Great to distribute the NEWS BENDERS, but your defense of the moon landing is ridiculous. Of course the radio messages recorded are REAL! The messages were between land based astroNOTs pretending to be in SPACE and mission control. They also talked to President Nixon.
Regarding the 1,000 hours of exchanges between astronauts and Mission Control, two problems:
1: Easily faked, even in 1969, and even if real, the evidence is only of people talking to each other, but has no bearing on where they were when the words were spoken. Other possible locations could be anywhere, as in Nevada or LEO, or Houston. The voices could be anyone, including men working shifts for minimums wage. Since it's NASA, most likely it was college grads who signed NDAs. It is certain that if the moon landings were faked, that all involved would be cognizant that some evidence would have to be on hand. Also, microphones used would have to distort on one end to make it seem that the voices were distant. Easily done. Even in 1969.
2. Unless you've listened to the 1,000 hours, you've no evidence that there are 1,000 hours of recordings. You're just taking NASA's word for it.
There is no record of A11 taking off in a consistent single reel movie. Phil Pollacia did one on a Super 8, and the bearings of the takeoff were verified against the tower to make sure that the film was in sync with real time. Thereafter we find that at 105 seconds the rocket is at the cirrostratus level, 26,000 feet where NASA places it at 79,000. (Cirrostratus can be as low as 18,000 feet.) This tells me that the rocket went somewhere, but not the moon, as it did not have the necessary thrust to escape LEO.
Without piling on, the evidence that they did not go to the moon is stronger than that they did. The thing that perplexes me is why? Given the technology involved in just achieving LEO with humans aboard (if there were), there was some unstated objective. At one time I suspected space weaponry and spy satellites and all of that, a possibility, but saying they were going to the moon to cover for that is such a far reach. I know JFK (the fake martyr) said we had to get there before 1970, but I doubt he knew what we was saying, only reading a script. So it appears that as early as 1961 it was known that the moon landings would be faked in 1969. You say that 911 was foreshadowed in 1947. Why not the moon?
All very confusing. A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
"Revelation of the method" could be nothing more than failure to dot i's and cross t's.
1,000 hours of transcripts is something called 'improvisation'. Every trained actor did at least tens of hours of it at drama school, then a hell of a lot more hours during their career.
Have you seen Bart Sibrel’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon? There’s video evidence of Buzz and Neil in low earth orbit, holding up a transparency to the window of the module, pretending it is a view of earth from the halfway point.
"Moreover, analyses of prominent works alleging that the moon landings were faked including those of Dave McGowan’s, Wagging the Moondoggie, and Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon, show that there is nothing put forward by the authors that contradicts the reality of the moon landings and we can safely infer both authors are agents whose purpose - just like that of this drama - is to mislead those inclined to disbelieve (correctly most of the time) into disbelieving that unique, superficially implausible but astonishing achievement. Similarly, Bart Sibrel, is clearly an agent - see Exposing the Lies of Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing, the first prominent moon hoaxer, is a cartoon character who says things that no person who was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would say. He made the hilariously nonsensical claim that captain of the Apollo 15 mission, James Irwin, called him to confess to the fakery of the moon landings but - concerned about phone tapping - arranged a call for another day. Billy tells us that the day before the call was to take place James Irwin died of a heart attack."
1. I dispute easily faked, Mark. It's not a fact that they would be easily faked it's only your opinion (as it is my sister's). Can I suggest you actually listen to the recordings and then get back to me about how easy you think they would be to fake. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
2. The evidence is laid before you and is easy to dip into here and there to get a sense of whether there's 1,000 hours or not. Burden of proof switches to you to say there's not 1,000 hours.
There's obviously a whole band of anti-moon landing propaganda agents including our friends Dave, Bart, Massimo and Bill. Please, dear God, please someone explain to me how a team of agents who have demonstrated they have put ZERO forward to refute the moon landings can be reconciled with not going to the moon. If we really didn't go to the moon they would tell lies to undermine their case - of course - but they'd tell at least one piece of truth but there isn't any. Not one. Also, why have no disbelievers picked up that they're all agents and have not said one word of truth against the moon landings? You picked up Dave was an agent but not in relation to the moon landings ... which he clearly is.
The Pollacia explanation is merely that after 9.5 seconds the film is switched to slo-mo. Hard to defend that proposition, as there is no background for comparison. You pretty much have to rely on authority figures, speaking of logical fallacies.
Yes, Dave McGowan (fake death 11/22/2015) was most certainly an agent. He even used CIA to name his website, and often wore a shit-eating grin. The question I must answer is what is his overall objective. I see it as "This far, no further." That is, he took evidence already exposed and in existence, and wrote about it with finality, allowing it to go no further. Thus the term "limited hangout".
His book, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, is a good example of his craft. In it, he outlines the deaths of maybe 70-80 rock stars and actors of the period 1965-75. He only questions the actuality of one, Jim Morrison. And that appears to have been his mission, to cement in our minds that the deaths were real.
Most of them were not, but I think a few, perhaps Belushi, perhaps Ricky Nelson, perhaps Phil Harmtan, were real. I and a partner looked into as many as we could and determined that at least a few of them reappeared in other roles, usually in news. Janis Joplin, a set of twins, reincarnated as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, and Bobby Fuller as newsman Bill O'Reilly. This was a real revelation, especially with Joplin, as it told me that the entire news spectrum, far left to far right, was under control of Intel.
Anyway, I am hijacking your excellent Substack site and will stop there. My blog, Pieceofmindful.com, has a record of all we discovered back then, a time of great excitement in my life. I'll not comment more here to preserve your moon-thread and not veer off into dead rock stars.
"If you compare the appearance of the rocket plume in the early seconds of flight to any other footage of a Saturn V launch, you'll easily see that it's in slow motion. The first 9.5 seconds of movement might be at the right speed, giving Aulis the reference timing that they're basing their case on, but after that it's slo-mo. If you consider the next 9.5 seconds, the vehicle seems to clear about 1.5x its own distance past the tower, for a total traveled distance of 2.5x, but according to the equations of motion, if the rocket were under constant acceleration, it should clear 4x its length in 2x the time -- and rockets generally increase their acceleration over time as they eject propellant mass, not decrease it."
The nature of reality is such that the odd anomaly cannot come along and knock over an hypothesis that is massively supported otherwise. It's just not the way reality works. What you see when you look clearly is that there is an overwhelming WEIGHT of evidence that is 100% consistent with the alien lunar conditions and NOT ONE THING that is inconsistent - all seeming anomalies are reasonably explained.
I'm becoming minded to believe that a lot of this accusing Dave McGowan of being an agent is to discredit his book 'Programmed to Kill', which is the most important thing he ever wrote.
With regards to his date of death and his 'CIA' acronym - I rather take this as evidence of his humour. He was approaching death with cancer, a situation in which a lot of people take the poppy rather than go through a slow agonising decay. It would be just like his humour to leave a parting joke and take that overdose on the 22nd of November.
I don't think having a 'grin' can be taken as evidence.
There is, however, the possibility that some people accused of being agents were, indeed, given the proverbial offer you can't refuse, but this would only happen after they've come to the intel services' attention. In Dave's case, this would've been after Programmed to Kill.
I shall have to re-read Wagging the Moondoggie and pick out some of the best bits which, ironically, are never addressed by Dave's detractors.
The reason? The fake Apollo program was used to funnel billions of dollars into the R&D for the creation of the Digital Surveillance System you are being ushered into right now.
I live in Japan, and about ten years ago when I first started reading that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bomb story was fabricated, I put this to a number of my Japanese normie acquaintances. The reaction among several of them was quite hostile, angry and defensive. It was the sort of outraged denial response one would expect from a Chinese told that the Nanking massacre or a Jew told that the Holocaust didn't happen. A few others, however, thought it was quite possible, as all official narratives are propaganda and so whether they are factual or not is less important to the authorities than whether they are useful or not.
"In the footage of the aftermath of the bombings, we see the destruction profiles of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are identical."
That's right! We don't have any other proven example of destruction of a city by atomic bomb that we can compare against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so we can't tell if they are legit. But we have plenty of examples of destruction of a Japanese city by incendiaries, and the photos of the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki match those precisely. What can we conclude from that?
They could be atomic bomb destructions or fire bomb destructions.
There is plenty of other testimonial evidence including books by doctors who went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to treat victims, and having met some of those doctors personally and read some of their accounts, I'm sure they themselves never doubted the atom bomb story. But they could have been led to believe that by the propaganda. I wish they were alive today so I could ask them what they felt about the idea the A-bombings were firebombings, but those guys, even if still alive, are older than Buzz Aldrin.
If atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then we can conclude, that except to the eye of expertise, atom bombed cities look just like fire-bombed cities. If not, all bets are off.
Also, to ask that famous Hillary Clinton question; what difference, at this point, does it make?
And this is where things get interesting. Whether the moon landings were real or whether they were faked, we non-experts would see the same thing, since the fakers would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible.
Just as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we don't have any other proven example of manned landings on the moon that we can compare against the Apollo landings, so we can't tell if they are legit. But we have plenty of examples of fabrications of manned landings on the moon and elsewhere in the movies and on TV (such as in 2001), and some of those fabrications are quite credible and persuasive. What can we conclude from that?
Apollo could have been real or fabricated—if the photography is all we have to go on.
It is interesting that you seem to believe (as I do) that the Challenger disaster was faked. And you are very suspicious of NASA's climate change work. So you must agree that NASA the organization was capable of faking the Apollo missions or aspects thereof? You agree they would have no moral qualms about doing so?
But we come back to the question: what difference, at this point, does it make? In what way would our world or our society be any different if they actually went, versus if they didn't go but pretended to and convinced the general public that they actually went?
