was going on there, and that Apollo was just a TV show. It is akin to watching early episodes of Star Trek, also of that era.
But I step back when anyone steps forward with an alternative explanation, as I know but one thing with certainty: Whatever the reason, we are not told. There is no revelation. We are left to speculate.
LikeLike
Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s one of those truth ‘per se’ statements as in “I think, therefore I am.”
I will (with due humility) ad a corollary: “Extraordinary hoaxes require extraordinary cover-ups.”
The Apollo program is an extraordinary journey in deception, all of it misdirection. It’s so big that one was to wonder, if they will go to that expense and trouble, what on earth are they hiding?
That will remain the question in my mind, even after this short journey on this blog piece.
LikeLike
I accept that there are Masonic numbers all over the Apollo missions, Mark, however, while normally Masonic numbers mean fake in a case where we have the unique double-situation of the reality of the moon missions … plus the psyop “we didn’t go,” the Masonic numbers can be applied to the psyop “we didn’t go”.
Ultimately, we cannot judge by numbers. Yes, it’s true that wherever you have Masonic numbers you tend to have fakery but we have a unique situation here.
LikeLike
Masonry is all about and easy to spot. As outsiders peering in, it is easy to speculate, but impossible to know. So I settled on this: They are saying to one another “We’re here.”
Your view, that it is yet another way of reinforcing your view, is self-serving and convenient, nothing more.
LikeLike
Self-serving? I don’t want to serve myself, Mark, I’m interested in the truth. Obviously, I’m more than willing to disbelieve the authorities and I don’t even believe everything Apollo do I? Don’t believe 1 or 13 so I think that shows I have no vested interest in the reality of the moon landings.
The thing is I’m not really interested in the reality of the moon landings what I’m more interested in is mind control … just as you are.
But you simply refuse to see how a number of things you believe are because a propagandist told you to believe them, eg, suspicious missing tapes and suspicious demeanour of astronauts in press conference.
LikeLike
You might be interested in the order or the missions, in that they monkeyed with some of the earlier ones, I suspect because plans called for the final one before 1970 to be #11, a very important number to them, so much so that a large “11” dominated the NY skyline for over thirty years before the buildings were demolished.
LikeLike
So you mean you didn’t actually go to the link, Ray, is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
Are you in the least self aware?
LikeLike
Not sure what your question means, Mark.
Apollo in Real Time is not video games – on the contrary – it provides a highly-accessible way to view the historical record of three missions – one of which (A13) I certainly recognise is not as they told us it was … nevertheless the evidence suggests it was a mission … without the alleged explosion.
“Live” exercises are a recognised phenomenon which can reasonably easily be made to look like the real thing – the whole point of them is for people to actually think they are the real thing and not an exercise … 9/11 being a prime example. 9/11 “happened” as it were – just not as they told us it happened. Similarly, we can appreciate that A13 “happened” … just not as they told us.
LikeLike
I merely meant that you avoid all evidence that contradicts your views, and here are accusing Ray of the same.
For most of us, at least for me, Apollo is fun, a game, a test of levels of credulity. It generally boils down to believing in the impossible. But is that not the history of human existence? We are trying to make something meaningful out of a deep mystery beyond our grasp.
LikeLike
We both say exactly the same thing about each other, Mark:
You avoid all evidence that contradicts your views.
LikeLike
A categorically deny that accusation, and offer herewith a partial list of things I have changed my mind about, some very recent:
The existence of Jesus.
The assumption that most people are stupid.
Peak Oil.
Dr. Judy Wood and her schtick.
Noam Chomsky, coming around to realization that he’s juiced. That was difficult, as I admired him so much.
Darwinism, and Neodarwinism.
The impossibility of rockets functioning in space. They can and do.
That nuclear power is not real. It is.
The existence of satellites in Earth orbit.
The Moon Landings.
The Cold War.
Climate Change as a real and present danger. It is not.
The importance of voting. That votes are even counted.
That cab drivers being replaced by Ubers was overall, a bad thing.
Geology, and the idea that an event 65 millions years ago (=11) wiped out most life forms.
That oil is a result of organic matter.
That Bob DeNiro is a great actor, and that it even matters if so. Same for Meryl Streep.
That it is important to be right in arguments and that others should know it.
And on and on. People, add your own! I’ve been wrong about more things than I can easily list, starting in first grade, to now.
LikeLike
I categorically deny the accusation too, Mark and I’ve changed my mind on things too.
Your initial claim wasn’t that I don’t change my mind, your initial claim was that I refuse to look at the evidence because of investment in my belief or something of that nature – not quite the same as saying “you have never changed your mind.”
