Each psyop needs heroes, Apollo 13 is just like the "Let's Roll!" guys on UA 93 on 9.11. This makes the fakery more realistic, and helps to vilify truthers/deniers as not being respectful of the heroes.
They tried to make Trump and Musk heroes but that's not going so well.
Psyops need victims too. Your response reminded me of that poor volunteer fire fighter who was "killed' during that "assassination" attempt last year. I've had friends clutching pearls when I questioned this event. "How could it be fake, a man died that day, have some respect" Convenient way to end all discussion.
The thing I find most offensive is people finding it offensive when you question death and injury. We're talking about stuff reported in the media which they know lies but as soon as death and injury are mentioned it's taboo.
Our dystopian overlords have been at it a long time, they probably have focus groups for psyops. "Hey team, our studies say that if we throw in a dead guy the dip shits will eat it up and tell those conspiracy wack jobs to fuck off, what's that Bob? make the dead guy a volunteer fire fighter, nice one, add it to the script."
I hadn't heard Fonz's name mentioned but certainly Howard's and Hanks'. Howard and Hanks - such all-American nice guys, how could they ....?
In Australia, a comedian who's famous here but I doubt overseas, Magda Szubanski, participated in government ads for the jab and has recently been diagnosed with Stage 4 mantle cell lymphoma, a type of B-cell lymphoma. Seemingly, a B-cell lymphoma was found in an 80 year-old Japanese woman the day after the jab (and then she went onto a second one!), which later was determined to be malignant.
People are putting "serves you right" type comments on her X account which I think is not a good thing to do. For one thing, assuming the jab caused it, she must have genuinely believed the BS at least but I also simply feel it's inappropriate. Of course, it does nothing for the anti-medical-system-fraud case - not that I think you should behave in a way to make your case "look good" but still. I really enjoyed Magda's comedic skills in the 90s when she was at her peak and find it such a shame that she bought the BS.
Howard is the Bill Clinton type, look doofy but be a firmly nasty member of the blob. Fonz was just about the most famous TV personality from the late 70s to the early 80s in the US. He also directed and produced.
The man's clearly taking the piss too - I mean he's standing in a lovely garden (as Mary-Lou says) and smirking at people being locked up. And 235 seeds - wtf is that about.
There lots about him being part of the blob, I mean all the top folks in Hollywood are, but here he is just announcing it himself, convincing the sheep to obey and follow the course, to get culled.
Two of my favourite videos on 9/11 are Allan's two discussions with his famous photographer friend, Walter Iooss, about how the trajectories of Flight 175 in various pieces of footage don't match up - in the first video Walter agrees with him and then in the second he point-black denies the discrepancies - and I'm very sorry they're no longer available on YT - if you have a source for them, Virginia, I'd love to have it.
However, I have to say I've become a little dubious about Allan. I watched the video which I will need to watch again but my feeling is that he's cherry-picking data that makes it look fake rather than using data that really exposes the fakery. And then some of what he puts forward brings to mind the term "meaningless rhetoric" applied to much of the first two parts of Wagging the Moondoggie by an anonymous blogger. We know that anything Bill Kaysing (who appears in the video) says will be BS. But I need to watch and check the information carefully.
The part at the end about mind programming and the hypnotist, Derren Brown, managing to get everyone in a shopping mall to put up their arm is quite fascinating though.
To me the problem isn't so much the ease in which you can get people to believe something - I've believed loads and loads of things I now know are untrue. To me the problem is that so often when you present very clear evidence that what they believe isn't true, it has no impact.
One of the Derren Browns I remember was the 'predicting the winners of six horse races in a row' episode. So he's got this guy to whom he has already sent 5 winning predictions, and we see what happens in the sixth at the racetrack. Obviously it's the winner. So that's 6 to the power of 6 (I think there were 6 runners in each of these 6 races) or something like that (it's a big number, obviously).
Anyway, the big reveal at the end was just pure probability. Turns out he'd sent 6x6 etc. letters out to that many people each with a different combination of horses. So, obviously, by the time we get to the final 6, each of whom have already had 5 winners in a row, something like 6 to the power of 5 of them have dropped out.
This was a beautiful example of the power of probabilities and game theory and such like and it really made me smile.
People who go on about this 'predictive programming' would do well to study a bit of probability theory...
I think I saw that. Derren Brown's stuff is amazing. I loved the one where he got people to actually think they were killing someone. The interesting thing is that those he selected for that experiment were people who sat down and stood up simply in accordance with other people's sitting and standing up despite the fact that there was no obvious reason for them doing that. Not so different from the jab-takers.
