I had quite a bit of driving to do yesterday, and so wandered the dial on local radio. There seem but a couple of venues left in Denver beyond Christian and music – right-wing talk, and financial talk.
Right-wing talk radio is merely a “look here not there” distraction vehicle. Hosts I listened to are chanting in unison that Obama made a huge blunder in negotiation an arms deal with Iran. We don’t even know the specifics of that deal, but so what. The radio hosts are merely chumming the waters for sake of political agitation. It keeps listeners married to the two-party system.
If there is a left-wing talk radio circuit around (not in Denver), it serves the same purpose, keeping people focused on bad old Republicans, ignoring really bad old Democrats. Radio is the ideal agitprop forum, and beyond advertising, serves no other purpose.
Please don’t misunderstand – not everyone is wrong about everything on those outlets – it just doesn’t matter. Limbaugh, for instance, talks about how too-easy-to-get student loans are driving up tuition costs. He’s right about that, as I see it, and probably about a lot of stuff. All of these hosts have good points here and there, whether I think they are right or wrong. (I don’t understand everything either.) But their purpose is not to inform, but rather to agitate the audience, to keep them focused on message. Nothing more.
Financial talk is about people with money problems receiving good advice from the various hosts, Clark Howard probably the best. What is most interesting is the low level of financial savvy among callers, how easily they are picked off by hucksters of all stripes. Then, because they don’t read what they sign, they find themselves trapped by a contract.
One caller, for instance, had racked up $45,000 in credit card debt, and wants to get a better deal from the credit card companies. The host rightly informed her that since the companies have her right where they want her, they are not about to negotiate a better deal for her. She walked into her situation with eyes wide shut.
There are several schools of thought on why the American public is both politically and financially illiterate. One is that the schools don’t teach critical thinking skills or basic financial math (as in “annuities,” the beating heart of all finance).
I don’t know about that. I assume that if they do teach it, the kids ain’t learning it. The purpose of Prussian-style mandatory public education is to produce soldiers for the military, workers for the factories, and bureaucrats for the government. Thinking skills are not required for any of that.
Another school of thought was expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville as he toured America in the early 1800s:
When a workman is unceasingly and exclusively engaged in the fabrication of one thing, he ultimately does his work with singular dexterity; but at the same time he loses the general faculty of applying his mind to the direction of the work. He every day becomes more adroit and less industrious; so that it may be said of him, that in proportion as the workman improves the man is degraded. (Democracy in America, 1835)
In other words, we work too hard at our jobs, and not enough on our minds.
__________ PS: Obviously, if kid were taught about annuities in high school, the student loan program would dry up.
I was reading a Linkedin profile this morning, and discovered yet another amazing person. I wondered as I read it if there exists in this land an ordinary human.
I worked jobs. I filled slots, became proficient at the things I did. When I left those slots, other people stepped in, and they too became proficient.
During the time I worked, I had bosses who were also ordinary people. Often times the boss would fear a subordinate who showed talent greater than his own. There is a lot of politics and intrigue in business environments because ordinary people have a need to stand head and shoulders above other ordinary people.
The world is full of ordinary people doing ordinary work and imagining they are amazing and fearing that other ordinary people are going to displace them. Insecurity is the great driver in our society. It makes us write long essays about our accomplishments on Linkedin.
I remember once sitting in a classroom in college as the teacher talked about the need to make even modest jobs sound impressive. She said that even if you sold popcorn in a movie theater, on your resume you should make it sound important. I raised my hand and suggested that person should be “Manager, corn products division.” It got quite a laugh. If only it were not true to life.
I went on to become a CPA, and over the years I’ve done a lot of CPA-type work. It’s a niche, a little grinding, requiring some obsessive characteristics. Filling numbers in little boxes is by its nature obsessive. Understanding just a small part of the tax code is dull and dry and has little bearing on real life and living. It pays well.
I have not set the world on fire. I just worked, got paid, and did other things too. I really enjoyed playing softball, and did that a lot.
I knew a wonderful man who deeply influenced the lives of others, and yet who made less money than any of the horn-tooters on Linkedin. There sits now a monument with his picture on it, erected after his death. As it should be. He left a mark.