For all I know, you believed the moon landings initially and it was Dave McGowan’s propaganda – not evidence – that changed your belief. I remember that my sister believed the moon landings until she came across propagandist, Bill Kaysing. I can’t remember what it was that he said that started her on her disbelief road but I remember she mentioned his name as the first prompt. Of course, when I pointed out he was a propagandist then she said that she didn’t disbelieve the moon landings because of what he said but for other reasons … and it’s true she had her own reasons, just not good ones such as software programs don’t work first time so they couldn’t have landed first time successfully. Neil
Armstrong was not your ordinary punter just as Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins weren’t. It’s a false equivalence … and in any case, evidence is prioritised over what we think should, would, could, shouldn’t, couldn’t, wouldn’t happen.
LikeLike
Your assertion that Kaysing is a “propagandist” is an assertion without evidence, classic post hoc ergo pro propter hoc. With McGowan we have evidence of his ability to write without research and interviews, and the overall thrust of his work, to stop inquiry in its tracks, the purpose of limited hangout. Faking his death is also evidence of his deceit.
There is some evidence that propagandists will release an insider to lay groundwork and act as a forward voice for an event known to be on the horizon. Wendell Potter was an insurance executive dispatched by the health insurance industry to release a book, Deadly Spin, deeply critical of the industry and in advance of Obamacare. He then fully endorsed Obamacare, as was his mission. So the rechnique of insiders used to spin is SOP, in my view, controlling the opposition. But again, with you and Kaysing, it is only speculation without evidence except after the fact, and in your opinion.
LikeLike
“Your assertion that Kaysing is a “propagandist” is an assertion without evidence, classic post hoc ergo pro propter hoc.”
I endeavour to make assertions without evidence as little as possible, Mark.
I’ve written a post on Kaysing exposing his lies and propaganda which I’ve referred to before but which I don’t cite every time I mention it, however, in future I will try to cite evidence for whatever claims I make.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/the-first-moon-hoaxer-billy-the-buffoon
LikeLike
Limited hangout is just another misleading propaganda term that originated with intelligence agencies.
From ChatGPT
——————————————
Earliest documented public use: March 22, 1973
The first known public record comes from a recorded Oval Office discussion about Watergate.
The relevant exchange was:
This conversation wasn’t public until the Watergate tapes were released, but it is the earliest surviving documented use currently known.
Notice something important:
That strongly suggests the expression already existed inside government or intelligence circles before 1973.
————————————–
But as we know Watergate wasn’t remotely the story they told us it was, we can infer that “limited hangout” was part of a script introducing this propaganda term to those of us skeptical of official stories to have us believe that intelligence agencies use a technique where they let out some truth whereas in reality they distort the truth and mix big fat lies in with it such that we – in fact – get zero truth at all … or any truth we do get is truth we could have worked out ourselves without their totally misleading “limited hangout”.
Limited hangout in the sense of “some truth” is not a thing – we never get “some truth” from intelligence agencies – and there is not “some truth” (that undermines the reality of the moon landings) in Wagging the Moondoggie, it is 100% lies and propaganda.
LikeLike
You don’t really dispel anything there, just voice some suspicions. But if Kaysing was talking about space aliens, then he is for sure a false agent, as they do that sort of thing to discredit their own words, just as NASA calls skeptics Flat Earthers. But I don’t care about him, and as much as I like McGowan, he’s just a tool too. There are intelligent skeptics out there, and to lump them all together as liars and propagandists is a … let me think here … what is it called …. it’s a logical follicle! I mean, fallacy! It’s called lumpenproletariat – no, scratch that, but it is called lumping, I think, oh wait, now I remember, guilt by association!
LikeLike
“You don’t really dispel anything there [re Kaysing], just voice some suspicions. “
This is a patently false assertion, I do not simply voice suspicions I made very direct claims backed by evidence.
Definitely bowing out now, Mark – all we’re doing is contradicting each other.
LikeLike
“Direct claims backed by evidence” …
What is missing here is not evidence, but rather perceptual keenness. It doesn’t matter if Kaysing is real or fake. You operate on the assumption that skeptics hang on every word of every leader, real or false. We each, including you, are given eyes and brains and the capability of connecting dots. That means we have to sift through the evidence and determine for ourselves what is real and fake.
You are bowing out … I need more and better evidence of that.
LikeLike
Mark, I know I said I was bowing out, however, I meant bowing out of argument and this is not argument per se, it’s just a little tidbit that our opposing beliefs on the existence of limited hangout and Revelation of the Method has prompted.
According to ChatGPT we can trace the term limited hangout to intelligence agencies but but we cannot trace the origin or even allusion to Revelation of the Method to intelligence agencies.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a6a8c7b-f984-83ec-940c-bf07bac9fa3d
To me that’s very significant.
And my analysis shows zero limited hangout anywhere from intelligence agencies in psyops – it’s all distortion, misdirection or outright lies – there’s absolutely no meaningful truth, however, we absolutely can see very, very clearly Revelation of the Method.