In the early 1950 or late 40s, there was a Reader's Digest article claiming the nuking of Japan was a hoax. I lost my copy, but someone should find it.
My grandfather used to buy RD and hoard the old copies religiously. Unfortunately for us, his stash got thrown out after he died in 1980. But there must still be copies in countless homes here and there.
That must be it. Readers Digest back then was right-wing in the old isolationist anti-Roosevelt mode, so one could doubt the article. Very interesting, though. If I recall based on eye witness accounts of the damage, etc.
This website attributes a different year to such a Reader's Digest reference - 1946 instead of 1952:
"Alexander de Seversky (1894-1974), in youth an ace pilot for Russia's Tsarist Navy, emigrated to the US and became involved in military aviation there. He visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the 'nuke blasts', talking to witnesses, and in a Reader's Digest article in February 1946 - let on between the lines that the 'nuclear weapons' were fake. He avoided saying so directly, but pointed out that, "To my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan.""
The WHOLE of Geopolitics is based on the H-Bomb. The Ukraine war more or less points to the idea nukes are fake. Otherwise the risk of nuclear war with Russia would be too great to countenance. Also, it has come out that multiple warhead ICBM only have small atom bombs, not H-Bombs. NewsBenders said atom bombs real, H-Bombs fake.
My main interest is propaganda and mind control, Tim, but also I think it's important to have confidence that when there are mountains of evidence for something you can safely determine the truth. The nature of reality is that there won't be mountains of evidence from which you cannot deduce the truth ... although I'll admit you can make mistakes easily. But the more you look and in the case of psyops, the better you understand psyop MO, the easier it is to work out the truth.
My link to the nuclear bomb hoax has more information (plus links), however, according to the propaganda, the heat of the atom bomb should have destroyed more than it did. It's like the fire argument for WTC-7. Destructions by fire and by controlled demolition cannot be confused, they are unconfusable and even if we've never seen a destruction by an atom bomb the propaganda says it should look different. We simply have no reason to believe in the atom bomb and many reasons not to.
"Since the fakers would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible."
Where did you get that idea? Psyops always employ Revelation of the Method where they give it away - they gave it away for the nuclear bomb in fact in the ludicrous miracle survivor stories, the naming of the bombs and the planes and a few other things. And they also gave it away with Bill Kaysing the first person to say we didn't go to the moon - there is obviously an anti-moon landing psyop with people such as him and Dave McGowan and Massimo Mazzucco and Bart Sibrel. How can there be an anti-moon landing psyop if astronauts didn't go to the moon?
Option 1) RoM is a satanic technic used to assuage the guilty conscience of the perpetrators in the same sense that psychopaths are actually benefiting their naive victims by teaching them a much-needed lesson albeit even through atrocious cruelty
Option 2) RoM is a psychological warfare technic intended to bring about confusion, humiliation, plausible deniability, and overall demoralization.
Option 3) RoM is employed as a heuristic technique to allow for naive normie slow pokes to catch up to comprehending the fakery going on around them.
Of course, neither of the options is mutually exclusive but nevertheless each option seems to represent very different world views.
I don't have time to reply to everything you've written in detail, but briefly: I am sure your level of education in psyops is far higher than mine and that you've studied the subject in depth. I'm just a skeptic who has picked up a yardstick with "Don't Trust The Narrative" on it, and I run with that without looking very closely at the details.
""Since the fakers would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible."
Where did you get that idea? "
That, I'm proud to say, was a product of Tim Groves's own brainpower. Simply, IF (and I am only saying "IF") the Apollo Program was an attempt to fake manned moon landings and convince the public that the landings were real, THEN the people running the program (in other words, the fakers) would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible BECAUSE credibly real is more convincing to the audience than obviously fake is.
Can you follow my logic there and do you agree or disagree?
"Psyops always employ Revelation of the Method where they give it away"
So I've heard, but I'm not convinced this is the case. I think it is possible that some psyops may be executed without employing Revelation of the Method, and that the idea they always employ the method is something somebody made up to confuse the public. But I'm sure you know more about this than me, and I am willing to learn. Why do you think psyops always employ Revelation of the Method?
I take your points about Bill Kaysing and McGowan and the others running an anti-moon landing psyop or a series of them. Also, we can add Capricorn 3 and The Shining as psyops implying that the moon landings were faked, and thereby implying at a deeper level that they were not, BECAUSE Hollywood would never consciously reveal actual State Fakery but would always be happy to help the State keep the population confused.
The reason I think psyops always employ Revelation of the Method (RoM), Tim, is that I've looked at dozens of them and no matter whether they happened back in the 1600s (Great Fire of London, Gunpowder Plot) or in India, Nepal, China, Russia, Australia, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Italy, France, UK, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Somalia, Japan and on and on and on and on, they ALWAYS employ RoM.
That must have required a lot of research and analysis—identifying what event was a psyop and what was its corresponding RoM. I'm neither qualified nor competent to do that kind of thing. Just identifying and verifying facts and separating them from fiction in the historical record is too much for my modest talents. Did Guy Fawkes try to blow up Parliament or was he framed? Did the Great Fire start at a bakery on a windy night, or was it deliberate arson conducted by TPTB who wanted to rebuild London as "The New Jerusalem"? I have no idea. I can't judge such claims and counter claims.
And I am also useless at motor mechanics and fixing agricultural equipment or AV equipment when it breaks down.
It's really not that complicated, Tim. Re 1666: firstly, they tell you different stories that contradict each other and engage in typical finger-pointing. That one was a real doozy. This is a 15 minute video by Professor Gloria Moss if you're interested. She plays a very straight bat and doesn't suggest that it's just one great mass of concocted stories to bamboozle and fragment ... but that's what I think.
Show me an example of one of your revelation of the methods where the evidence you cite was not created by the very people responsible for the event. What you are essentially saying is that you can trust them not to lie on the 'revelation of the method' parts of the evidence, at the same time as you are saying they are a total bunch of fakers and liars!
Do you see the cognitive dissonance here? Or 'contradiction' might be better.
I'll give you an example though, as you requested. Let's try the Bologna bombing. Remember, you have to provide genuine evidence of 'revelation of the method' which is 1/ contemporary, 2/ preferably 'in advance' as per 'predictive programming', and 3/ evidence that the fake photos you cite actually existed at the time, along with all the other 'facts' that you come across on the Internet. In other words, I challenge you to provide, and demonstrate the authenticity of, contemporary (1980) pieces of evidence that demonstrate RoM and a fake event. If you can do this, then hats off to you and it would definitely warrant an article.
This is my page on the Bologna Station bombing. And guess what? Someone challenged me to contact the Association for the Relatives of the Victims of the Bologna Station Bombing to enquire about the veracity of the massacre and I was directed to contact president of the association, Paolo Bolognesi, Italian politician and author of two books, including, Order from Chaos (the motto of 33rd degree Freemasons), Unsurprisingly, I received no reply from Sig. Bolognesi.
Americans say: "It’s boloney, no matter how thin you slice it." Baloney is a spelling that represents an Americanized pronunciation of bologna, a type of sausage, and it also came to mean "nonsense" in the 1920s. So, we have Sig. Bolognesi from Bologna--and that amounts to double nonsense. Can we call it doppio?
I have read your thing about Bologna. But can you demonstrate the authenticity of the evidence you cite? That was my point. If you can prove that this evidence is genuinely from 1980 then I'll listen to what you have to say. But all the contemporary evidence, especially the counter-terrorism reaction in the intelligence services, as well as the media, and the miscarriages of justice convictions, point towards a real event as part of Gladio directly targeting the socialist capital of Italy. Of course I'm not surprised there's freemasonic connections (P-whatever number it is), but that's not evidence of fakery.
I think a deep dive into Gladio, le Cercle, and Nato's secret armies etc. is required for this one. As far as I recall, le Cercle didn't do fake events, being a bunch of murderous psychopaths and category A child abusers.
The other point about your thing about RoM is that it leads you to the assumption that any event where you can't find RoM must be a real event. So because e.g. you can't find such evidence for moon landings, you think of them as real rather than faked.
I think this is an intriguing point. Feel free to disagree!
I didn't go looking for RoM when I first looked at the moon landings because I didn't know about it at the time. What stopped me in my tracks was the recordings of the communications between the astronauts and mission control because it had the unmistakable feel of authenticity. Disbelievers wave the audio away with "it could be faked" when what they mean is "it could be faked without detection". No it could not! No it couldn't. I didn't know there was a 1,000 hours of recording at the time, I made my judgement on the basis of a few minutes and I stand by it.
I DID go looking for RoM when I went to look at the first person who said we didn't go to the moon after finding my sister and two other disbelievers impervious to my explanations that they were real and thinking, "OK, so there's a disbeliever profile that those in power will know about and I wonder if Bill Kaysing is an agent whose purpose is to undermine the disbelievers Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style." And sure enough! Immediately, it leapt from Wikispookia that 'ol Billy Kaysing was an agent and rather hilariously so.
Yes it is but it's really very simple, Peter. If the evidence says that astronauts went to the moon, then we have no reason to believe otherwise. Nobody has to go to the moon again to prove we went in the first place. The argument: "If we'd gone to the moon we would have gone again," falls into the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. The evidence says they went so there is no place for speculative arguments.
People make a similar argument for 9/11 being a terrorist attack: "If the US government was responsible someone would have talked." They do talk among themselves and with a select few I'm sure, they just don't talk to the media (or you and me) and if they did? LOL. No one has to talk for the US government to be responsible. The evidence is laid before us just as it is for the moon landings.