Yep. Part of me suspects there's a sort of limited hangout element to all DB's stuff. It reminds me instinctively of Estabrooks and MKULTRA, in which a significant number of subprojects specifically looked at all these different techniques. A lot of it is based on behavioural psychology of course - operant conditioning etc. And classical conditioning (e.g. Pavlov) obviously (see my recent post inside the skinner box: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/inside-the-skinner-box?r=2s9hod).
With regards to jab-takers this prompts my memory of a psychology experiment, or more of a demonstration than an experiment, which really struck me the first time I saw it.
You'd definitely like it as it involves some actors. So, the scene is a waiting room (like a doctor's surgery or similar) and there are 6 people in it. five of them are actors and there's one unwitting person who didn't get the memo. So, a bell rings and the 5 actors just stand up, then sit back down after a short while. The 6th person, thinking that 'this is what you're supposed to do' also stands up. This is despite there obviously being no discernible or rational reason for standing up.
Anyway, then one of the actors leaves to be replaced by a normal person. Now, when the bell rings, the 4 actors plus the 1st normal stand up, so, therefore, so does the new normal. This then continues until all the actors have left and there are 6 normal people mindlessly standing up when the bell rings.
But here's the cool part 2 of the experiment/demonstration. One normal person is replaced by a new actor who, when the bell rings, doesn't stand up. This has a profound effect, because some of the other normals stop standing up. The psychological point being that seeing just one other person 'rebelling' is enough to give an individual the courage to not mindlessly obey. But without any support whatsoever (or perception/belief that there is no support) a normal person will obey.
Isn't psychology cool! Everyone should study it and it should be on the education curriculum. No prizes for guessing why it isn't though, eh!
Second part is very interesting, however, while it worked in the experiment I'm not sure how well it works in real life where the context is more complex. How much influence did the non jab-takers have on the jab-takers, for example?
That’s definitely a good question, although I think it’s partly explained by the demonisation of jab-refusers, making for a divide & conquer strategy, such that a normal person would not be emboldened by seeing a refusenik, but rather have their conformity reinforced, if you see what I mean.
For example, if we were to repeat the part 2 of the experiment, but this time the new guy who is going to refuse looks like Ed Norton in American History X then I think it’s a safe bet the other 5 normals are going to keep standing up…
I started to write a reply to your publication on Apollo 13 suspicions several times and each is being wiped out before finishing, so I'll try yet a third time to commend you for your work so far on questioning yet another discrepancy in the very long list of facts that indicate an enormous psy op regarding just about everything taught officially about 'somebody else's Moon'. I have a former career in film/TV and latched on to this subject myself in 1977 when reading George Leonard's [soon banned] book "Somebody Else Is On The Moon". I'm mid-way through a speculative fiction based on facts novel "Lightning On The Moon" and simply wanted to support your findings and add just one or two that have come across to me from impeccable sources regarding Apollo 13. The first, which is quick to be attacked, is that the Apollo 13 capsule was attacked and fired upon, a story that somewhat dismisses your hypothesis, but may not if explored more fully. The other, from my perspective having worked deeply in certain of the higher circles of the film industry, is that they made the film to further bolster the myth that Apollo 13 simply had an accident. You may contact me at woldrob@yahoo. My website was viciously hacked not long ago but is still there as I work to repair it. There are a few stories told there that may interest you: www.lightningonthemoon.com. Thank you! Rob Wold
The other piece of evidence which you sort of only touched upon was the fact they simply couldn't have survived an accident like that.
What is missing, as far as I can tell, from the official record (and that transcript you quoted), is a reality according to the laws of physics - specifically, an explosion like that would've had a propulsive effect, namely sending the craft into an accelerating spin (like Gemini 8). This is what would've killed the astronauts I'd imagine. Even if it didn't, it would've sent them spiralling off course. And there is nothing in the transcript about that either.
So this lends serious weight to your hypothesis that there never was an accident.
Yes, it's going to take awhile for me to get my head around it. I've looked back over your comments on Good and Bad Modal Thinking and will ponder over them some more as well as look at what is presented as evidence. The urine thing! Forgot about that!
Nice one Petra! And thanks! And also I am happy to have been an inspiration!
You've done some great extra research there I have to say, and it does all fit together to create a certain picture similar to your hypothesis, but certainly one which isn't in line with the official version. It's like that old adage about one odd thing being just one odd thing. Two odd things being a 'hmm', but a whole series of them being suspicious.
And it's very duly noted that whatever happened on Apollo 13 it has no bearing whatsoever on the other Apollo missions, whichever side of the moon landings fence one is on.