Example: 9/11
I see no truth given on 9/11 of any kind. We have A&E and NIST agreeing on 2.25 seconds of freefall in the collapse of WTC-7, however, it’s complete misdirection as Clues Forum shows the footage is faked. (Right off the bat, there is no way that that building would have simply been weakened at the base as shown, there would have been explosives laid at intervals and we would have seen material ejected up the building as we do in the destructions of other skyscrapers).
On the other hand, there’s lots of Revelation of the Method, eg, Silverstein saying he said to “pull it” which is not a slip of the tongue but involves deliberate scripting.
OK, maybe having Cynthia McFadden outside a hospital allegedly on 9/11 saying “no injured being brought in” might be considered limited hangout but really it’s a whopping great truth that cannot be reconciled with 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured and surely fits Revelation of the Method category much better than limited hangout.
I think someone who believes in limited hangout but doesn’t believe in Revelation of the Method is always going to differ in their perceptions from someone who believes the reverse.
LikeLike
Dear Petra, please go to the bottom of this thread for an answer to this comment.
LikeLike
“Truth” as propaganda.
Information from the Apollo missions, particularly 11, has been destroyed. While this is true, the claims that Dave McGowan makes about the missing data are exaggerated. As I’ve said, I don’t think “limited hangout” ever really presents any truth as there’s always a level of distortion which makes it a lie.
An analysis of Dave McGowan’s claim about destroyed data from ChatGPT.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a63e878-29dc-83ec-b647-6f63f257ea9a
Excellent example of truth (distorted) as propaganda:
Dave McGowan implies there is something suspicious about Apollo destroyed data. However, he doesn’t provide any explanations in that direction: what was really on them, did they exist at all? Nothing – he provides nothing. Rather he leaves it up to his disbeliever readers to provide reasons from their own imaginations … and he’s got them working overtime.
LOL.
Fact: there is zero evidence of the missing tapes holding any information other than what we are told they held. Only people’s imaginations can provide reasons, not evidence.
My interest is mind control, not proving the MLs happened (way better people to do that) but as your quote says, Mark, “It is easier to fool people than convince them they’ve been fooled.”
LikeLike
Petra, I’m well aware that “believing” in one thing or another can lead to rationalizing away conflicting evidence. Especially if one is heavily invested in a particular narrative. But I’m not. I’ve said many times I’m open to entertaining different possibilities for the evidence we’re given. It’s nonsensical when you say I’ve been “duped” since I’m not committed to “fake” as an absolute certainty. I lean that way because they have form, it was clearly a huge cultural propaganda narrative, and insofar as I understand the science, it seems unlikely. But you could be right that they really went, and enjoy toying with the doubters.
So when entertaining different possibilities though, how can I not run some sort of thought experiments? I agree one would not want to get too convoluted or use unlikely scenarios, but I don’t think I did that – you yourself agree that much of science involves hoaxes IIRC. And to do that, especially in science, you have to blend fact and fiction. Eg in covid, you can’t just make a bald-faced claim and leave it at that; no, you have clinicians and labs running “tests,” but the whole thing is cleverly a kind of black box to get the results you want. And if doubters appear, there are literally thousands of scientific papers, mountains of data, “proving” your claim. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest NASA could have operated in a similar way, with some people read in, and many others just part of the show.
LikeLike
Question: if there really were a good way to explain the missing tapes other than the way we are told why wouldn’t Dave have provided it himself? If he genuinely thought the missing tapes were suspicious (and he is a recognised propagandist after all – how can we possibly apply “genuinely thought” to the guy?) what was his alternative explanation? And if he didn’t have an alternative explanation why did he present the missing tapes as if they were suspicious?
LikeLike
It is hard to envision missing tapes as not being suspicious. Since we cannot know if they even existed, it is all left to the imagination.
My imagination says that their creation and destruction is a psychological ploy that forces believers into intransigence. True to existential philosophical belief, we cannot logically got from zero to one*, so we AFFIRM the existence of one and move on. This is your stance.
*0 = “I don’t, can’t know they existed, 1 = “Yes, of course they existed!”
LikeLike
It’s not hard to envision missing tapes as suspicious when they only represent a fraction of the mountains of material presented and it is not an unusual phenomenon for project information to go missing or be destroyed.
You’ve simply been persuaded by Dave McGowan’s propagandistic cry, “Missing tapes!”
If it is so suspicious, Mark, why didn’t Dave himself provide a reasonable explanation for what is behind those suspicious “missing tapes”?
LikeLike
Oops. I mean “not hard to NOT envision missing tapes as suspicious” of course.
LikeLike
I think as always happens with this subject we end up round in circles.