They fly to the moon to get the rocks - to find out what it's made of, how old it is, what stuff crashed into it without burning up in an atmosphere, etc. The lunar surfaces is like a meteor archive of space junk like you could never get down here on earth cuz everything burns up in our atmosphere. Of course, they wanna visit the moon all day long if they could.
To go from orbiting space station to the moon it costs maybe just $5 more in gas.
Why nobody goes there "again" since 1972? It's weird.
I for one am seriously looking forward to these new 'Artemis' missions - either they will have to CGI the whole thing to make it look just like the original moon landing footage, or indefinitely delay it, perhaps because of some 'disaster' (like Apollo 1 and 13).
I wonder if they'll take any photos of stars or a properly sized 'earthrise' this time. Will there be a live stream, now we have all this digital technology. Notice they've never livestreamed any planetary probe, including their alleged Mars landers.
Unfortunately they delayed Artemis II which should've been later this year, so we'll have to wait another year at the earliest.
Did ya know that of the purported robot missions, only the China guys claim to have their vehicle returning to earth carrying retrieved moon rocks - and/but they don't share!
That's not evidence that the moon landings didn't happen. It's not relevant. There's masses of evidence for the moon landings happening, enough that proves they happened so anything unrelated has no bearing. The Challenger disaster is the most brazen psyop of all time where hilariously the alleged dead people are walking around with their same names or similar - but that doesn't mean the moon landings were faked.
No it doesn't but the thing is the evidence still says they went to the moon. They wanted to go the moon, it's that simple. They wanted to go and they had the right people at the right time. It's an astonishing achievement and could easily never have happened if everything hadn't all aligned.
very politely disagree, but that's OK, b/c your work is very well-researched and this makes it both valuable and inspiring. I can't remember why, perhaps we didn't have a television set yet in tjose years, but my family and I never watched any of the moon landings, which might be the reason I'm still sceptical about it. never mind, we all do what we do. big TQ for your work!
To get the people ready to meet the one world central bank digital currency, for which to work you need surveillance, control, and digital tracking of all transactions. They will issue more money, but every tiny transaction will be taxed.
But all that could be done without all the stoopid dramas of obvious hoaxes. And the hoaxes are getting more obvious and that seems to be deliberate.
One might say this increasing obviousness in the psyop hoaxes is due to the so-called satanic Revelation of the Method (RoM) theology or that, alternately, the intentions of the hoaxers is to allow the slowpoke normies to catch up by making each subsequent psyop ever the more obvious.
According to NASA astronaut Petit in this video, they have not gone back to the moon because they "destroyed" the technology to do so, and it takes a long time to build it back up. Also appearing in this video is a NASA rep who explains they are still trying to figure out how to get people and equipment safely through the Van Allen radiation belts. It was apparently a miracle they got thru the belts in 1969, with no damage whatsoever to people or equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI&list=PLmgH9CC5ZMHNbV5TzfnpkUvaA-MyjiTNn
I'm going to have to do a nuclear weapons one too now.
If nuclear weapons don't exist, then:
1/ erm, this kind of violates the laws of physics. Which clearly allow for something called radiation and the release of sudden large amounts of energy. Look up in the sky during the day and you might see this big orange thing. Don't look directly though, it's harmful to the eyes.
2/ all the atomic tests. How do explain all the thousands and thousands of incidents of acquired cancer which was, indeed, then passed down to their children and grandchildren? not to mention the video footage and the clear evidence of damage. Ask the south sea islanders what they think of it.
3/ Are you saying the native Americans whose lands were poisoned by the testing are lying, or mistaken, or what?
4/ footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki looks the same as the early atomic tests.
5/ it's not surprising if the damage from these first atomic bombs looks similar to mass firebombing, given the amount of explosives used. And there are comparisons from the damage done at testing sites. As an example, more explosive power was used on Dresden than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Also, as with Dresden, if the centre of the explosion is at a given point, then the fire will be spread in whichever way the wind is blowing, which will, indeed, result in some buildings surviving. At Dresden most of the bombs were dropped on one side of the city, knowing that the wind would blow the firestorm across the rest of it. That's how devilish the whole thing was. And Dresden remember was 250k people, which is Hiroshima plus Nagasaki combined. They really don't want you to think that, though - they'd prefer you to go with the 'official' figure of 'only' 25k.
6/ This 'nukes don't exist' psyop seems designed to prevent people from thinking about what a modern nuclear weapon truly does. Notice Hollywood has NEVER shown you just how pure evil it would really be. If you knew how evil it was then the anti-nuke movement would be unstoppable. And without the Samson Option, the cabal can't 'win'. They certainly can't keep scaring/threatening people with the nuclear war possibility, which has suddenly come back onto the table after the end of the cold war. During that time they really did terrify the crap out of everyone. They know the power of fear, after all, to keep a population subjugated.
A real, modern nuclear weapon doesn't just vaporise everything in the central impact area. It actually strips all the atoms and creates a sea of charged fundamental particles. Can a soul survive a nuclear explosion?
If multiple nukes are detonated, which is the Samson Option, you get an extinction level event, in which a nuclear winter and the destruction of the ozone layer lasts for 40-50 years. Obviously, you would expect they've developed the tech to disperse all the soot (chemtrails) and repair the ozone layer (HAARP), but only after, say, a year or two when 99% of the world's population has been wiped out. So the cabal would only need to stay in their superbunkers for a few years, before emerging with their MK'd army/militia to take control over the surviving 20-80 million humans, which is a far more manageable number. Those survivors can then be split up into dispersed groups of say 50,000 each, with at least 100km between them, meaning resistance is impossible. And then it really is welcome to the 1000 year NWO.
I would imagine it's very important to the cabal to get the sceptic movement/i.e. dissidents and resistance, to not believe a word about the Samson Option. That's how important it is to them.
Ok, Pearl Harbour. Let's deal with that ridiculous assertion that it was some evacuated fake event.
1/ The Japanese would have to be in on it. That's patently absurd. If it was evacuated then those first squadrons of Zeroes would've reported back saying 'hold on, lads, there's nothing here!'. If you suggest Japanese collusion then you have to suggest that they were perfectly in agreement with the Americans blockading 90% of their oil supply, then refusing to do diplomacy to resolve the situation which led directly to the Japanese feeling they had no choice but to do a show of strength at Pearl Harbour in the hope that the Americans might get back around the table.
2/ All the evidence points towards what is known as a LIHOP - 'let it happen on purpose' - to provide a pretext to declare war on Japan (and consequently on Germany) with the specific imperialist aim of gaining total control over the Pacific, which they pretty much did. The saturation bombing of Japan (like with Germany), which includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki (whether nuclear or not) was as much about psychopathic mass murder as it was about sending messages to the Soviets.
3/ If there were evacuation orders then you're talking thousands of American servicemen and their families. Let's for argument's sake call that 10,000 people in total. Please point me towards contemporary historical evidence regarding witness statements to the effect of an evacuation. And I do not mean a few 'high ups', I'm talking ordinary servicemen and their families, many, many of whom would have talked, especially to the press. Remember this is before the days of Operation Mockingbird, for one, and for two there were thousands of very local small press/newspapers at the time. We can't project back our heavily censored social media onto 80 years ago.
4/ You have previously, or Mathis has, shown a few 'photos' which are claimed to be evidence of fakery. Sure, they may be evidence of faked photos but they are not evidence of a fake event. That's the point about fake photos. They are not evidence of anything other than fake photos. Thus, you have to ask 'why the fake photos' - are these straw men designed to allow some sceptics to come along and say 'this event never happened'? If so, what's the purpose of this fake events narrative? And how far back are we supposed to go in history? Is this not yet another piece of evidence to suggest that they are genuinely going 1984 on everyone and rewriting history to create a new narrative? To create cognitive dissonance and the Mandela effect? If you can no longer trust your own historical narrative, your cultural history/narrative, then the grounding of the individual itself is taken away. People no longer have anything to hold on to and are lost in this sea of cognitive dissonance, meaning that old thing 'learned helplessness' in which you are relying on the O'Briens of this world to tell you what to believe.
5/ Just a brief note on historiography. A proper conscientious historian will always examine the authenticity of primary source documents. First, to see if they really are primary source (i.e. contemporaneous) or have been manufactured after the event. They will also examine the source of those primary sources for any potential bias, prejudice, or ulterior motivation. A classic example would be Thomas More's official narrative about Richard III being a despot who murdered his own nephews. Given this official account was commissioned by the man who overthrew Richard and took his place it's pretty obvious to any historian that we simply can't trust More's narrative. In fact, it lends weight to the idea that Richard didn't, in fact, kill his nephews. The same ideas apply to all this 'evidence' about these false flags and psyops - who, really, is the source of all this evidence? Answer, the three letter agencies and the Mockingbird media, along with a boatload of cognitive infiltrators/agents. See what I'm getting at?
Why do they want you to think that Pearl Harbour was an 'evacuated event'? That conspiracy theory never even existed prior to 9/11! At least I never heard of it. And it certainly took what, at least 20 years after 9/11 for it to arise (along with all these oh so conveniently surfacing fake photos, which also never existed before). So in other words, scepticism is of the essence here.
I didn't assert that Pearl Harbour was evacuated, I have a page on it where I make a case.
Now, your first point about Japan being in on it ... yes, I wondered about that. We've Pearl Harbour and then the fake atomic bombs. I'm like, what kind of deal did the US and Japan have going and how??? ... and then Scipio Eruditis to the rescue - the Freemason connection!
This is the third part of his series on the atomic bomb but I also highly recommend the 1st and 2nd parts which are linked to on the page.
The thing is though Evelyn what I don't understand is why you favour real. They luuurve to dupe us and faking it just works so well for them. To me, it's not just the evidence I also see how it works for them.