As I may have said in my comments on the other post, I originally believed in the actual story but thought it was sabotage (for reasons I won't go into here), but I was focussing only on a few aspects (as one does sometimes). With greater knowledge now, however, I can be fairly certain there is another explanation for it, mainly because they would never have survived an accident like that.
For a list of options/hypotheses, I've come up with so far:
1/ totally faked event
2/ your version - they went round the moon but no accident (not dissimilar to Apollo 8 - as noted, Lovell also did that one)
3/ The whole thing took place in orbit (a modified version of option 1) - I'm aware a lot of moon landing sceptics assume this option for all the Apollo missions.
Ironically, come to think of it, in light of option 3, we might also speculate that Apollo 13 was equally designed to set up these 'conspiracy theories' - this possibly also works with your version 2.
Anyway - great article and you have highlighted a lot of suspicious issues!
If we accept the reality of the other missions I think it makes more sense for them to actually go around the moon because they benefit from the slingshot effect, ie, free return, however, perhaps they wanted to go to space and be able to come back a different way without going around the moon. I imagine looking at it more it might be easier to determine the correct hypothesis.
This line of thinking (which I like) is making me think of deeper, intriguing thoughts, in which the dramatic accident story is a misdirection and cover up. So I am now thinking of stuff involving their secret space tech and all the stuff they must be doing with it, for example on the dark side of the moon. Given that Lovell did that trip twice (and as you pointed out there were crew changes at short notice) this isn’t really that far-fetched at all.
One might even say the entire Apollo program was a cover. Ironically - and you’ll hopefully appreciate this irony - Dave McGowan (in moondoggie) mentions the abundance of Explorer (unmanned) missions to the moon which preceded Apollo. He says that was about taking all the pictures and so on, but if, as you say, he’s an agent, then his version is also a misdirection (in the same way he suggests each Apollo mission was a distraction from Vietnam - which is rubbish, quite frankly). Similarly, this would explain why they manufactured lunar conspiracy theories, which has kept the ‘conspiracy theorists’ occupied, so they don’t consider the secret tech issue.
I remember there was an episode of X-files (these things often contain limited hangouts etc.) focussing on a sort of alternative Gemini program, saying the publicly known astronauts were a sort of B-team, and the real top notch people were engaged in more advanced stuff. I think there were aliens involved in the episode (there usually are, somewhat obviously, in X-files).
Likewise the Kubrick/Clarke thing about discovering an alien artefact on the moon. See also Mars of course (I have become deeply sceptical about NASA’s alleged Mars missions).
So yeah, I’m becoming minded to think there is something far deeper going on here. And if Mathis was honest about it, I think he would agree, given that his physics clearly enables this sort of stuff.
If they faked one they faked them all. Just look at everything they have for astronauts to wear in space. One rip and you’re dead. Yet they are playing golf and skipping around without a care in the world. Besides the fact that what they want up us is a joke. And how exactly do they poop? All communication was flawless. And we called the moon. Called the moon! Let that sink in.
You have to judge by the evidence. I judged them all to be real because I could see Apollo 11 was and what I saw of the other landings also seemed real. Didn't really look at Apollo 13 ... but turns out it wasn't what was purported.
Bart Sibel has a book, "Moon Man The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List" I haven't read it but the reviews and comments line up to what I believe. I can't prove it but I don't believe we went to the Moon. 60 years later and we haven't gone back. They lie and have lied about virtually everything.
Yes, I know they lie all the time but guess what? Bart Sibrel's a big fat liar. On the very odd occasion when something pretty implausible is true, they weaponise that truth against us by making it seem false. And then they undermine that truth by throwing in events such as the faked Challenger disaster and the Apollo 13 "live" exercise. They really don't make it easy to maintain one's sense of reality.
In this video Dave McKeegan exposes Bart Sibrel's lies.
Thank you for the detailed response. Our time on earth is limited. We have to choose what we research and how deeply we research. I'm relying on the Cliff Notes version regarding whether we landed on the Moon or not. It's not high on my priority list.
Sibrel visiting Rogan (oh dear); for a 3 hr interview.... talking about controlled oppo. McKeegan "exposing Sibrel's lies"? nah, the guy talks in statements only, never a moment of 'perhaps....', '...it might've been....'. crikey, just more propaganda. sorry, not buying it. but the more discussion the better, even if it leads to disagreements and discourse. let's keep on going at it: perhaps at some point the whole of NASA's layered agenda, including the role of the Apollos, will be exposed and become public knowledge.