I shall bow out now, however, I’m going to write my own post – a different one from the one alluded to but one entitled, Truth as propaganda: the moon landings.
LikeLike
Not in circles, not at all. Rather, it is just intransigence. We cannot get you to weigh and evaluate evidence on your own, rather than leaning on NASA. Those of us here who know the landings to be fake did not come to that conclusion based on the words of experts, usually it was one thing that did not ring true that led to another to another … For me it was the photos, but only at first, as I realized that people only see what authority figures tells them they see.
In the end, for me, it was the utter unlikelihood that with an engineering project of that magnitude, that everything would go right the first time. Never happens, ever. Had to be fake.
LikeLike
When I reread Mark’s description up top of these 14,000 missing canisters, it really has that quality of bogus hoaxosity that you see in all these kinds of events.. It would help if I knew the context of where, when and how this came out, but it looks to me like it was not so much McGowan who made it seem significant as NASA itself.. ie, it was some kind of chicken feed in their disinformation campaign, to shape the whole narrative somehow. From my perspective, probably to fan the flames of skepticism, as moon landing conspiracy is a gift that keeps on giving, just like JFK, in terms of keeping people spinning their wheels.. and it’s kind of a major plank in a larger cultural narrative about how CT is viewed generally. Ie, it’s a jokey shorthand about whether someone trusts media/ government/ science — if they believe or not in the moon landings. And because it’s kind of farcical in a way – nobody ever went to the moon, until 20th century USians – it has an absurdist quality.. and innocuous, not like assassinations etc. It has a unique role in propaganda to this day.
So yes, you don’t come out and say “we are missing 14,000 canisters of telemetry data and whatnot, about this suspicious world-historical event, now carry on, have a good day,” unless you want to stir people up.
LikeLike
100 percent correct Tim. And we know how well the media and alternative media are controlled. Almost anything that gets out to this level is intentional.
LikeLike
There is a propaganda campaign saying “we didn’t go”, Tim. You get that, right? And NASA will most certainly be in on that campaign – after all, they’re in on the faking of the Challenger disaster (and no doubt the same applies to Columbia) and the fakery of Apollo 1 and Apollo 13.
So if NASA is pushing suspiciousness of missing data that is only to be expected.
But who’s latched onto this missing data, Tim?
The believers haven’t.
LikeLike
I agree that NASA stirring people up can fit your scenario – it can also fit with a “fake landing” scenario, as we see in many other ops (JFK, covid, etc) they often release “ammo” for critics or otherwise compromise the official story. It actually gives them credibility, with many, in that it seems like they’re willing (or forced) to make “concessions against interest.”
I mainly just brought it up because you kept saying McGowan had misled people to find it suspicious, whereas he is just amplifying their chicken feed.
LikeLike
As far as who’s latched onto it, of course auto-believers of official narratives don’t care. But I’m sure a few fence-sitters or just people who had never looked at it before, were prompted by that to go view some McGowan type material and ended up down the rabbit hole..
LikeLike
“Mountain of material …” hmmmm. That expression strikes me as odd, as if you’re deliberately exaggerating, you know, like claiming there is a 97% consensus, a move to persuade cliff hangers.
Anyway, I was looking for a logical fallacy that stems from refusing to confront evidence, and I could not find one, but listed others above where I think you’ve trekked. I asked you to review the evidence produced by the Russian scientists in response to NASA’s crude claim that the Pollacia film was slow motion. You’ve still not gone there. Fallacy? No. Just deliberate blindness, or avoidance.
LikeLike
You know Petra is in Australia because there hasn’t been a flurry of responses yet lol. It’s 642AM there, so she should be up soon.
I was thinking about why they ended the moon exploration business in 1972 – because they would have needed to show progress, as in permanent moon bases, some real scientific studies. The moon would potentially be an incredible place to do scientific experiments on gravity, and permanent observatories for telescopes. However, that has never happened, unless you believe in the moon conspiracies that they encountered aliens there (I know one of the ‘nauts made that claim, probably Buzz Aldrin since he always had a screw loose), or they have been secretly building bases on the dark side ever since. The typical explanation is they ran out of funding and there was no need to go back to the moon since they knew everything there is to know about the moon from a few trips scooping up rocks and dust. And why would there be sand and dust on the surface of a place like the moon without water? I thought sand and gravel was formed from water erosion? Ostensibly the moon should be barren of dust from the solar wind and lack of erosional forces.
LikeLike
As I understand it, one of the moon rocks brought back had traces of water in it, which has led to speculation that there is water there.
LikeLike
It would be almost impossible to not expose material to air containing water vapor, and many/most substances are at least mildly hydroscopic. In other words, they would have to seal the material on the moon surface and handle it in dry boxes to ensure no atmospheric water vapor entered. Based on the sloppiness of the way moon rocks have been treated, like the one that was petrified wood, I can’t put any credence into claims of water based on the moon rocks.