But who are they duping? They're not duping normal people, are they? Normal people will just blindly accept whatever the epistemic authorities tell them and as such there is no additional mind control, because they will have no idea they could be being fed a faked event. The fakery, in other words, has zero psychological effect on them.
But feed the same evidence of fakery to a sceptic who has previously believed in the unofficial narrative, who then starts to doubt their own previous opinion, and then yes, now you have mind control, because you have a psychological effect.
So the real question here is this - are these fake events intended for normal people, or for sceptics? Because if they are intended for normal people as MK fakery, then they are utterly useless, because there is zero lasting psychological effect other than the superficial initial reaction.
Like 9/11 - superficial initial reaction = I hate Muslims, let's go kill 'em all. Several years later, at most, they don't even think about it anymore. Any initial grieving process is finished. Back to normal. Until the next manufactured crisis.
As for Pearl Harbour, I already gave you a ton of evidence. Can you address those points?
The 'freemasonic' connection with Japan is ludicrous. Same goes for China. We're talking civilisations which have a very proud thousands of years old cultural identity. The idea that they'd allow some westerner to come along and dictate to them that they have to go along with some fakery is absurd. That's psychology again.
All I've been saying is that evidence is only evidence if it can be 100% trustworthy. It needs to be verified and authenticated and the source of it checked and analysed and similarly authenticated. Until that happens, it's not evidence, it's just 'information'.
Furthermore, it has to be placed in the context of other information. There is far, far more 'information' suggesting Pearl Harbour happened as countless historians (and military intelligence from the time) have said it happened than there is 'information' saying it was some kind of fakery. I can countenance the possibility, which I have come across before, that many of the ships at Pearl Harbour were older types and no great loss to the US Navy, and I'm sure I heard that a (more valuable) battleship was indeed 'ordered out on manoeuvres' in advance of the attack - but that's not the same as fakery, that's 'advanced knowledge' and the deliberate 'sacrifice' of 2,400 people. These are the same 'leaders' who blithely sent millions over the top in ww1 and tens of thousands similarly into a rain of machine guns at D-day. So don't tell me they'd give a flying shit about 'evacuating 2,400 of their own people' - like fuck they'd care! Anyone who makes war doesn't care about human life. Period.
Just to add: Burden of Proof - burden of proof is on the initial claimant.
So I presented video which shows fakery of the Japanese planes where we don't see a propeller or engine. Perhaps this is fake.
Where is the real Japanese plane with the propeller and engine?
This is hilarious. From the US National Archives (trustworthy right?)
Video title: Japanese Planes Bomb Pearl Harbor, USS Arizona Explodes & Sinks
At the beginning of the video we are shown a few planes flying and then just at the point in the video linked to below we see a ship blow up ... but no planes. The bombing looks as if its coming from the ship itself not from planes similar to the video I linked to on my page where we see the explosives are submerged.
FACT: All the visual evidence supports fake and none of it favours real. That is all you need. I don't know what you mean by trustworthy.
We have been told that Pearl Harbor was something that it clearly was not. There's a huge mismatch between show and tell.
WHEN DID I ARGUE THEY CARED ABOUT ANYONE? THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT! The argument is that the evidence supports fake and none of it favours real. That is all that is required. They told us a story that the "show" part doesn't match.
"Information" can be propaganda. You need to judge by what is actually shown.
Can you provide any visual evidence that favours an unevacuated bombing of Pearl Harbour? If you cannot then you have no case.
If that's not enough for you, OK, but it's more than enough for me.
911 was performed (no matter how) to lionize Islam as geopolitical force. David Rockefeller said as much in his Autobiography by claiming it was caused by America's one-side support of Israel. "They'll blow us up if we keep favoring Israel."
You don't understand at all what I wrote above. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan wanted to be lionized by the 9-11 hoax. The hoax was perpetrated to make the West cave to Islam. David Rockefeller reinforced the 9-11 message in his Augobiography. Immigration from Islam to the West vastly increased after 9-11 per the plan.
I think you're being excessively kind to the psychopathic American government/intel agencies, Petra - the idea that they would baulk at the idea of killing their own people, whether in 9/11 or Pearl Harbour, in order to provide a pretext to kill millions more is ludicrous. Especially when you consider how little they care about their own citizens on a daily basis. And I'm not just talking Covid 'vaccines'.
These people are psychopaths and monsters first and foremost - so Occam's razor suggests they will always choose the option that satisfies their bloodlust the most, if they think they can get away with it. Which they clearly can.
Occam's Razor says we choose the hypothesis that fits the evidence with the fewest questions and assumptions raised. The evidence shows that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were evacuated events.
Of course they don't care about the people because what are they doing now? This is not collateral damage, they are DELIBERATELY killing people. My rule of thumb is: when they tell you people are being killed, they're not and when they tell you they're saving people they're killing them.
If the psyop is not about killing people only about your BELIEF in deaths then they want to maintain the psyoppery of faking the death. If they do it for real they remove that element of mind control and psyops are all about maximising mind control not minimising it. Plus it's often not practicable to kill people - demolition companies are not going to agree to leave people in buildings for terror stories ... on the other hand, health professionals by the thousands can be propagandised and coerced into jabbing people with a substance that is harming and killing in mindblowing proportion.
Occam does not apply to conspiracies. There is every reason to assume that conspirators would make their plans purposely complex, too complex for most to follow.
I'm not sure how you can possibly say mind control isn't maximised, but minimised if there are real deaths. Mind control is about trauma, meaning a real trauma is far more effective than a simulated one.
I think your version of Occam's razor seems only to apply to 'neutral' facts/evidence, but not to psychology. My point is that you always have to remember that psychology lies at the root cause of everything they do. Once you understand their psychology it's only then that you can truly read them like a book and decipher everything they do - and, indeed, plan to do.
Furthermore, which again I shall have to write about elsewhere at length, one also has to consider the planning meeting, at which, like at any planning meeting, they will choose the most efficient option which is most likely to succeed. It's only once they've got that basic plan that they think about embellishing it. Today, these embellishments more often than not are specifically aimed at the sceptics or, dare I say it, 'psyop detectives'. Hence the creation of fake evidence to cover up real events. Straw men and suchlike. And if none of the sceptics pick up on this manufactured trail of fake evidence, then they can always get one of their agents/cognitive infiltrators to do it.
I'll reply separately about Pearl Harbour, as this is a classic example of what I'm talking about. The idea that nuclear weapons don't exist is another one.
What I mean is that if you kill people for real then their belief in the killing is correct and there's no mind control insofar as you're not making them believe something that isn't true. People were traumatised by 9/11 but the evidence shows that the death and injury were faked and this is revealed to us Revelation-of-the-Method style. Evelyn, it's all laid out clearly:
--- Layers of propaganda
--- Truth told underneath
It's not complicated.
If 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured there would be a single piece of evidence that favoured that claim ... but there isn't - not a single one. All purported evidence is either clearly fake or isn't particularly convincing. There's nothing, nada, niente ... it's all smoke'n'mirrors.
When you fool people you have better control over them ... and that's what they like.
I'm sorry but that's not how mind control really works. Unless we're talking about two different kinds of MK here. Which I admit may well be possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MK you're suggesting here is about getting people to believe what you want them to believe so they develop an infantilised learned helplessness, in which they are constantly relying on the 'epistemic authorities' to tell them what to believe (Room 101 style). Thus in this instance it's about getting people to believe stuff that isn't true. Am I reading you correctly here?
The MK I'm primarily talking about is similar, in the sense that it's getting people to believe what you want them to believe - because people's beliefs condition their opinions, and their opinions condition their responses. But it's the 'responses' which is the most important aspect of this type of MK. It's a form of conditioning, in other words. And that relies on them absolutely believing in the event/trauma itself, with no scepticism.
In the case of, say, 9/11, it seems clear that the 'response' is about fear, anger, hatred of brown people wearing funny costumes and full support for a murderous imperialist war of resource theft and the destruction of Israel's adversaries in the Middle East etc.
Your version of this MK, revealingly, seems only to apply to sceptics of the actual event, 9/11 in this case. So if none of us sceptics can trust any of the evidence then, clearly, we are at a total loss to provide a coherent historical account/narrative, meaning that we, too, experience the same infantilised learned helplessness as the 'normal people' who take the event at face value (meaning we now have to rely on agents/cognitive infiltrators). The effect on a sceptic, in other words, has a different intention. And I am suggesting this 'fake events narrative' for want of a better term, is a very, very recent phenomenon in the sceptic movement, perhaps only arising properly in web 2.0 over the last decade or so. I for one never heard a scratch about it 20 years ago. And that, to me, is a big red flag and points towards a concerted, distinct agenda and operation specifically targeting dissidents. It may well work very well on people who have only recently arrived to the scepticism thing, but for seasoned old timers it simply won't work, because we gathered and sifted through mountains of evidence at the time of these events, none of which pointed towards a fake event.
So whilst I agree with you about the existence of MK, perhaps we are indeed talking about different forms of MK and indeed, a different target audience. Normal people, after all, would simply dismiss all evidence of fakery or false flaggery or whatever, thus the MK doesn't work in the same way on them. For them, it's just pure trauma, not Operation Mindfuck.
Yes, there's two psyops - one for the believers and one for the disbelievers but in the case of 9/11 both are designed to traumatise because both involve belief in real death and injury.
Simon Shack was saying fakery as far back as about 2008 or 9 I think. I learnt about him two years in to my study around 2016 but I was still in thrall to some of the propaganda so I was like "some fake / some real" but then I had an epiphany in 2018 that - of course, face palm - it was all fake.