Now that it seems clear that Apollo 13 was a "live" exercise we really need to accept that ALL the Apollo astronauts are psyop agents to a small degree at least because it seems very unlikely that they wouldn't know and thus are simply keeping their mouths shut. The Apollo 13 crew very obviously are of course as must also be quite a number in Mission Control.
Buzz Aldrin took a Masonic flag to the moon and is a recognised 33 degree Mason so one can only infer that the punch was staged.
Skeptics have long argued that the Apollo 13 incident was part of the Apollo hoax script, to add some drama. The old sock really did it for me. Just this week, the third SpaceX Starship in a row has exploded. Half a dozen countries have failed to safely reach the moon during the last ten years. Boeing hardly reached the ISS and didn't make it back. Apollo reached a low point in 1967 but then solved all the issues in less than two years? It didn't happen. It simply didn't happen.
I have to agree they seemed to get to the moon very, very quickly and then nothing ... I certainly agree that it's rather extraordinary but the thing is that psyops always show their signs, it's the rule and they follow it meticulously. As soon as I was alerted to the possibility that A13 was faked - at least the emergency part - all the signs were so obvious. It's not the same for the other missions.
This is my rule: if there's no psyop signs, ie, Revelation of the Method - Masonic numbers, OTT anomalies, etc, it's not a psyop ... but it's only my rule because it's THEIR rule. If someone can show me a psyop that doesn't betray RoM OK ... but so far no one has.
This is another good point of yours - I could express it similarly, but from the purely psychological level, which is that kind of by definition you can't have a 'psychological operation' which has no psychological effect (obviously, otherwise it's pointless) - therefore, as you say, there must always be signs of 'something' which prompts that desired psychological effect.
Likewise, that 'something' must be visible (again, otherwise it has no effect). Therefore, we can, as you say, look for those somethings and establish a very credible hypothesis of 'yes, this one is a psyop'. Once we do that, then we can examine the 'why', in the sense of 'what is the psychological effect they are trying to provoke here'.
Furthermore, we then have the 'cognitive infiltrators' on the one paw misdirecting people in the conspiracy theory subculture (e.g. getting them to focus on details and red herrings and such like, or even false explanations for an event), and on the other paw, perhaps reinforcing some of that psychological effect. Once we have identified some of the obvious agents, we can then study them precisely with all this in mind (i.e. subscribing to them and reading between the lines of what they say - and aside from anything else, it's fun!).
This pretty much explains my attitude towards the subculture nowadays - I take an approach which primarily involves a combination of psychology and cultural studies. After all, once you become somewhat habituated to the fact that the bad guys are doing psyops and conspiracies all over the place, you don't need to get bound up in the details so much anymore when a new one happens - you instantly recognise it as a manufactured event (of one kind or another), so you can then leap on to the more important 'why' questions.
Likewise, most of the cognitive infiltrators really, really don't want people to ask, let alone answer, precisely those sorts of questions. They far prefer people to get caught up in the details, and remain psychologically ignorant. And that, too, is a psyop...
Each psyop needs heroes, Apollo 13 is just like the "Let's Roll!" guys on UA 93 on 9.11. This makes the fakery more realistic, and helps to vilify truthers/deniers as not being respectful of the heroes.
They tried to make Trump and Musk heroes but that's not going so well.
Psyops need victims too. Your response reminded me of that poor volunteer fire fighter who was "killed' during that "assassination" attempt last year. I've had friends clutching pearls when I questioned this event. "How could it be fake, a man died that day, have some respect" Convenient way to end all discussion.
The fuckery is endless.
The thing I find most offensive is people finding it offensive when you question death and injury. We're talking about stuff reported in the media which they know lies but as soon as death and injury are mentioned it's taboo.
Our dystopian overlords have been at it a long time, they probably have focus groups for psyops. "Hey team, our studies say that if we throw in a dead guy the dip shits will eat it up and tell those conspiracy wack jobs to fuck off, what's that Bob? make the dead guy a volunteer fire fighter, nice one, add it to the script."
Excellent point Mike
Good point.
Likewise, it was Ron Howard who made both of those movies...
They shoulda got Fonzie to do it. That would've been way more cool.
I understand your point, but you may never feel the same about the Fonz after watching this 54 sec video:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Winkler_COVID-19_video_for_the_Government_of_California.ogv
LOL, while standing outside in a beautiful garden (?).
Fonz, Howard, they are all involved deeply with the Hollywood cult doing quite nasty things.
I hadn't heard Fonz's name mentioned but certainly Howard's and Hanks'. Howard and Hanks - such all-American nice guys, how could they ....?