LikeLike
So, Ray, not keen on recognising the fact that you’ve been mind-controlled to believe that there was something suspicious about the demeanour of the astronauts in the Apollo 11 post-flight press conference? (It’s easier to fool people than convince them they’ve been fooled.)
The demeanour of the astronauts only seems strange when you swallow the cherry-picked footage and stills promulgated by the “we didn’t go” propagandists and the big fat propaganda from Bart Sibrel that it makes no sense for Michael Collins to comment on whether he saw stars in the solar corona because he was never on the moon when the question didn’t apply to being on the moon but in the spaceship.
If you’re OK with being mind-controlled by the “we didn’t go” propagandists OK there’s nothing I can do about it, however, if you’re interested in disabusing yourself of suspiciousness in the astronauts’ demeanour by going further afield than what the “we didn’t go” propagandists have fed you, watch Dave McKeegan’s video.
The great thing about Dave McKeegan as opposed to most other refuters of the ML hoax theories is that he doesn’t treat the hoaxers with disdain. Instead he bends over backwards to present an argument from every possible angle to show how the moon hoax claims don’t stand up.
Of course, you have to at least consult his work to appreciate it. If you’re interested in the truth you’ll do that but if not … just carry on propagating the moon hoax nonsense and undermining us when we call out the so very many real lies.
LikeLike
“Mountains of material” – it’s all there for you to look at, Mark.
There’s hours and hours of footage, thousands of photographs.
Look and you will find.
Alternatively, don’t look and just read and watch propagandists, McGowan, Mazzucco, Sibrel, Kaysing and Naira.
Limit your knowledge to the hoaxers and cherry-picked data.
LikeLike
I just remembered McGowan was “assassinated” with the old cancer potion, warned by the “elite” to back off. So i was right they gave him the old Jack Ruby treatment – so he was put out there as a warning to Mark and others who post truth blogs that the CIA will cone after you for it – go no further! Which i think is just bluff and malarkey and gives evidence that McGowan was an agent giving some truth.
LikeLike
Also to Petra sorry but I don’t have the time or inclination to further research the moon landings. To me the case is closed and always will be. I read a lot of material and videos over a few years. I am of the type if i see one thing fake it is enough to raise major suspicions. I would say the most damning evidence is the videos from the surface. Where you see how careless and stupid they act, singing. I remember they even inserted a live video of the ‘nauts playing “age of acquarius” on a portable radio player floating in the capsule the night before the Apollo 13 near disaster. Just really cheesy stuff looking at it now.
LikeLike
Ray, the tom foolery is intentional. It is so we can easily tell it’s fake. It’s only supposed to appear real to some people. Some of Petras points about how they deliberately make it look stupid are very valid. I can see why she goes where she does. But to then jump to it must be real because they make it look fake is probably a bit Elon Musk like thinking.
But I will go a step further with you. If it was real there is simply no way you are filming it for public consumption. You are keeping everything to yourself. Just think how secretive these people were with their ocean travels for thousands of years.
Zero chance that the first trip to the moon ever gets played on live tv. Absolute zero chance.
LikeLike
Alex, i think you may be over-simplifying the moon psyop as just a cover up for space travel. I lean towards thinking we live on a so-called prison planet, no way off. The moon psyop filled many other potential purposes: an extension of the cold war, making the fear of ICBMs and rockets real, giving people false hope in outer space as an escape, and as a new religion, with the big bang, billions and billions of stars, and generally trying to replace the old Christianity with a new secular religion of science.
LikeLike
It serves multiple purposes for different audiences. I’ve mentioned them before. But maybe not here and now. I don’t suggest they can travel yet either, Although I couldn’t know.
I suggest it just had to be done to make people like yourself (but with hundreds of millions of dollars) lean towards the I don’t think it’s possible angle. They did the same thing with long ocean voyages and even travel by land in the past and held on to it for thousands of years.
And yes I agree with you of course it also works the opposite for the less technically minded dreamers. Who dream of aliens and angels instead of focusing on this world. That’s a long running millenia old psy op and probably the key to this world. It’s easy enough to make millions of dollars and have all the material possessions you could ever want but it’s much easier to sit back and dream or easier still to watch a screen and have someone do it for you.
Most people on the space stuff fit into either camp A (the majority in most countries) they didn’t do it and it’s not possible. Camp b (a very large percentage of people) they did it but it’s not worth it and other stars or planets are too far away. Or camp C (a small percentage of dreamers really) There is a massive secret space program worth trillions of dollars.
Almost no one (I have never come across a single person) believes they didn’t go but maybe it’s not that hard and I should have a go.
Perhaps this is all a fortunate accident. But I never attribute stupidity and luck to these people when they achieve their desired outcome.