The world of jobs and business advancement is one of hard core self-selling, so undignified and yet so essential to success. Might I suggest we all celebrate our ordinariness, and chill?
There are extraordinary people out there. They are usually the quiet ones.
There are few genuine people in politics. Someone once suggested that politicians wear insignias on their suits for their sponsors, like race care drivers. That’s a clever thought, but pointless, as in real politics the insignias would be lies too. Real sponsors would remain hidden.
Politics is not just duplicity, but double and triple duplicity. Thus if a mystery is uncovered, it was probably planted and meant to be uncovered to further the mystery. Politics a most fascinating avenue of inquiry. What is real?
Take Bernie Sanders, for instance. He is one of a dozen or so Jewish senators. He is a self-proclaimed socialist. That’s all fine, and he could as easily be a Mormon and self-proclaimed Randian. That is all window dressing. There are no ideologies in politics. There are only interests.
Who is Bernie, really? We should always hold out for the possibility that he is really what he says he is. But in addition, we should always hold out for the possibility that he is not. It is, after all, politics.
“Socialists” are not allowed to survive in real politics. While socialism is widely practiced here and abroad, we do not like to describe ourselves as such. So normally a self-described animal of that stripe would not attain the necessary stature and name recognition to survive even in the House of Representatives, much less the U.S. Senate. For Bernie to make the jump from obscurity to the senate required some juice.
That probably means he is something far more common in politics than a genuine person, “controlled opposition.” In real politics, where power comes only from money backers, the players are stationed like pawns in a chess board.
Bernie decided to run for president. It’s quixotic. What possible good comes of it? When genuine people run, say a Dennis Kucinich, they are marginalized. They are not mentioned by name in the polls (“others”). They are never, ever, allowed to “surge.” If they do gain momentum, they are taken down.
It might help the reader to follow the candidacies of two people who might indeed have been genuine, Gary Hart and Howard Dean. Each was gaining favor, running well. Each was taken down, Hart by scandal, Dean by power of suggestion, an organized medial blitz where a common exhortation speech to followers became his undoing.
So in following the Bernie campaign, keep this in mind: If he is genuine, he will be taken down. If he is not, he’ll be promoted. But his purpose is something other than what is apparent. He is not running for president. He is serving another purpose.
Then we have a mystery to solve: For whom doth Bernie toil? It will became apparent with time. Presidential selection always precedes presidential election in our fake republic. In my view, and of course I do not see all or know all, Jeb Bush has been selected as our next president.
But I can be fooled, think too much, make reaches. I could be wrong. It could be that the selection is waiting in the wings, another savior awaits coronation.
This much I know: Bernie receives high notoriety, mention in the polls and news coverage. That does not happen to genuine people.
__________ PS: The reader might infer from this that I am claiming we have not only bought politicians, but also a controlled news media.
Well, duh.
__________ PPS: A commenter makes the point that Bernie could be running merely to bring progressives back into the system after having dropped off the voting roles in the eight years of Obama’s brand of right winging his way. Bernie gets them to register, and then they will be available to vote for Hillary after he drops out. Could be. What do I know?
Q: Do you think these people who were behind all this [JFK assassination] are still very powerful and very deadly?
Gerald Patrick Hemming (U.S. Intelligence Agent): They never stopped doing their work. It’s a continuous event. You see, people don’t understand. The coup didn’t occur in November [of 1963]. The coup had already occurred before the inauguration. Kennedy never took power as president. He never functioned as a real president. This is what Eisenhower was warning* about. They’d done the same thing to him. They’d caused him to cease functioning as the president himself.
Reading over the blog this morning, entries going back a few weeks, I thought it a pity that people don’t read it. I need to spice this place up! I need to write about football and elections! I should not expect people to come here, but rather go to where they live.
Except that I can’t do that.
People advise not to go down rat holes. They say that our country is like sausage – if you like it, don’t ask how they make it.
People get discouraged when they find out that we’ve been lied to most of our lives about everything of importance. It is more important to believe than to live in the real world. Belief sustains people, where truth debilitates them. So it appears, anyway.
Religion, for example, a completely irrational belief system, makes people happy.