In Australia, a comedian who's famous here but I doubt overseas, Magda Szubanski, participated in government ads for the jab and has recently been diagnosed with Stage 4 mantle cell lymphoma, a type of B-cell lymphoma. Seemingly, a B-cell lymphoma was found in an 80 year-old Japanese woman the day after the jab (and then she went onto a second one!), which later was determined to be malignant.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9377515/
People are putting "serves you right" type comments on her X account which I think is not a good thing to do. For one thing, assuming the jab caused it, she must have genuinely believed the BS at least but I also simply feel it's inappropriate. Of course, it does nothing for the anti-medical-system-fraud case - not that I think you should behave in a way to make your case "look good" but still. I really enjoyed Magda's comedic skills in the 90s when she was at her peak and find it such a shame that she bought the BS.
Howard is the Bill Clinton type, look doofy but be a firmly nasty member of the blob. Fonz was just about the most famous TV personality from the late 70s to the early 80s in the US. He also directed and produced.
very good comment. the "serves you right" type comments make me feel sick, we don't need this kind of nastiness.
even the ones playing the good guy/gal role are precisely doing that, performing for the cameras. fits in the binary grid though.
Uh-oh - absolutely NOT cool.
The man's clearly taking the piss too - I mean he's standing in a lovely garden (as Mary-Lou says) and smirking at people being locked up. And 235 seeds - wtf is that about.
Heinous! Totally non-non-non-non-heinous.
There lots about him being part of the blob, I mean all the top folks in Hollywood are, but here he is just announcing it himself, convincing the sheep to obey and follow the course, to get culled.
Posting my favorite video about the Apollo 13 fraud--it covers a lot of the main points in about 20 minutes, including the dispute about heat versus cold, information about the physical construction of the LM, and the plausibility of survival, which would have been zero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3di6odvdNZk&list=PLmgH9CC5ZMHNbV5TzfnpkUvaA-MyjiTNn&index=5
Two of my favourite videos on 9/11 are Allan's two discussions with his famous photographer friend, Walter Iooss, about how the trajectories of Flight 175 in various pieces of footage don't match up - in the first video Walter agrees with him and then in the second he point-black denies the discrepancies - and I'm very sorry they're no longer available on YT - if you have a source for them, Virginia, I'd love to have it.
However, I have to say I've become a little dubious about Allan. I watched the video which I will need to watch again but my feeling is that he's cherry-picking data that makes it look fake rather than using data that really exposes the fakery. And then some of what he puts forward brings to mind the term "meaningless rhetoric" applied to much of the first two parts of Wagging the Moondoggie by an anonymous blogger. We know that anything Bill Kaysing (who appears in the video) says will be BS. But I need to watch and check the information carefully.
The part at the end about mind programming and the hypnotist, Derren Brown, managing to get everyone in a shopping mall to put up their arm is quite fascinating though.
To me the problem isn't so much the ease in which you can get people to believe something - I've believed loads and loads of things I now know are untrue. To me the problem is that so often when you present very clear evidence that what they believe isn't true, it has no impact.
One of the Derren Browns I remember was the 'predicting the winners of six horse races in a row' episode. So he's got this guy to whom he has already sent 5 winning predictions, and we see what happens in the sixth at the racetrack. Obviously it's the winner. So that's 6 to the power of 6 (I think there were 6 runners in each of these 6 races) or something like that (it's a big number, obviously).
Anyway, the big reveal at the end was just pure probability. Turns out he'd sent 6x6 etc. letters out to that many people each with a different combination of horses. So, obviously, by the time we get to the final 6, each of whom have already had 5 winners in a row, something like 6 to the power of 5 of them have dropped out.
This was a beautiful example of the power of probabilities and game theory and such like and it really made me smile.
People who go on about this 'predictive programming' would do well to study a bit of probability theory...
I think I saw that. Derren Brown's stuff is amazing. I loved the one where he got people to actually think they were killing someone. The interesting thing is that those he selected for that experiment were people who sat down and stood up simply in accordance with other people's sitting and standing up despite the fact that there was no obvious reason for them doing that. Not so different from the jab-takers.
Yep. Part of me suspects there's a sort of limited hangout element to all DB's stuff. It reminds me instinctively of Estabrooks and MKULTRA, in which a significant number of subprojects specifically looked at all these different techniques. A lot of it is based on behavioural psychology of course - operant conditioning etc. And classical conditioning (e.g. Pavlov) obviously (see my recent post inside the skinner box: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/inside-the-skinner-box?r=2s9hod).