LikeLike
Well I recognise the explosion on Apollo 13 as staged, Ray. Nothing the propagandists would like better than to have a real program in which are staged elements no? Then they can really have everyone fooled – the ones who don’t believe the real part and the ones who believe the staged part.
Everyone gets it wrong – their ultimate aim.
An absolutely essential element of critical thinking is to respond to challenges to your thinking.
You’ve put forward the strangeness of the demeanour of the astronauts in the press conference.
I’ve countered with the fact that this impression has been created by propagandists by using cherry-picked footage and stills and lying about the supposed anomaly of Michael Collins saying he couldn’t see stars in the solar corona and I’ve provided an excellent video demonstrating what I say.
If you don’t find that challenging then that only indicates a complete indoctrination by the “we didn’t go” propaganda campaign. So be it, Ray.
LikeLike
McGowan was really hamming it up during his pre-cancer period. He was deliberately chain smoking on camera during interviews, and one time appeared in a smoking jacket kneeling behind a desk answering questions. He was doing predictive programming, as the decision had apparently been made to move him somewhere else. He was also very funny.
They used the old cancer potion with Bill Hicks before his fake death … nobody claimed he’d been dosed with cancer, but the implication was very clear, a public critic of the Warren Commission dies of cancer 72 days shy of his 33rd birthday.
LikeLike
Look up Patrick Coles Toxic sequestration theory of cancer on substack. It’s probably the best medical theory I have ever seen and explains most disease. It’s very logical basically suggesting that toxins are toxic and the body must then deal with them in the best way it can. His latest post on the dangers of excessive glucose is a little too confronting for me but I suspect it’s largely correct.
LikeLike
I just watched two videos today (and once before but it takes more than one viewing to penetrate my cranium) that suggests (with even fake graphic visual evidence) that statins and blood pressure pills are considered toxins by the body, so that their results, even if perceived as favorable, are merely a detoxing event.
I get that … that is, I keep my body free of these toxins. I don’t care about my blood pressure or cholesterol. I hope to be healthy until I die.
Yesterday at the dentist I filled out a health questionnaire, which I do with pleasure as nothing is wrong with me. And, he’s just a freaking dentist so it’s all none of his beeswax. At the end, I was asked to “certify” that my answers were true. WTF? I wrote “Is this a legal document?”
LikeLike
Mark,
Which videos did you watch. I’ve read the substack articles. I contacted him about some of his old work and he said he realises some of it was wrong now and he should take it down. I suggested perhaps leave it up with a note saying he has corrected it or believes he was incorrect.
I don’t know that the results of drugs are necessarily a detoxing event but moving markers on a test does not make one healthy. He is basically pushing a low toxin lifestyle and goes into how different toxins in different quantities cause different responses by the body. Ranging from normal processing of toxins through the liver etc to fat gain and excretion through skin hair nails , to smaller storage vaults such as moles, pimples to full blown extra toxic processing units such as cancer. It is certainly worth watching or better still reading.
It is logical and actionable it suggests obesity and cancer are your body saving you from other diseases that fcuks you up faster. He pushes a carnivore diet but with no supplements or organ meat and even suggests eating less toxic meat. Your good or bad health is basically explained by your own choices (and your parents)
If you get into it you would easily be able to make some posts on the idea, that would gain some discussion
PS I’m looking at starting some writing, I am shit at it currently do I should get better quickly. I’m currently trying to put all my ideas somewhere I can find them.
LikeLike
The two videos I watched were by Dr. Sam Bailey of New Zealand.
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/natural-health-remedies/the-biggest-lies-about-cholesterol/
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/natural-health-remedies/the-biggest-lies-about-blood-pressure/
Take it for what it is worth. There is no one I trust but she and her husband Mark to me seem decent and smart.
If you need an outlet for your writing, consider this blog. I’m happy to offer up voices other than my own and have a large reader base, though at any given time the variance between number of people subscribed versus actual readers is large. I refuse to go seeking followers as I am too technically inept. I have to be content to be able to put my own words in writing effectively enough to satisfy me first, others secondly.
LikeLike
I like the Bailey’s.
Obviously she was a TV doctor beforehand and is heavily promoted. But they have lots of good stuff.
I think this Patrick Coles is not as entertaining but more correct in his theory, which really covers most disease. Trouble is he has nothing to sell. He appears to be early in his journey. He goes too far into the chemistry and mechanism for most people but I like it.
LikeLike
How do I access patrick Cole’s material? hopefully, podcast?
LikeLike
He has a YouTube channel oxilate warrior I believe.But I just jump on substack and hit listen. I then stop and read when I feel like it.
He is doing the rounds at the moment. Got a gig with the The Cough Man interviewing him in his as his last video he posted on Substack.