Odd. I become exhilarated when I learn truths. Hemming’s statement above was a light switch clicking on. I have long marveled that when Kennedy was murdered, all of the apparatuses to carry out the murder and then cover it up were in place. The Justice Department, FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, intelligence agencies and their mobsters were all either part of the event, or the cover-up.
That’s not a new understanding. What is interesting is that these people and agencies behaved as if it were a practiced drill. They knew instinctively what to do.
And so did the news media. To this day, people of power in the news media know to continue with the cover-up. How do they know to do this?
The answer will not please you. I cannot speak of the time before World War II other than that I know we did not have a powerful military, so that our power to do evil was limited. But by process of war and formation of organizations to fight it, and by assimilation of elements of the Third Reich into our intelligence establishment, some time after 1945 we experienced a bloodless coup d’etat. The National Security Act of 1947 was the frontispiece.
Eisenhower experienced it. The McCarthy hearings, the public face of a purge, happened on his watch. He sought détente with the Soviet Union, and was undermined by the intelligence agencies, who managed to pull off the Gary Powers U2 affair** to sabotage his meetings with Khrushchev.
Already we were being governed from behind the scenes by acts of treason. Ike knew it, tried to warn us. But as Hemmings tells us above, the country was already lost by that point, our form of government severely weakened. It has never recovered. We are a fake republic, and have been for decades.
I only sort of understand the mechanism that makes people hide from truth. I don’t suffer from that defect. I have never been harmed by knowing things. If as a child I grew up in a whorehouse, I would not know it. When later I put two and two together, I would be hurt, for a brief spell. Then I would want to know more. I would not hide from ugly truth.
________________________
*He’s referring to Eisenhower’s farewell address wherein he warned of the dangers of the “Military Industrial Complex.”
**Sitting on stage right in the middle of the courtroom gathering witnessing the Powers’ trial in the Soviet Union was a young man put there to send a message to the American intelligence community, a “defector,” Lee Harvey Oswald. Gary Powers was sure that Oswald had given the Soviets the information needed to bring him down. But it was a failed operation in part, in that Powers was not supposed to survive when his aircraft was brought down.
_________________________
PS: It occurred to me after writing this that the coup might have occurred on April 12, 1945, or before that time when Henry Wallace was replaced by Harry Truman in backrooms at the Democratic convention. Josef Stalin told Elliot Roosevelt, Franklin’s son, that FDR had been murdered, poisoned by “that Churchill gang.”
…I do recall … David telling us story after story about how he worked with the Bolivians to track down Che Guevera and that he was there when they made the arrest; and that he ordered him to chop his head off and then he kicked it as far as he could so there would be no stories that he’d been caught and captured but had escaped. (Robert Walton, attorney, speaking of David Sanchez Morales (1925-1978), CIA agent)
(My note: Morales “ordered” the Bolivians to chop the head off. So much for plausible deniability.)
David Sanchez Morales, American born in Phoenix
Robert Altemeyer, retired professor of psychology up north, developed the concept of the “right-wing authoritarian,” calling that particular psychological makeup the enemy of human freedom. (My link is to Wikipedia. It is brief and useful.)
But Altemeyer’s work is misleading if one approaches our world from a “right vs left” framework. In fact, he encountered the same personality profile in supposed “right” and “left” circles and so invented the term “wild card authoritarian” to describe non-right wingers.
I think his use of “right-wing” is misleading. Altermeyer performed similar work in the old Soviet Union and found that the exact same personality profile that fit our “Right Wing Authoritarians” existed in the leaders of the Soviet regime.
Che Guevera, born in Rosario, Argentina
Similarly, I have found that the leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States are the exact same type of people, authoritarians, conniving, disingenuous, and manipulative. Dr. Judy Wood, as is her talent, coined a pithy phrase to describe the phenomenon: Same team, home and away uniforms.
I bring this up in a much larger framework, however. David Morales hated communists with such intensity that in his own mind he was justified in performing any act of violence against them, no matter how atrocious. As a result, KGB-style communists and American anti-communists were essentially the same people, two sides of the coin called “evil.” They were deeply brainwashed and could live in any era. They might feel at home in Communist, Nazi, Khmer Rouge settings, for example. In our modern-day they could be “al Qaeda,” “ISIL,” Navy Seals or Blackwater ops.