Hmm - I'll have to look into this Simon Shack bloke. Thanks for the tip. 2008-9 would probably make sense in terms of my hypothesis about a fake events narrative.
I can't remember if you've done a similar analysis of 7/7 by the way - that one certainly merits a good discussion.
Ok - I had a brief look at this Simon Shack bloke and if I were you I'd seriously remain sceptical, at the least, of anything he says.
The clue is in his 'Tychos' astronomical 'model', which is utterly ludicrous for anyone who knows anything about this kind of stuff.
It's also full of misinformation: example: "For instance, the diameter of the tiny Sirius B is only 0.4888% that of its host SIRIUS A (the brightest star in our skies).
Now, the diameter of Mars is only 0.4881% that of our Sun. That's right: the relative sizes of Sirius A & Sirius B are near-identical to the Sun & Mars! Thus, one cannot reasonably argue that the very idea of Sun & Mars being binary companions is "untenable" or "preposterous" - since our very brightest star system (Sirius) is a testimony to the existence of such highly-unequal bodies orbiting around each other. Please know that the "Newtonian" ad hoc explanation for how the teeny-weeny Sirius B (somewhat smaller than Earth) could possibly be the binary companion of the huge Sirius A (somewhat larger than our Sun) is that Sirius B must be made of EXTRAORDINARILY dense matter, in the order of 400,000 X denser than our earthly matter! The question thus becomes: just how dense must one's brain matter be to unquestioningly buy such nonsense?"
Sirius B hasn't always been 'small' - it used to be a massive blue-white star (bigger and brighter than Sirius A) which collapsed into a white dwarf 120 million years ago. Furthermore the orbital distance and period of Sirius A/B is totally different (far larger) to Sun-Mars. My point is that anyone can easily find that out in less than a minute simply by looking on effing wikipedia.
As you, Petra, are very much aware of Miles Mathis, this strikes me as some kind of cognitive infiltration attempt to discredit Miles' physics. Miles, unlike this bloke, actually backs up his physics theories with evidence and mathematical reasoning and so on. In other words it's science, not pseudoscience.
So, simply from this fact alone, either 'Simon Shack' also happens to be 'Miles Mathis' (the 'committee at Langley' version of Miles) both of whom are engaging in Operation Mindfuck, or this 'Simon Shack' is the bad guy.
As I say, when we examine 'evidence', we also have to examine the source of that evidence. In this instance, although I may well have a deeper look later, I am very glad I know a fair bit about physics (and Sirius, for that matter) because now I am very confident of retaining my ability to not take anything on that forum as gospel. It must be a brilliant place for the deposition of all manner of misinformation. I wouldn't necessarily give it the name 'honeypot', but it's certainly a depository. And we all know about 'depositories' eh!
That's a very interesting forum. Must be a total Mecca for the bad guys to deposit all their newly manufactured fakery, presented as contemporary. Mandela effect 2.0.
I shall have to make some time sometime to do a longer browse. There's clearly a lot to get through.
None of this explains why James McCanney tells stories about Soviet space program contacts that he had while working in the American program that related accounts of animals and cosmonauts coming back from lunar orbits cooked from the radiation in the Van Allen belt.
I can think of an explanation. James McCanney is one of the anti-moon landing propaganda crew. Whoever he is though why should we believe him or the people who spoke to him?
Due diligence, Vonu. Here's a video pointing out his lies. Dave McKeegan doesn't just say he's wrong, he points out that he's actually lying. Why would he lie?
Great to distribute the NEWS BENDERS, but your defense of the moon landing is ridiculous. Of course the radio messages recorded are REAL! The messages were between land based astroNOTs pretending to be in SPACE and mission control. They also talked to President Nixon.
Regarding the 1,000 hours of exchanges between astronauts and Mission Control, two problems:
1: Easily faked, even in 1969, and even if real, the evidence is only of people talking to each other, but has no bearing on where they were when the words were spoken. Other possible locations could be anywhere, as in Nevada or LEO, or Houston. The voices could be anyone, including men working shifts for minimums wage. Since it's NASA, most likely it was college grads who signed NDAs. It is certain that if the moon landings were faked, that all involved would be cognizant that some evidence would have to be on hand. Also, microphones used would have to distort on one end to make it seem that the voices were distant. Easily done. Even in 1969.
2. Unless you've listened to the 1,000 hours, you've no evidence that there are 1,000 hours of recordings. You're just taking NASA's word for it.
There is no record of A11 taking off in a consistent single reel movie. Phil Pollacia did one on a Super 8, and the bearings of the takeoff were verified against the tower to make sure that the film was in sync with real time. Thereafter we find that at 105 seconds the rocket is at the cirrostratus level, 26,000 feet where NASA places it at 79,000. (Cirrostratus can be as low as 18,000 feet.) This tells me that the rocket went somewhere, but not the moon, as it did not have the necessary thrust to escape LEO.
Without piling on, the evidence that they did not go to the moon is stronger than that they did. The thing that perplexes me is why? Given the technology involved in just achieving LEO with humans aboard (if there were), there was some unstated objective. At one time I suspected space weaponry and spy satellites and all of that, a possibility, but saying they were going to the moon to cover for that is such a far reach. I know JFK (the fake martyr) said we had to get there before 1970, but I doubt he knew what we was saying, only reading a script. So it appears that as early as 1961 it was known that the moon landings would be faked in 1969. You say that 911 was foreshadowed in 1947. Why not the moon?
All very confusing. A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
"Revelation of the method" could be nothing more than failure to dot i's and cross t's.
1,000 hours of transcripts is something called 'improvisation'. Every trained actor did at least tens of hours of it at drama school, then a hell of a lot more hours during their career.
And there are a lot of out of work actors.
I've seen Withnail & I.
False equivalence, Evelyn.
Listen to the audio, acquaint yourself with the evidence and then get back to me.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
Have you seen Bart Sibrel’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon? There’s video evidence of Buzz and Neil in low earth orbit, holding up a transparency to the window of the module, pretending it is a view of earth from the halfway point.
You need to read more carefully, Effra.
Link to video, Exposing the Lies of Bart Sibrel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03x2MC3wv5Q
"Moreover, analyses of prominent works alleging that the moon landings were faked including those of Dave McGowan’s, Wagging the Moondoggie, and Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon, show that there is nothing put forward by the authors that contradicts the reality of the moon landings and we can safely infer both authors are agents whose purpose - just like that of this drama - is to mislead those inclined to disbelieve (correctly most of the time) into disbelieving that unique, superficially implausible but astonishing achievement. Similarly, Bart Sibrel, is clearly an agent - see Exposing the Lies of Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing, the first prominent moon hoaxer, is a cartoon character who says things that no person who was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would say. He made the hilariously nonsensical claim that captain of the Apollo 15 mission, James Irwin, called him to confess to the fakery of the moon landings but - concerned about phone tapping - arranged a call for another day. Billy tells us that the day before the call was to take place James Irwin died of a heart attack."
1. I dispute easily faked, Mark. It's not a fact that they would be easily faked it's only your opinion (as it is my sister's). Can I suggest you actually listen to the recordings and then get back to me about how easy you think they would be to fake. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
2. The evidence is laid before you and is easy to dip into here and there to get a sense of whether there's 1,000 hours or not. Burden of proof switches to you to say there's not 1,000 hours.
3. Phil Pollacia - seeming anomaly explained here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/26677/apollo-11-ascent-data-observation-mismatch
There's obviously a whole band of anti-moon landing propaganda agents including our friends Dave, Bart, Massimo and Bill. Please, dear God, please someone explain to me how a team of agents who have demonstrated they have put ZERO forward to refute the moon landings can be reconciled with not going to the moon. If we really didn't go to the moon they would tell lies to undermine their case - of course - but they'd tell at least one piece of truth but there isn't any. Not one. Also, why have no disbelievers picked up that they're all agents and have not said one word of truth against the moon landings? You picked up Dave was an agent but not in relation to the moon landings ... which he clearly is.
The Pollacia explanation is merely that after 9.5 seconds the film is switched to slo-mo. Hard to defend that proposition, as there is no background for comparison. You pretty much have to rely on authority figures, speaking of logical fallacies.
Yes, Dave McGowan (fake death 11/22/2015) was most certainly an agent. He even used CIA to name his website, and often wore a shit-eating grin. The question I must answer is what is his overall objective. I see it as "This far, no further." That is, he took evidence already exposed and in existence, and wrote about it with finality, allowing it to go no further. Thus the term "limited hangout".
His book, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, is a good example of his craft. In it, he outlines the deaths of maybe 70-80 rock stars and actors of the period 1965-75. He only questions the actuality of one, Jim Morrison. And that appears to have been his mission, to cement in our minds that the deaths were real.
Most of them were not, but I think a few, perhaps Belushi, perhaps Ricky Nelson, perhaps Phil Harmtan, were real. I and a partner looked into as many as we could and determined that at least a few of them reappeared in other roles, usually in news. Janis Joplin, a set of twins, reincarnated as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, and Bobby Fuller as newsman Bill O'Reilly. This was a real revelation, especially with Joplin, as it told me that the entire news spectrum, far left to far right, was under control of Intel.
Anyway, I am hijacking your excellent Substack site and will stop there. My blog, Pieceofmindful.com, has a record of all we discovered back then, a time of great excitement in my life. I'll not comment more here to preserve your moon-thread and not veer off into dead rock stars.
There is background for comparison:
"If you compare the appearance of the rocket plume in the early seconds of flight to any other footage of a Saturn V launch, you'll easily see that it's in slow motion. The first 9.5 seconds of movement might be at the right speed, giving Aulis the reference timing that they're basing their case on, but after that it's slo-mo. If you consider the next 9.5 seconds, the vehicle seems to clear about 1.5x its own distance past the tower, for a total traveled distance of 2.5x, but according to the equations of motion, if the rocket were under constant acceleration, it should clear 4x its length in 2x the time -- and rockets generally increase their acceleration over time as they eject propellant mass, not decrease it."