I sometimes forget how good uncle Andy’s work was and still is. I’d actually start by watching this one just look up Patrick Coles on Substack and click on the latest video.
Sometimes people are very critical of the controlled opposition but I appreciate how necessary it is to just get along sometimes. Even with my direct family I mostly just let everything go.
LikeLike
To conclude this tennis match, why canta hoax just be a hoax? For example Sandy Hook, Columbine? Cannot we just aced they were theatrical bullshit? Why do the moon landings need to be something special- ie they were covering up something deeper? I doubt it. Were they covering up what is down not up? That thought crossed my mind today. John Lennon sang what there was nothing above us, only sky? As humans we care about resources. What if the moon was just a long fake , where they know there is nothing of interest or import above us, but the real value is under us – something no one ever talks about? Below us is oil, coal, water, radioactive materials that can be used for energy. What if space is just a time waster for stupid people- ie 98% of the population- and the sharps are busy mapping out the plentiful resources below us?
LikeLike
Of course a hoax can just be a hoax, just like I can drive 60 in a 50 zone. But the law clearly states that it is not acceptable. All the rules I’ve read say a hoax must not just be for profit. It needs a greater reason. Now the punishment is relatively minor compared to revealing a hoax so I’m sure it happens a lot just like speeding.
LikeLike
and as far as the moon goes, there’s nothing like cross country skiing when there’s a full moon. The moon is beautiful. Its frankly better if no man walks on it.
LikeLike
I could’ve sworn you left a comment on a newer post about hypochondria. If so, how did you make it go away?
Anyway, I wanted to get away from Apollo but I have to say it is fun. I have another post on it tomorrow, just for fun.
LikeLike
one interesting phenomenon is how widespread skepticism appears to be in social media like Facebook and nextdoor. Unless the algorithms are juicing my comments towards what I am pleased to hear. Which is a lot of skepticism about the moon landings and space program, and many other things like politics being rigged (which seems an easy one to figure out)
LikeLike
Mark I can’t reply to your comment directly so I will here, and it’s a good point: “You operate on the assumption that skeptics hang on every word of every leader, real or false. We each, including you, are given eyes and brains and the capability of connecting dots. That means we have to sift through the evidence and determine for ourselves what is real and fake.”
That is very true. I’ve long thought/joked that if I can’t trust myself (I do to a degree), then why would I trust anyone else? Not that I am the greatest thinker of all time, but how would you know if someone else was, unless you are the same level? I believe if we’re above average cognitively, we learn to know bullshit vs. not bullshit with a fairly decent accuracy. I know I bullshit people sometimes, when it’s in my short term interest, which I prefer not to do, but is sometimes necessary to live in a civilized world, and not be perceived as excessively eccentric, which is what I am with no filter. So therefore why should I trust anyone else to know the truth, and know when they are telling the truth? Mostly I read for observations, and not opinions. Opinions are cheap and easily discarded. Which is why I could never read a self help book. When I was a kid, my favorite books were almanacs and maps, where I would study and memorize “facts” and features/names on maps of anywhere, but especially my home town/state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My favorite books were by a guy named Joseph Altsheler, who wrote adventure tales for young boys, not science fiction, but life in the outdoors and dangerous journeys. I read everything he wrote that I now know was only a portion of his work that was contained in our local library. He wrote a Texas series and I as a Montana boy had no idea that Texas had mountains and lush forests too. He took me there. In the one I read, his characters traveled to a lake high in the hills that had in it a strain of golden trout. I was welded to my bed reading that tale! Later in life I backpacked to lakes in Montana that had golden trout, but it was not the same, as the lakes were isolated and the fish planted.
I agree with your modest idea that we are not so much scholars, as I am certainly not that. We are just travelers, taking what we like, discarding the rest.
LikeLike
Never heard of him… so I checked – of course.
Hard to get the feel for what you may have back all those years from a couple of sentences this day, but it seems you may be pointing to this three-book series: The Texan Series
https://www.goodreads.com/series/321501-the-texan
LikeLike
Most of what I read was based in the rivers and forests of the lands east around the Mississippi and four friends, the only name I remember was Henry Ware, and that because there was a man by that name who became governor of Kentucky. I thought they must be connected but they weren’t.
Maybe the Texas series, since I only read one book in it, inspired a young Larry Mcmurtry? That’s a reach.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The most profitable online poker players pick their tables. They stay away from each other and even players like me the majority of the time. Same goes for our rulers they mostly try scam the 98 percent that are loosing gamblers or would be if they tried.
LikeLike
I long ago gave up gambling as anything more than a mindless pastime and wasted time. As a young man in my twenties I played the ponies, and at the same time at those events, due to the time between races and due to boredom, drank too much beer. Occasionally I would come close to winning a high-payoff bet, a quinella or trifecta. As the horses neared the finish line a rush of excitement overcame me. Later I would read that that mixture of excitement produced by the horses and the alcohol I was imbibing produced a sensation very similar to the effect of cocaine.