My larger question has to do with anticommunism. At the end of World War II, Americans and Russians were allies, the latter having done the lion’s share of the work in defeating Nazi Germany. Not too long after the war, we learned that the Russians, who became the “Soviet Menace,” were our deadly enemy set on destroying us.
The Soviet Union was never a credible threat to the United States. How, in the minds of Americans, did they become the face of evil? How were characters like Morales created?
I can explain only a small part of it, McCarthyism, a Mao-like purge of career service diplomats from government service, teachers from academia, and writers from television and movies. The 1954 hearings were televised, perhaps the first use of that medium as a PSYOP. McCarthy’s reach extended to campuses, Hollywood, and the news media. While he ended his life in disgrace, he left a mark, a dark seed of suspicion was planted in the United States that the enemy slept in our camp.
That might explain the paranoia that gripped the country during the so-called “Cold War,” now supplanted by “terrorism” as the evil enemy (complete with 9/11, a made-for TV PSYOP). It does not, however, explain characters like David Sanchez Morales, men so convinced of their own rightness that any act of violence is justified in the name of patriotism. There is only one explanation for that: Evil resides in human beings, whether in home or away uniforms.
A “skeptic” is a person who uncritically believes in authority figures and trashes those who do not. (Revised definition used in United States of America, circa 1947 forward.)
I listen infrequently to a podcast from a source called the “School Sucks Project,” hosted by Bruce Veinotte. The affairs are usually long and so do not lend themselves to passive bedtime listening. Yesterday I was pulling raspberries and so put the latest one on for background noise. It was about conspiracy theories and theorists.
I came away a bit disgusted. Veinotte is a good man, in my view, having opted out of the American education system in disgust. He sees that our schools are nothing more than indoctrination and behavior modification factories. Yet given such solid fuel to fire his engines, he does not seem able to achieve liftoff. He’s lost in libertarian theory and government-as-evil idealism. That’s all well and good but it is a rest stop, and not a destination.
After listening, covered in sweat, I offered a comment on the podcast, yet to be approved by the moderator. It is either below their sight line or has offended them. I offered words to the effect that
The word “skeptic” has been body snatched. The podcast world is loaded with self-professed skeptics who abide by the definition I offer above. Among them are Dan Carlin (“Common Sense” and “Hardcore History,”) the Novella brothers and company (Skeptics Guide to the Universe), and Brian Dunning (and Steve Novella again) of Skepticblog. They do, however, advance skepticism as far as it is allowed to go in the Empire of Lies. Space aliens, Bigfoot, and homeopathy play big. But there is a gate that cannot be opened. Rebecca Watson of SGU, for example, when questioned by a listener on the official 9/11 story, said, and I quote, “Sometimes you just have to trust the government.” A “skeptic” she calls herself! A skeptic! She’s a body snatcher.
The “lumping fallacy.” This is popular in mainstream media, but turns up as often in podcasts among self-professed skeptics. It’s a takeoff on the most widely known fallacy, the ad hominem. It is also known as “poisoning the well.” A true skeptic is one who is moved only by evidence. There’s plenty to be skeptical about, but by lumping true skeptics together with those who chase space aliens and Bigfoot, all are tarnished.
Skepticism about official truth is a rabbit hole. Indeed it is. So what? I visit a local gym three times a week. I lift weights, use elliptical machines and treadmills and stretch my aging muscles. There is no ultimate goal in terms of weight hoisted or distance walked. But by exercising my body, I am fit for other activities, like pulling raspberries. We will never know who killed JFK or originally conceived the massive hall-of-mirrors deception called 9/11. That is no reason to stop thinking. It’s a portal to the real world, and not away from it.
Smug. Lots of smug. To which I offered my standard retort to those who ridicule true skepticism: “These attitudes you have adopted – I know they comfort you. You are indifferent and incurious about the important events of our times. You are smug about it, thinking yourself wise to be so. But I must advise you that from a distance your attitude is indistinguishable from stupidity.”