The nature of reality is such that the odd anomaly cannot come along and knock over an hypothesis that is massively supported otherwise. It's just not the way reality works. What you see when you look clearly is that there is an overwhelming WEIGHT of evidence that is 100% consistent with the alien lunar conditions and NOT ONE THING that is inconsistent - all seeming anomalies are reasonably explained.
I'm becoming minded to believe that a lot of this accusing Dave McGowan of being an agent is to discredit his book 'Programmed to Kill', which is the most important thing he ever wrote.
With regards to his date of death and his 'CIA' acronym - I rather take this as evidence of his humour. He was approaching death with cancer, a situation in which a lot of people take the poppy rather than go through a slow agonising decay. It would be just like his humour to leave a parting joke and take that overdose on the 22nd of November.
I don't think having a 'grin' can be taken as evidence.
There is, however, the possibility that some people accused of being agents were, indeed, given the proverbial offer you can't refuse, but this would only happen after they've come to the intel services' attention. In Dave's case, this would've been after Programmed to Kill.
I shall have to re-read Wagging the Moondoggie and pick out some of the best bits which, ironically, are never addressed by Dave's detractors.
The mind follows the heart. I assure you Dave is still with us, shit-eating grin and all.
LOL.
The reason? The fake Apollo program was used to funnel billions of dollars into the R&D for the creation of the Digital Surveillance System you are being ushered into right now.
Hi Petra!
I live in Japan, and about ten years ago when I first started reading that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bomb story was fabricated, I put this to a number of my Japanese normie acquaintances. The reaction among several of them was quite hostile, angry and defensive. It was the sort of outraged denial response one would expect from a Chinese told that the Nanking massacre or a Jew told that the Holocaust didn't happen. A few others, however, thought it was quite possible, as all official narratives are propaganda and so whether they are factual or not is less important to the authorities than whether they are useful or not.
"In the footage of the aftermath of the bombings, we see the destruction profiles of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are identical."
That's right! We don't have any other proven example of destruction of a city by atomic bomb that we can compare against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so we can't tell if they are legit. But we have plenty of examples of destruction of a Japanese city by incendiaries, and the photos of the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki match those precisely. What can we conclude from that?
They could be atomic bomb destructions or fire bomb destructions.
There is plenty of other testimonial evidence including books by doctors who went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to treat victims, and having met some of those doctors personally and read some of their accounts, I'm sure they themselves never doubted the atom bomb story. But they could have been led to believe that by the propaganda. I wish they were alive today so I could ask them what they felt about the idea the A-bombings were firebombings, but those guys, even if still alive, are older than Buzz Aldrin.
If atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then we can conclude, that except to the eye of expertise, atom bombed cities look just like fire-bombed cities. If not, all bets are off.
Also, to ask that famous Hillary Clinton question; what difference, at this point, does it make?
And this is where things get interesting. Whether the moon landings were real or whether they were faked, we non-experts would see the same thing, since the fakers would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible.
Just as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we don't have any other proven example of manned landings on the moon that we can compare against the Apollo landings, so we can't tell if they are legit. But we have plenty of examples of fabrications of manned landings on the moon and elsewhere in the movies and on TV (such as in 2001), and some of those fabrications are quite credible and persuasive. What can we conclude from that?
Apollo could have been real or fabricated—if the photography is all we have to go on.
It is interesting that you seem to believe (as I do) that the Challenger disaster was faked. And you are very suspicious of NASA's climate change work. So you must agree that NASA the organization was capable of faking the Apollo missions or aspects thereof? You agree they would have no moral qualms about doing so?
But we come back to the question: what difference, at this point, does it make? In what way would our world or our society be any different if they actually went, versus if they didn't go but pretended to and convinced the general public that they actually went?
In the early 1950 or late 40s, there was a Reader's Digest article claiming the nuking of Japan was a hoax. I lost my copy, but someone should find it.
Very interesting. Reader's Digest, eh?
My grandfather used to buy RD and hoard the old copies religiously. Unfortunately for us, his stash got thrown out after he died in 1980. But there must still be copies in countless homes here and there.
Same fate of my mother's hoard of Readers Digest.
Nukes don't make so much sense & it looks could be firebombs on the two cities but it's not as if the Japanese people don't know how to measure stuff:
https://www.libelium.com/libeliumworld/success-stories/fukushima-crowdsourcing-radiation-social-project/
Is this the article?
The Reader's Digest; February 1952 Journal – January 1, 1952
https://www.amazon.com/Readers-Digest-February-1952/dp/B005T4266I
I can't read the contents. Picture won't enlarge for me.
Oops that's the way they do it I guess.
Anyway, what prompted me to post the link is not The Table of Contents but rather the review that was attached on the same page, namely:
"Tex
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on March 2, 2018
Verified Purchase
The atom bomb article proves there were no nuclear bombs dropped on Japan; therefore, nuclear weapons are government lies."
That must be it. Readers Digest back then was right-wing in the old isolationist anti-Roosevelt mode, so one could doubt the article. Very interesting, though. If I recall based on eye witness accounts of the damage, etc.
This website attributes a different year to such a Reader's Digest reference - 1946 instead of 1952:
"Alexander de Seversky (1894-1974), in youth an ace pilot for Russia's Tsarist Navy, emigrated to the US and became involved in military aviation there. He visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the 'nuke blasts', talking to witnesses, and in a Reader's Digest article in February 1946 - let on between the lines that the 'nuclear weapons' were fake. He avoided saying so directly, but pointed out that, "To my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan.""
https://www.nvestig8.life/nuclear_weapons_hoax
The WHOLE of Geopolitics is based on the H-Bomb. The Ukraine war more or less points to the idea nukes are fake. Otherwise the risk of nuclear war with Russia would be too great to countenance. Also, it has come out that multiple warhead ICBM only have small atom bombs, not H-Bombs. NewsBenders said atom bombs real, H-Bombs fake.
My main interest is propaganda and mind control, Tim, but also I think it's important to have confidence that when there are mountains of evidence for something you can safely determine the truth. The nature of reality is that there won't be mountains of evidence from which you cannot deduce the truth ... although I'll admit you can make mistakes easily. But the more you look and in the case of psyops, the better you understand psyop MO, the easier it is to work out the truth.
My link to the nuclear bomb hoax has more information (plus links), however, according to the propaganda, the heat of the atom bomb should have destroyed more than it did. It's like the fire argument for WTC-7. Destructions by fire and by controlled demolition cannot be confused, they are unconfusable and even if we've never seen a destruction by an atom bomb the propaganda says it should look different. We simply have no reason to believe in the atom bomb and many reasons not to.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
"Since the fakers would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible."
Where did you get that idea? Psyops always employ Revelation of the Method where they give it away - they gave it away for the nuclear bomb in fact in the ludicrous miracle survivor stories, the naming of the bombs and the planes and a few other things. And they also gave it away with Bill Kaysing the first person to say we didn't go to the moon - there is obviously an anti-moon landing psyop with people such as him and Dave McGowan and Massimo Mazzucco and Bart Sibrel. How can there be an anti-moon landing psyop if astronauts didn't go to the moon?
I wonder what you say:
Option 1) RoM is a satanic technic used to assuage the guilty conscience of the perpetrators in the same sense that psychopaths are actually benefiting their naive victims by teaching them a much-needed lesson albeit even through atrocious cruelty
Option 2) RoM is a psychological warfare technic intended to bring about confusion, humiliation, plausible deniability, and overall demoralization.
Option 3) RoM is employed as a heuristic technique to allow for naive normie slow pokes to catch up to comprehending the fakery going on around them.
Of course, neither of the options is mutually exclusive but nevertheless each option seems to represent very different world views.
I'd say both Option 1 and 2 but not Option 3.
Thank you Petra.
I don't have time to reply to everything you've written in detail, but briefly: I am sure your level of education in psyops is far higher than mine and that you've studied the subject in depth. I'm just a skeptic who has picked up a yardstick with "Don't Trust The Narrative" on it, and I run with that without looking very closely at the details.
""Since the fakers would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible."
Where did you get that idea? "
That, I'm proud to say, was a product of Tim Groves's own brainpower. Simply, IF (and I am only saying "IF") the Apollo Program was an attempt to fake manned moon landings and convince the public that the landings were real, THEN the people running the program (in other words, the fakers) would be aiming to make the fake look as credibly real as possible BECAUSE credibly real is more convincing to the audience than obviously fake is.
Can you follow my logic there and do you agree or disagree?
"Psyops always employ Revelation of the Method where they give it away"
So I've heard, but I'm not convinced this is the case. I think it is possible that some psyops may be executed without employing Revelation of the Method, and that the idea they always employ the method is something somebody made up to confuse the public. But I'm sure you know more about this than me, and I am willing to learn. Why do you think psyops always employ Revelation of the Method?
I take your points about Bill Kaysing and McGowan and the others running an anti-moon landing psyop or a series of them. Also, we can add Capricorn 3 and The Shining as psyops implying that the moon landings were faked, and thereby implying at a deeper level that they were not, BECAUSE Hollywood would never consciously reveal actual State Fakery but would always be happy to help the State keep the population confused.
The reason I think psyops always employ Revelation of the Method (RoM), Tim, is that I've looked at dozens of them and no matter whether they happened back in the 1600s (Great Fire of London, Gunpowder Plot) or in India, Nepal, China, Russia, Australia, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Italy, France, UK, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Somalia, Japan and on and on and on and on, they ALWAYS employ RoM.