With regards to jab-takers this prompts my memory of a psychology experiment, or more of a demonstration than an experiment, which really struck me the first time I saw it.
You'd definitely like it as it involves some actors. So, the scene is a waiting room (like a doctor's surgery or similar) and there are 6 people in it. five of them are actors and there's one unwitting person who didn't get the memo. So, a bell rings and the 5 actors just stand up, then sit back down after a short while. The 6th person, thinking that 'this is what you're supposed to do' also stands up. This is despite there obviously being no discernible or rational reason for standing up.
Anyway, then one of the actors leaves to be replaced by a normal person. Now, when the bell rings, the 4 actors plus the 1st normal stand up, so, therefore, so does the new normal. This then continues until all the actors have left and there are 6 normal people mindlessly standing up when the bell rings.
But here's the cool part 2 of the experiment/demonstration. One normal person is replaced by a new actor who, when the bell rings, doesn't stand up. This has a profound effect, because some of the other normals stop standing up. The psychological point being that seeing just one other person 'rebelling' is enough to give an individual the courage to not mindlessly obey. But without any support whatsoever (or perception/belief that there is no support) a normal person will obey.
Isn't psychology cool! Everyone should study it and it should be on the education curriculum. No prizes for guessing why it isn't though, eh!
Second part is very interesting, however, while it worked in the experiment I'm not sure how well it works in real life where the context is more complex. How much influence did the non jab-takers have on the jab-takers, for example?
That’s definitely a good question, although I think it’s partly explained by the demonisation of jab-refusers, making for a divide & conquer strategy, such that a normal person would not be emboldened by seeing a refusenik, but rather have their conformity reinforced, if you see what I mean.
For example, if we were to repeat the part 2 of the experiment, but this time the new guy who is going to refuse looks like Ed Norton in American History X then I think it’s a safe bet the other 5 normals are going to keep standing up…
More people should study Derren Brown...
[and if he doesn't work freelance for the Services then the Service is being extremely lax]
I started to write a reply to your publication on Apollo 13 suspicions several times and each is being wiped out before finishing, so I'll try yet a third time to commend you for your work so far on questioning yet another discrepancy in the very long list of facts that indicate an enormous psy op regarding just about everything taught officially about 'somebody else's Moon'. I have a former career in film/TV and latched on to this subject myself in 1977 when reading George Leonard's [soon banned] book "Somebody Else Is On The Moon". I'm mid-way through a speculative fiction based on facts novel "Lightning On The Moon" and simply wanted to support your findings and add just one or two that have come across to me from impeccable sources regarding Apollo 13. The first, which is quick to be attacked, is that the Apollo 13 capsule was attacked and fired upon, a story that somewhat dismisses your hypothesis, but may not if explored more fully. The other, from my perspective having worked deeply in certain of the higher circles of the film industry, is that they made the film to further bolster the myth that Apollo 13 simply had an accident. You may contact me at woldrob@yahoo. My website was viciously hacked not long ago but is still there as I work to repair it. There are a few stories told there that may interest you: www.lightningonthemoon.com. Thank you! Rob Wold
The other piece of evidence which you sort of only touched upon was the fact they simply couldn't have survived an accident like that.
What is missing, as far as I can tell, from the official record (and that transcript you quoted), is a reality according to the laws of physics - specifically, an explosion like that would've had a propulsive effect, namely sending the craft into an accelerating spin (like Gemini 8). This is what would've killed the astronauts I'd imagine. Even if it didn't, it would've sent them spiralling off course. And there is nothing in the transcript about that either.
So this lends serious weight to your hypothesis that there never was an accident.
Yes, it's going to take awhile for me to get my head around it. I've looked back over your comments on Good and Bad Modal Thinking and will ponder over them some more as well as look at what is presented as evidence. The urine thing! Forgot about that!
Ah - yeah, the urine! They were definitely taking the piss with that one.
[sorry, couldn’t resist]
Nice one Petra! And thanks! And also I am happy to have been an inspiration!
You've done some great extra research there I have to say, and it does all fit together to create a certain picture similar to your hypothesis, but certainly one which isn't in line with the official version. It's like that old adage about one odd thing being just one odd thing. Two odd things being a 'hmm', but a whole series of them being suspicious.
And it's very duly noted that whatever happened on Apollo 13 it has no bearing whatsoever on the other Apollo missions, whichever side of the moon landings fence one is on.
As I may have said in my comments on the other post, I originally believed in the actual story but thought it was sabotage (for reasons I won't go into here), but I was focussing only on a few aspects (as one does sometimes). With greater knowledge now, however, I can be fairly certain there is another explanation for it, mainly because they would never have survived an accident like that.