My bad. I once again violated the wise advice of the sage, Voltaire:
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.
I first asked the question about the murder of John F. Kennedy as a junior in high school in 1967, reading Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment. 21 years later, in 1988, I asked it again.
For those of you who were not around, those were different times. People coming out of World War II were optimistic. The future looked good. Kennedy was an unusual man, a natural for the leadership slot. I lived in a Republican household, but cried when he died. He was so natural, so good on his feet. He made us do things like exercise our bodies, the fifty-mile walk a goal he inspired in youth. He sent legions of young men to do good abroad in the Peace Corps. We just felt good. Especially us kids. He was so cool.
The murder, and on some level most of us knew it wasn’t as we were told, disenchanted us. It made kids rebellious. Campuses were alive not only with protest, but curiosity. They were holding “teach-ins.” These were not long-haired beaded hippies, but rather young men and women who dressed nice. The anti-war movement was a peaceful movement of serious people. They talked about Indochina, colonialism, the roots of Vietnam, Cuba, Lamumba, Guatemala … They were not spouting slogans. They were spouting real history. It had to be stopped. (In the ensuing years, it has been stopped.)
Hippies, drugs, rock music – all of that came later, and was CIA-inspired. That is the message that Dave McGowan was working on in Weird Scenes in the Canyon. The guy is great, but somehow never nails it. CIA morphed the anti war movement in to sex, drugs and rock and roll. Laurel Canyon was at the center of it. And the war went on until 1975.
There is very little history available today, certainly none taught in the schools. But it is a rich vein for the curious mind.
I was 27 years ago that I decided I wanted to know who killed JFK. What a journey! Have you any idea what it is like to be curious? To go down avenues you never thought you would or could? Lose faith, find faith, lose faith, transcend the need for faith? Each step in solving the murder is an opening into a higher level of reality. When something like 9/11 or Boston happens, you don’t wonder. You know. It’s them again … that dark force operating behind the scenes, ruling us by fear and symbols. It is the ones who killed JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, JFK Jr., Marilyn, so many many others. They drip blood. They are sinister and evil, and in charge.
J. Edgar Hoover was a closet homosexual who was being blackmailed by the Mafia. Lyndon Johnson, had not JFK been killed, would likely have ended up in the penitentiary. Because those two extremely corrupt men had access to power, other people realized that they could kill the president and get away with it. Edgar and Lyndon had to cover it up. They had no choice. Their own lives were threatened. That was the straw that stirred the drink.
1963, Ma and Pa Kettle days, bobby socks and Beach Blanket Bingo and Doris Day, when everything was so clean, yet we were so corrupt.
Anyway, I am just saying, if you haven’t asked a question for which the search for an answer turned your life on its head, you have not thought enough yet. Nothing is as it appears. Nothing.
“All of us, at some level, know that we are being lied to. Some people internalize it and go on with their daily lives. Some ignore it completely. And still others latch onto fatuous opinion-makers whose daily bread depends on the very system they purport to uncover.
Obviously none of this is satisfactory. What we need is to understand how the world works, how systems of power operate, what motivates its operation, and where it all originated.” (Joseph E. Green, Dissenting Views)
I am conferring today, that is, spending a whole day with accountants. I’d rather eat worms. I like the above quote because is synopsizes the American condition, the internalization of lies. My blog runs hot and cold, but one thing I can be sure of is that when I write about the big lies of our times, the comment section dries up.
People shy away, but they know on some level that they are living in lies. Breaking free is near impossible, I think, as so few of us manage to make that break.
Still, if ever you see one thing that does not make sense, no matter how small or insignificant, and follow it through, you might experience a breakthrough. It is usually just that, a small thing.
You will experience denial, pain, disappointment, anger, disillusionment, and finally freedom.
The “con” in “con game” stands for “confidence.” The artist behind a con game can pull off any stunt if the “mark” believes him to be sincere and honest. I’ve often been a victim, less often as I get older. Even so, any time I turn on the TV or enter a retail store, I am exposed to confidence games. (“Loyalty cards, “coupons” and “mattress sales” on Presidents’ Day are all con games, for example. It’s a way of life for Americans.)