If you can find one that doesn't, I'm all ears.
That must have required a lot of research and analysis—identifying what event was a psyop and what was its corresponding RoM. I'm neither qualified nor competent to do that kind of thing. Just identifying and verifying facts and separating them from fiction in the historical record is too much for my modest talents. Did Guy Fawkes try to blow up Parliament or was he framed? Did the Great Fire start at a bakery on a windy night, or was it deliberate arson conducted by TPTB who wanted to rebuild London as "The New Jerusalem"? I have no idea. I can't judge such claims and counter claims.
And I am also useless at motor mechanics and fixing agricultural equipment or AV equipment when it breaks down.
It's really not that complicated, Tim. Re 1666: firstly, they tell you different stories that contradict each other and engage in typical finger-pointing. That one was a real doozy. This is a 15 minute video by Professor Gloria Moss if you're interested. She plays a very straight bat and doesn't suggest that it's just one great mass of concocted stories to bamboozle and fragment ... but that's what I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOGeMzL33lY
Show me an example of one of your revelation of the methods where the evidence you cite was not created by the very people responsible for the event. What you are essentially saying is that you can trust them not to lie on the 'revelation of the method' parts of the evidence, at the same time as you are saying they are a total bunch of fakers and liars!
Do you see the cognitive dissonance here? Or 'contradiction' might be better.
I'll give you an example though, as you requested. Let's try the Bologna bombing. Remember, you have to provide genuine evidence of 'revelation of the method' which is 1/ contemporary, 2/ preferably 'in advance' as per 'predictive programming', and 3/ evidence that the fake photos you cite actually existed at the time, along with all the other 'facts' that you come across on the Internet. In other words, I challenge you to provide, and demonstrate the authenticity of, contemporary (1980) pieces of evidence that demonstrate RoM and a fake event. If you can do this, then hats off to you and it would definitely warrant an article.
This is my page on the Bologna Station bombing. And guess what? Someone challenged me to contact the Association for the Relatives of the Victims of the Bologna Station Bombing to enquire about the veracity of the massacre and I was directed to contact president of the association, Paolo Bolognesi, Italian politician and author of two books, including, Order from Chaos (the motto of 33rd degree Freemasons), Unsurprisingly, I received no reply from Sig. Bolognesi.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/bologna-1980-and-mogadishu-2017.html
If you have anything that favours real, Evelyn, pls let me know.
Americans say: "It’s boloney, no matter how thin you slice it." Baloney is a spelling that represents an Americanized pronunciation of bologna, a type of sausage, and it also came to mean "nonsense" in the 1920s. So, we have Sig. Bolognesi from Bologna--and that amounts to double nonsense. Can we call it doppio?
I have read your thing about Bologna. But can you demonstrate the authenticity of the evidence you cite? That was my point. If you can prove that this evidence is genuinely from 1980 then I'll listen to what you have to say. But all the contemporary evidence, especially the counter-terrorism reaction in the intelligence services, as well as the media, and the miscarriages of justice convictions, point towards a real event as part of Gladio directly targeting the socialist capital of Italy. Of course I'm not surprised there's freemasonic connections (P-whatever number it is), but that's not evidence of fakery.
I think a deep dive into Gladio, le Cercle, and Nato's secret armies etc. is required for this one. As far as I recall, le Cercle didn't do fake events, being a bunch of murderous psychopaths and category A child abusers.
The other point about your thing about RoM is that it leads you to the assumption that any event where you can't find RoM must be a real event. So because e.g. you can't find such evidence for moon landings, you think of them as real rather than faked.
I think this is an intriguing point. Feel free to disagree!
I didn't go looking for RoM when I first looked at the moon landings because I didn't know about it at the time. What stopped me in my tracks was the recordings of the communications between the astronauts and mission control because it had the unmistakable feel of authenticity. Disbelievers wave the audio away with "it could be faked" when what they mean is "it could be faked without detection". No it could not! No it couldn't. I didn't know there was a 1,000 hours of recording at the time, I made my judgement on the basis of a few minutes and I stand by it.
I DID go looking for RoM when I went to look at the first person who said we didn't go to the moon after finding my sister and two other disbelievers impervious to my explanations that they were real and thinking, "OK, so there's a disbeliever profile that those in power will know about and I wonder if Bill Kaysing is an agent whose purpose is to undermine the disbelievers Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style." And sure enough! Immediately, it leapt from Wikispookia that 'ol Billy Kaysing was an agent and rather hilariously so.
The Challenger disaster was faked in order to stop faking.
The space program and moon landing lionize the technological capability of the Establishment.
control - of the narrative and over the audience ('us').
For one, they are anticipating a major "public/private partnership" with SpaceX , to do what NASA is currently expected to do. Or so I heard.
Public private partnership = Fascism
Why nobody went back to visit the moon since Apollo 17 of 1972?
It's now 2024; fifty+ years is a long time between visits.
Yes it is but it's really very simple, Peter. If the evidence says that astronauts went to the moon, then we have no reason to believe otherwise. Nobody has to go to the moon again to prove we went in the first place. The argument: "If we'd gone to the moon we would have gone again," falls into the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. The evidence says they went so there is no place for speculative arguments.
People make a similar argument for 9/11 being a terrorist attack: "If the US government was responsible someone would have talked." They do talk among themselves and with a select few I'm sure, they just don't talk to the media (or you and me) and if they did? LOL. No one has to talk for the US government to be responsible. The evidence is laid before us just as it is for the moon landings.
I don't like your answer so much.
They fly to the moon to get the rocks - to find out what it's made of, how old it is, what stuff crashed into it without burning up in an atmosphere, etc. The lunar surfaces is like a meteor archive of space junk like you could never get down here on earth cuz everything burns up in our atmosphere. Of course, they wanna visit the moon all day long if they could.
To go from orbiting space station to the moon it costs maybe just $5 more in gas.
Why nobody goes there "again" since 1972? It's weird.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3268324/lunar-rock-samples-chinese-space-agency-calls-us-remove-obstacles-cooperation
I for one am seriously looking forward to these new 'Artemis' missions - either they will have to CGI the whole thing to make it look just like the original moon landing footage, or indefinitely delay it, perhaps because of some 'disaster' (like Apollo 1 and 13).
I wonder if they'll take any photos of stars or a properly sized 'earthrise' this time. Will there be a live stream, now we have all this digital technology. Notice they've never livestreamed any planetary probe, including their alleged Mars landers.
Unfortunately they delayed Artemis II which should've been later this year, so we'll have to wait another year at the earliest.
What happens is going to be the real clincher.
Did ya know that of the purported robot missions, only the China guys claim to have their vehicle returning to earth carrying retrieved moon rocks - and/but they don't share!
https://www.space.com/china-change-5-moon-rock-age-volcanism
That's not evidence that the moon landings didn't happen. It's not relevant. There's masses of evidence for the moon landings happening, enough that proves they happened so anything unrelated has no bearing. The Challenger disaster is the most brazen psyop of all time where hilariously the alleged dead people are walking around with their same names or similar - but that doesn't mean the moon landings were faked.
https://fakeologist.com/nasa-challenger-crew-alive-%C2%B7-fakeotube-by-anon/
it doesn't inspire much confidence in NASA's handling of the Challenger project, including its disaster either.
No it doesn't but the thing is the evidence still says they went to the moon. They wanted to go the moon, it's that simple. They wanted to go and they had the right people at the right time. It's an astonishing achievement and could easily never have happened if everything hadn't all aligned.
very politely disagree, but that's OK, b/c your work is very well-researched and this makes it both valuable and inspiring. I can't remember why, perhaps we didn't have a television set yet in tjose years, but my family and I never watched any of the moon landings, which might be the reason I'm still sceptical about it. never mind, we all do what we do. big TQ for your work!
Current obviously FAKE moon shots are great proof, the whole world is already together in the same bed. The Chinese videos are absurd.
Especially their 'Zhurong' Mars lander.
That's what I think.
All the governments coordinated on big psyops now like CovidHoax/FakeWars to get the people ready to meet The Aliens.
To get the people ready to meet the one world central bank digital currency, for which to work you need surveillance, control, and digital tracking of all transactions. They will issue more money, but every tiny transaction will be taxed.
Could be, dunno.
But all that could be done without all the stoopid dramas of obvious hoaxes. And the hoaxes are getting more obvious and that seems to be deliberate.
One might say this increasing obviousness in the psyop hoaxes is due to the so-called satanic Revelation of the Method (RoM) theology or that, alternately, the intentions of the hoaxers is to allow the slowpoke normies to catch up by making each subsequent psyop ever the more obvious.
According to NASA astronaut Petit in this video, they have not gone back to the moon because they "destroyed" the technology to do so, and it takes a long time to build it back up. Also appearing in this video is a NASA rep who explains they are still trying to figure out how to get people and equipment safely through the Van Allen radiation belts. It was apparently a miracle they got thru the belts in 1969, with no damage whatsoever to people or equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI&list=PLmgH9CC5ZMHNbV5TzfnpkUvaA-MyjiTNn
Something I wonder also about the nuke tests how do they keep the film from getting over-exposed from x-rays and whatnot.
I'm going to have to do a nuclear weapons one too now.
If nuclear weapons don't exist, then:
1/ erm, this kind of violates the laws of physics. Which clearly allow for something called radiation and the release of sudden large amounts of energy. Look up in the sky during the day and you might see this big orange thing. Don't look directly though, it's harmful to the eyes.
2/ all the atomic tests. How do explain all the thousands and thousands of incidents of acquired cancer which was, indeed, then passed down to their children and grandchildren? not to mention the video footage and the clear evidence of damage. Ask the south sea islanders what they think of it.