For a list of options/hypotheses, I've come up with so far:
1/ totally faked event
2/ your version - they went round the moon but no accident (not dissimilar to Apollo 8 - as noted, Lovell also did that one)
3/ The whole thing took place in orbit (a modified version of option 1) - I'm aware a lot of moon landing sceptics assume this option for all the Apollo missions.
Ironically, come to think of it, in light of option 3, we might also speculate that Apollo 13 was equally designed to set up these 'conspiracy theories' - this possibly also works with your version 2.
Anyway - great article and you have highlighted a lot of suspicious issues!
If we accept the reality of the other missions I think it makes more sense for them to actually go around the moon because they benefit from the slingshot effect, ie, free return, however, perhaps they wanted to go to space and be able to come back a different way without going around the moon. I imagine looking at it more it might be easier to determine the correct hypothesis.
This line of thinking (which I like) is making me think of deeper, intriguing thoughts, in which the dramatic accident story is a misdirection and cover up. So I am now thinking of stuff involving their secret space tech and all the stuff they must be doing with it, for example on the dark side of the moon. Given that Lovell did that trip twice (and as you pointed out there were crew changes at short notice) this isn’t really that far-fetched at all.
One might even say the entire Apollo program was a cover. Ironically - and you’ll hopefully appreciate this irony - Dave McGowan (in moondoggie) mentions the abundance of Explorer (unmanned) missions to the moon which preceded Apollo. He says that was about taking all the pictures and so on, but if, as you say, he’s an agent, then his version is also a misdirection (in the same way he suggests each Apollo mission was a distraction from Vietnam - which is rubbish, quite frankly). Similarly, this would explain why they manufactured lunar conspiracy theories, which has kept the ‘conspiracy theorists’ occupied, so they don’t consider the secret tech issue.
I remember there was an episode of X-files (these things often contain limited hangouts etc.) focussing on a sort of alternative Gemini program, saying the publicly known astronauts were a sort of B-team, and the real top notch people were engaged in more advanced stuff. I think there were aliens involved in the episode (there usually are, somewhat obviously, in X-files).
Likewise the Kubrick/Clarke thing about discovering an alien artefact on the moon. See also Mars of course (I have become deeply sceptical about NASA’s alleged Mars missions).
So yeah, I’m becoming minded to think there is something far deeper going on here. And if Mathis was honest about it, I think he would agree, given that his physics clearly enables this sort of stuff.
I'll take #1 for the win.
https://youtu.be/RuKrDJAMCn8
If they faked one they faked them all. Just look at everything they have for astronauts to wear in space. One rip and you’re dead. Yet they are playing golf and skipping around without a care in the world. Besides the fact that what they want up us is a joke. And how exactly do they poop? All communication was flawless. And we called the moon. Called the moon! Let that sink in.
You have to judge by the evidence. I judged them all to be real because I could see Apollo 11 was and what I saw of the other landings also seemed real. Didn't really look at Apollo 13 ... but turns out it wasn't what was purported.
Evidence and the amount of people involved in the so called hoax suggest otherwise !
Bart Sibel has a book, "Moon Man The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List" I haven't read it but the reviews and comments line up to what I believe. I can't prove it but I don't believe we went to the Moon. 60 years later and we haven't gone back. They lie and have lied about virtually everything.
Yes, I know they lie all the time but guess what? Bart Sibrel's a big fat liar. On the very odd occasion when something pretty implausible is true, they weaponise that truth against us by making it seem false. And then they undermine that truth by throwing in events such as the faked Challenger disaster and the Apollo 13 "live" exercise. They really don't make it easy to maintain one's sense of reality.
In this video Dave McKeegan exposes Bart Sibrel's lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03x2MC3wv5Q
00:52 - Faking being halfway to the moon
14:50 - Van Allen Belts
21:18 - Haven't been back with newer tech
26:19 - Von Braun's claims of rocket size
32:15 - Lunar Module landing practice
34:45 - Faking Moon photos
43:08 - How many people would know it was faked
50:59 - Bill Kaysing at RocketDyne
54:17 - Gus Grissom & Apollo 1
1:08:08 - Apollo 11 press conference
1:14:27 - Petrified wood as moon rock
1:17:02 - 'They destroyed all the data'
Thank you for the detailed response. Our time on earth is limited. We have to choose what we research and how deeply we research. I'm relying on the Cliff Notes version regarding whether we landed on the Moon or not. It's not high on my priority list.