One such con game is American “news.” It is only effective to the degree that people trust it. It is comprised of outright lies and half-truths (along with many other fractions). It serves more as distraction, keeping our attention on some events and off others, just as a pickpocket hires a shill to distract the victim while he is removing the wallet.
Con man
Brian Williams, a very talented actor/comedian, was removed from the lead spot at NBC news because he was caught in a lie. That he lied did not matter. Getting caught did. If Americans sense that he is lying, which he does as a matter of routine, then we might lose confidence in him. The game is up. That’s why he is on hiatus.
________________ Wikipedia is an important information source. It too is a con game. It is supposed to be the encyclopedia of the Internet, a place to go to look up anything. I use Wikipedia when I need to know things like celebrity birth and death dates, the history of rock groups, or other non-political matters. It’s fairly reliable.
But we live in a National Security State (NSS), and all our information is controlled. Unless we are aware of that fact and take steps to leave the mainstream to search for information, we are blissfully uninformed. Do you imagine that in our NSS that a powerful tool like Wikipedia is allowed to work free of control?
I have read Wiki’s version of the events of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon false flag event. Wiki is under harness, and parrots the official state line. I don’t bother with it. The lesson is this: If you choose the path of least resistance for news, you’ll be kept in a state of ignorance. The NSS, knowing that we use least-effort procedures to obtain our “news,” will give us the business.
If you rely on Brian Williams for news, you’re uninformed. If you rely on Wikipedia … you’ll have stars and dates and even some astrophysics and math, but for the important events of our time, forget it. It’s a confidence game.
________________
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez is a man after my own heart, bouncing from rock to rock, and not so inured to official truth as to be completely brainwashed. He once trusted Obama, and doubting the official story of 9/11 immersed himself in the “9/11 Truth” movement. He joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” not knowing it was but a front group.
But he did not stop there, and like me, came across the works of Dr. Judy Wood. He bought and read her book, a 500-page compilation of evidence covering everything from the impossibility of a pancake collapse to the barely-reported existence of a major hurricane off the shores of Manhattan and Long Island that day. She found hundreds of cars that had been “toasted” by some cold process, and examined seismic evidence. She found odd behavior in the earth’s magnetic fields that day that coincided with the Twin Towers being “hit by planes,” or as she puts it, “getting their holes.” She found “fire” (plasma) that toasted metal but did not affect paper, as with the cars shown below. She found that 1,200 people had jumped to their deaths that day to escape whatever process was underway inside the buildings. And more. Much more.
Cars parked blocks away from the World Trade Center on 9/11 – notice all the unburned paper.
Curious as to A&E’s take on Dr. Wood, he emailed its founder, Richard Gage, who is (as I see him) a government agent. (A&E’s function is to catch skeptics and misroute them.) He asked about the group’s position on Dr. Wood’s work.
What happened next surprised him – he was removed from the mailing list, and his membership was canceled. A&E later offered to refund his membership dues if he would shut up about the matter, but he was a bit too proud to be bought for $80.
Oddly at peace
Rodriguez then moved on to Wikipedia, and put up a page on Dr. Judy Wood’s work. In very short order, the page was taken down by the overseers. He asked what was up about that, and got no answer, and so appealed the decision to remove her page. That process, which is supposed to be open for five or six days, was shut down after twelve hours.
After that, he found that his own Wikipedia account was closed. He could no longer access it. Not only was Dr. Wood banned, so was he. (Note: I searched Wiki for her name prior to writing this. It appears one time, mentioned in a Qui Tam* court case against NIST brought by Dr. Morgan Reynolds. Dr. Wood’s own Qui Tam case against NIST is not mentioned there.)
The note below is a screen grab of an email sent to Rodriquez by “Hooperbloob, an anonymous Wiki overseer.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Interesting that the NYTimes and Bloomberg are considered “really good references.”
Dr. Judy Wood is not part of the “9/11 Truth” movement. The official “truth” movement has marginalized her, attacked her. If you are interested in her work, you’ll have to take steps to see it for yourself, as you won’t find it mentioned in all the right and wrong places. It is removed from view, as our NSS does not want you stumbling on it.