I am fortunate that in the end, gambling became a bore to me. And, to sit through ten horse races without the alcohol fuel was stifling and boring beyond endurance.
LikeLike
you need at least one bump before you believe what you read of course.
LikeLike
also i need to answer Petra on the concept of a limited hangout. They do exist. RFK jr. is a classic example. He’s apparently going after Fauci for lying about Covid, and pointing out Fauci is an evil troll, which is totally true. He also said directly masks were bullshit, and Faucis recommendation to quarantine led to the destruction of the world economy. Those are all true. Indeed Fauci pleaded the 5th on the origins of Covid. Because he knows the origin of Covid was some smoky backroom, where he may or may not have been present to dream up a hoax disease based at most on the common cold, if there is such a thing, with some potential for deliberate poisoning of the population via EM radiation or other means in 2019-2021.
LikeLike
So wild that Petra perpetuates the Moon Hoax. She had a couple good articles but seems like controlled opposition at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are all controlled. We all censor ourselves, we all pay money to our lords
LikeLike
I do not think that Petra is CO by any means, as if she were she’d have much wider exposure and would not waste her time on small blogs like this one. It appears to me she enjoys the challenge of the exchange of ideas. She can think anything she wants, and takes on all who disagree with the certainly of a Christian holding four aces, if I can borrow that expression.
LikeLike
Dear Petra, regarding your comment above, https://pieceofmindful.com/2026/07/22/nasa-and-the-missing-tapes-a-tale-of-careless-indifference/#comment-351941, the limited hangout and your idea of revelation of the method, I don’t imagine there is any grand design in the idea that people have let things slip, even if by design. They may be taunting us, as they own access to information by the mainstream. It could be what Aulis contributors attribute to whistleblowers. It could be slips of the tongue, or it could be the idea that their propaganda is so well lodged inside most people that nothing they say, even elements of truth, will create doubt, or enough doubt to matter. As along as we have TV, the public mind is under firm control.
The limited hangout, on the other hand serves a real propaganda purpose. Do you imagine that Dave McGowan acted without design? His Weird Scenes effort stopped inquiry in its tracks, as did his work on serial killers. I now understand that news and entertainment people often get their training in the world of rock music, where they learn to work in front of large groups, and often carry out perceived lifestyles that seem perverted to us. Then they die and graduate to news and other forms of entertainment.
I say this not because I believed him, but rather because I transcended him, which hardly anyone manages to do. With the Moon, I often get hints of what McGowan was protecting, but I have refused to travel that path. I am settled in what I call “Forbidden knowledge”, and I cannot penetrate it.
Your efforts are appreciated, as we travel many paths together, and your lively debate is a fun exercise. And who knows, you may be right! I hold open all possibility. Mary Bennett and David Percy (Dark Moon), who I suspect you have not read, (it’s a tome!), left open the possibility that real journeys to the Moon’s surface were undertaken, in secret. I don’t buy it, but Lord knows I’ve been wrong many times before.
LikeLike
I was a semi professional gambler for 8 years, stopped in 2020 Making a couple of hundred thousand dollars over the journey. I mostly found it very tedious. I bet over 2 million dollars in my biggest year and placing every bet moviing money around between accounts was a chore.
But my late brother ended his life with a gambling problem and was very much combining drinking with it, like so many in my country do. I originally started thinking his gambling problem was loosing money and if I could show him how to win… but it was much deeper than that.
I would on occasions watch the races and I do understand the feeling that you are talking about. I never watched 99 percent of the events I bet on. The sports I actually enjoyed and watched I stopped betting on because I didn’t like the feeling, especially when you are betting on your team.
LikeLike
My old man claims he figured out a system for making money on the ponies, which I was surprised he figured out, since he is not a classical conspiracist, although he’s quite sharp otherwise.
He said he figured out the owners took turns winning, so he’d lean on horses from owners who hadn’t been winning recently. Said it worked. I personally forbid myself from gambling because I believe it’s too dangerous and I’d rather spend my time studying something i know will make me money, like Chemistry.
LikeLike
I haven’t even looked at a bookmaker since 2020. But I’ve looked at a lot of chemistry since. And find it much more enjoyable.
The betting landscape in Australia is very different now. We are not allowed to use overseas bookmakers anymore and our bookies Ban all winners too quickly now to make it worthwhile. It’s too hard and probably illegal to use other people’s accounts now.
Im happy enough I did it and invested my winnings in property (house deposits) which have made me millions. But I now am trying to learn more than just making money.
I never would have continued the gambling project if my brother had gotten through. The work was always boring and laborious.
LikeLike