Sibrel visiting Rogan (oh dear); for a 3 hr interview.... talking about controlled oppo. McKeegan "exposing Sibrel's lies"? nah, the guy talks in statements only, never a moment of 'perhaps....', '...it might've been....'. crikey, just more propaganda. sorry, not buying it. but the more discussion the better, even if it leads to disagreements and discourse. let's keep on going at it: perhaps at some point the whole of NASA's layered agenda, including the role of the Apollos, will be exposed and become public knowledge.
Anything Rogan excreted is a joke and satire for the masses
Hypnotic suggestions
Dave McKeegan is so full of shit it is hard for me to even listen to.
Nothing Dave says is proof of anything and debunking Bart really is not a thing either. It is more of a distraction than not!
Yeah ok 😵💫🐑🐑
Clearly you fell sibrels bullshit
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-9/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorist-bart-sibrel
I do not buy Bart either, his interview with Buzz was disturbing and not up front....it was disingenuous.
What ever led you to believe or think I was backing Bart?
I see that one can put forth two opposing views and capture your mind into supporting one (both) side.
@smedley: quite. squirrel.
BART had his teeth knocked out by Buzz after suggesting Buzz lied about the moon landings .
Him and the rest of the scavengers are psy op agents for the gullible
That punch surely had to be staged.
I wasn't clear on your comment. Did you mean Bart or Aldrin are psyop agents?
BART is a liar
He has lied on so many occasions I lost count
Every single thing he says on the moon landings is either a lie or an irrelevant truth.
Now that it seems clear that Apollo 13 was a "live" exercise we really need to accept that ALL the Apollo astronauts are psyop agents to a small degree at least because it seems very unlikely that they wouldn't know and thus are simply keeping their mouths shut. The Apollo 13 crew very obviously are of course as must also be quite a number in Mission Control.
Buzz Aldrin took a Masonic flag to the moon and is a recognised 33 degree Mason so one can only infer that the punch was staged.
Skeptics have long argued that the Apollo 13 incident was part of the Apollo hoax script, to add some drama. The old sock really did it for me. Just this week, the third SpaceX Starship in a row has exploded. Half a dozen countries have failed to safely reach the moon during the last ten years. Boeing hardly reached the ISS and didn't make it back. Apollo reached a low point in 1967 but then solved all the issues in less than two years? It didn't happen. It simply didn't happen.
"The old sock really did it for me."
Me too. Just love the old sock.
I have to agree they seemed to get to the moon very, very quickly and then nothing ... I certainly agree that it's rather extraordinary but the thing is that psyops always show their signs, it's the rule and they follow it meticulously. As soon as I was alerted to the possibility that A13 was faked - at least the emergency part - all the signs were so obvious. It's not the same for the other missions.
This is my rule: if there's no psyop signs, ie, Revelation of the Method - Masonic numbers, OTT anomalies, etc, it's not a psyop ... but it's only my rule because it's THEIR rule. If someone can show me a psyop that doesn't betray RoM OK ... but so far no one has.
This is another good point of yours - I could express it similarly, but from the purely psychological level, which is that kind of by definition you can't have a 'psychological operation' which has no psychological effect (obviously, otherwise it's pointless) - therefore, as you say, there must always be signs of 'something' which prompts that desired psychological effect.
Likewise, that 'something' must be visible (again, otherwise it has no effect). Therefore, we can, as you say, look for those somethings and establish a very credible hypothesis of 'yes, this one is a psyop'. Once we do that, then we can examine the 'why', in the sense of 'what is the psychological effect they are trying to provoke here'.
Furthermore, we then have the 'cognitive infiltrators' on the one paw misdirecting people in the conspiracy theory subculture (e.g. getting them to focus on details and red herrings and such like, or even false explanations for an event), and on the other paw, perhaps reinforcing some of that psychological effect. Once we have identified some of the obvious agents, we can then study them precisely with all this in mind (i.e. subscribing to them and reading between the lines of what they say - and aside from anything else, it's fun!).
This pretty much explains my attitude towards the subculture nowadays - I take an approach which primarily involves a combination of psychology and cultural studies. After all, once you become somewhat habituated to the fact that the bad guys are doing psyops and conspiracies all over the place, you don't need to get bound up in the details so much anymore when a new one happens - you instantly recognise it as a manufactured event (of one kind or another), so you can then leap on to the more important 'why' questions.
Likewise, most of the cognitive infiltrators really, really don't want people to ask, let alone answer, precisely those sorts of questions. They far prefer people to get caught up in the details, and remain psychologically ignorant. And that, too, is a psyop...
Of course!