This links to her web page, her book. This is a link to a YouTube about how the BBC censored her work. Please understand, you cannot be harmed by exposure to information that you don’t like or agree with. Your brain will still function afterwards. So if you’re bored, have a look at it!
I warn you, however, that you might walk away troubled by what you see and read. That state of mind, also known as cognitive dissonance, will open some doors otherwise hidden from view.
______________________
* “Qui Tam” is a whistle blower’s tool used to sue people who use government resources to tell lies. Dr. Wood and others found that “NIST”, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, lied in its offical reports on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers One, Two and Seven. Because the private corporations who wrote those reports profited thereby, she sued them. Her case was dismissed (the judge asking her if she had a “death wish”), but we can gauge her honesty by the fact that she is willing to put her work on court record under oath. Other leaders of the “Truth Movement,” like Richard Gage of A&E, refuse to do that.
I spend a lot of effort trying to get people to look at evidence. It speaks, but usually says things we are not supposed to know. Consequently, just as a mother might ignore all the signs that her husband is abusing her children, most Americans studiously ignore evidence that their government has committed grisly crimes against them. Some things are too difficult to ponder.
It is irrational to believe the official story of the JFK assassination, 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing. Evidence does not support those stories. But it is entirely rational to believe in Apollo and the moon landings. Evidence is both convincing and abundant.
And false. It had to be manufactured and it had to be convincing because it was not only the American public that was being fooled, but most of the excellent people who participated in Apollo. If you choose to believe in Apollo, I won’t argue with you. Have a nice day.
___________________
The usual reasons given for diverting $40 billion to fake the moon landings are not believable – to instill patriotism and belief in the wonders of our technology? To honor the legacy of a dead hero who boldly stated we should boldly go? Those are nice side effects. (I wonder if JFK was involved in the hoax, or if he was merely deceived by people around him. He spoke of going to the moon in 1961 even as the Van Allen radiation belts were discovered in the late 1950s.)
Among the reasons for belief, the most prominent is that if it were a lie, people would talk. The government cannot keep secrets. Consider this:
Gus Grissom, astronaut, was an open critic of NASA, and went so far as to hang a lemon on one of the space capsules that was supposedly going to take him to the moon. He and two others died in a fire that Grissom’s family believes was deliberate murder.
Tom Baron was a quality control and safety inspector for North American Aviation, the primary contractor for the lunar module. He testified before congress as what we would now call a “whistleblower” about the mischievous goings-on at Kennedy Space Center. Six days later he, his wife and stepdaughter were killed at a railroad crossing. It was ruled suicide.
That’s not how the government keeps secrets. People are right when they say that governments cannot keep secrets. That is how the military keeps secrets. It’s effective. It’s why not even Truman knew about the Manhattan Project. Three things are going on:
Contractual obligations to secrecy. If you violate them, just the financial consequences are enough.
Compartmentalization. Most people involved don’t know the big picture.
FEAR. Grissom and Baron and others who were murdered served as a dog whistle to insiders.
The silent whistle says that if you talk, you die. And not just you – your family too. (Ergo, the absence of deathbed testimony.)
Some time down the road I’ll offer up some opinions on what NASA was really doing in those days when it was not going to the moon. It is still a closely guarded secret, so the best we can do is informed speculation. NASA is a military organization disguised as civilian. It was not playing around with rocketry for fun. The business was dead serious and the need for secrecy was paramount. But knowing that the moon landings were faked does answer a few questions:
Why did we never go back to the moon? We didn’t go there to begin with.
Why, if we had the technology in 1969, are we still searching for technology in 2015? Self-explanatory.
Why the quirky behavior of the Apollo moon walkers? They are and were good and decent men who must lie in public. It is not in their nature. We should just leave them alone. If they speak, they die.
If you are of a curious bent, take a walk on the wild side. The photos taken on the moon are very good fakes. That fact alone does not prove anything, but seeing how they were faked tells a much larger story.
As always, your own thoughts and abilities come into play. And again, given the abundance of evidence …
If you believed they put a man on the moon
Man on the moon
If you believe there’s nothing up his sleeve
Then nothing is cool…
… you have an abundance of good hard evidence to support you. I won’t argue the point.