3/ Are you saying the native Americans whose lands were poisoned by the testing are lying, or mistaken, or what?
4/ footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki looks the same as the early atomic tests.
5/ it's not surprising if the damage from these first atomic bombs looks similar to mass firebombing, given the amount of explosives used. And there are comparisons from the damage done at testing sites. As an example, more explosive power was used on Dresden than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Also, as with Dresden, if the centre of the explosion is at a given point, then the fire will be spread in whichever way the wind is blowing, which will, indeed, result in some buildings surviving. At Dresden most of the bombs were dropped on one side of the city, knowing that the wind would blow the firestorm across the rest of it. That's how devilish the whole thing was. And Dresden remember was 250k people, which is Hiroshima plus Nagasaki combined. They really don't want you to think that, though - they'd prefer you to go with the 'official' figure of 'only' 25k.
6/ This 'nukes don't exist' psyop seems designed to prevent people from thinking about what a modern nuclear weapon truly does. Notice Hollywood has NEVER shown you just how pure evil it would really be. If you knew how evil it was then the anti-nuke movement would be unstoppable. And without the Samson Option, the cabal can't 'win'. They certainly can't keep scaring/threatening people with the nuclear war possibility, which has suddenly come back onto the table after the end of the cold war. During that time they really did terrify the crap out of everyone. They know the power of fear, after all, to keep a population subjugated.
A real, modern nuclear weapon doesn't just vaporise everything in the central impact area. It actually strips all the atoms and creates a sea of charged fundamental particles. Can a soul survive a nuclear explosion?
If multiple nukes are detonated, which is the Samson Option, you get an extinction level event, in which a nuclear winter and the destruction of the ozone layer lasts for 40-50 years. Obviously, you would expect they've developed the tech to disperse all the soot (chemtrails) and repair the ozone layer (HAARP), but only after, say, a year or two when 99% of the world's population has been wiped out. So the cabal would only need to stay in their superbunkers for a few years, before emerging with their MK'd army/militia to take control over the surviving 20-80 million humans, which is a far more manageable number. Those survivors can then be split up into dispersed groups of say 50,000 each, with at least 100km between them, meaning resistance is impossible. And then it really is welcome to the 1000 year NWO.
I would imagine it's very important to the cabal to get the sceptic movement/i.e. dissidents and resistance, to not believe a word about the Samson Option. That's how important it is to them.
Evelyn, rather than write a long comment why don’t you take a look at the evidence first.
The testing etc is all covered.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
Ok, Pearl Harbour. Let's deal with that ridiculous assertion that it was some evacuated fake event.
1/ The Japanese would have to be in on it. That's patently absurd. If it was evacuated then those first squadrons of Zeroes would've reported back saying 'hold on, lads, there's nothing here!'. If you suggest Japanese collusion then you have to suggest that they were perfectly in agreement with the Americans blockading 90% of their oil supply, then refusing to do diplomacy to resolve the situation which led directly to the Japanese feeling they had no choice but to do a show of strength at Pearl Harbour in the hope that the Americans might get back around the table.
2/ All the evidence points towards what is known as a LIHOP - 'let it happen on purpose' - to provide a pretext to declare war on Japan (and consequently on Germany) with the specific imperialist aim of gaining total control over the Pacific, which they pretty much did. The saturation bombing of Japan (like with Germany), which includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki (whether nuclear or not) was as much about psychopathic mass murder as it was about sending messages to the Soviets.
3/ If there were evacuation orders then you're talking thousands of American servicemen and their families. Let's for argument's sake call that 10,000 people in total. Please point me towards contemporary historical evidence regarding witness statements to the effect of an evacuation. And I do not mean a few 'high ups', I'm talking ordinary servicemen and their families, many, many of whom would have talked, especially to the press. Remember this is before the days of Operation Mockingbird, for one, and for two there were thousands of very local small press/newspapers at the time. We can't project back our heavily censored social media onto 80 years ago.
4/ You have previously, or Mathis has, shown a few 'photos' which are claimed to be evidence of fakery. Sure, they may be evidence of faked photos but they are not evidence of a fake event. That's the point about fake photos. They are not evidence of anything other than fake photos. Thus, you have to ask 'why the fake photos' - are these straw men designed to allow some sceptics to come along and say 'this event never happened'? If so, what's the purpose of this fake events narrative? And how far back are we supposed to go in history? Is this not yet another piece of evidence to suggest that they are genuinely going 1984 on everyone and rewriting history to create a new narrative? To create cognitive dissonance and the Mandela effect? If you can no longer trust your own historical narrative, your cultural history/narrative, then the grounding of the individual itself is taken away. People no longer have anything to hold on to and are lost in this sea of cognitive dissonance, meaning that old thing 'learned helplessness' in which you are relying on the O'Briens of this world to tell you what to believe.
5/ Just a brief note on historiography. A proper conscientious historian will always examine the authenticity of primary source documents. First, to see if they really are primary source (i.e. contemporaneous) or have been manufactured after the event. They will also examine the source of those primary sources for any potential bias, prejudice, or ulterior motivation. A classic example would be Thomas More's official narrative about Richard III being a despot who murdered his own nephews. Given this official account was commissioned by the man who overthrew Richard and took his place it's pretty obvious to any historian that we simply can't trust More's narrative. In fact, it lends weight to the idea that Richard didn't, in fact, kill his nephews. The same ideas apply to all this 'evidence' about these false flags and psyops - who, really, is the source of all this evidence? Answer, the three letter agencies and the Mockingbird media, along with a boatload of cognitive infiltrators/agents. See what I'm getting at?
Why do they want you to think that Pearl Harbour was an 'evacuated event'? That conspiracy theory never even existed prior to 9/11! At least I never heard of it. And it certainly took what, at least 20 years after 9/11 for it to arise (along with all these oh so conveniently surfacing fake photos, which also never existed before). So in other words, scepticism is of the essence here.
I didn't assert that Pearl Harbour was evacuated, I have a page on it where I make a case.
Now, your first point about Japan being in on it ... yes, I wondered about that. We've Pearl Harbour and then the fake atomic bombs. I'm like, what kind of deal did the US and Japan have going and how??? ... and then Scipio Eruditis to the rescue - the Freemason connection!
This is the third part of his series on the atomic bomb but I also highly recommend the 1st and 2nd parts which are linked to on the page.
https://dfreality.substack.com/p/the-coincidence-zone-atomic-edition-1ec
I invite you to look at the case I make for Pearl Harbour and if you have any actual evidence that favours real please let me know what it is.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/pearl-harbour.html
The thing is though Evelyn what I don't understand is why you favour real. They luuurve to dupe us and faking it just works so well for them. To me, it's not just the evidence I also see how it works for them.
But who are they duping? They're not duping normal people, are they? Normal people will just blindly accept whatever the epistemic authorities tell them and as such there is no additional mind control, because they will have no idea they could be being fed a faked event. The fakery, in other words, has zero psychological effect on them.
But feed the same evidence of fakery to a sceptic who has previously believed in the unofficial narrative, who then starts to doubt their own previous opinion, and then yes, now you have mind control, because you have a psychological effect.
So the real question here is this - are these fake events intended for normal people, or for sceptics? Because if they are intended for normal people as MK fakery, then they are utterly useless, because there is zero lasting psychological effect other than the superficial initial reaction.
Like 9/11 - superficial initial reaction = I hate Muslims, let's go kill 'em all. Several years later, at most, they don't even think about it anymore. Any initial grieving process is finished. Back to normal. Until the next manufactured crisis.
As for Pearl Harbour, I already gave you a ton of evidence. Can you address those points?
The 'freemasonic' connection with Japan is ludicrous. Same goes for China. We're talking civilisations which have a very proud thousands of years old cultural identity. The idea that they'd allow some westerner to come along and dictate to them that they have to go along with some fakery is absurd. That's psychology again.
Westerners won't simply dictate - they will offer goodies.
Evelyn, you seem to have a problem recognising the importance of EVIDENCE.
It's not what you think should / would / must have / might / could happen it's what the EVIDENCE says.
The evidence says:
--- Pearl Harbour was an evacuated bombing
--- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed using conventional weapons
It's the EVIDENCE.
All I've been saying is that evidence is only evidence if it can be 100% trustworthy. It needs to be verified and authenticated and the source of it checked and analysed and similarly authenticated. Until that happens, it's not evidence, it's just 'information'.
Furthermore, it has to be placed in the context of other information. There is far, far more 'information' suggesting Pearl Harbour happened as countless historians (and military intelligence from the time) have said it happened than there is 'information' saying it was some kind of fakery. I can countenance the possibility, which I have come across before, that many of the ships at Pearl Harbour were older types and no great loss to the US Navy, and I'm sure I heard that a (more valuable) battleship was indeed 'ordered out on manoeuvres' in advance of the attack - but that's not the same as fakery, that's 'advanced knowledge' and the deliberate 'sacrifice' of 2,400 people. These are the same 'leaders' who blithely sent millions over the top in ww1 and tens of thousands similarly into a rain of machine guns at D-day. So don't tell me they'd give a flying shit about 'evacuating 2,400 of their own people' - like fuck they'd care! Anyone who makes war doesn't care about human life. Period.
Just to add: Burden of Proof - burden of proof is on the initial claimant.
So I presented video which shows fakery of the Japanese planes where we don't see a propeller or engine. Perhaps this is fake.
Where is the real Japanese plane with the propeller and engine?
This is hilarious. From the US National Archives (trustworthy right?)
Video title: Japanese Planes Bomb Pearl Harbor, USS Arizona Explodes & Sinks
At the beginning of the video we are shown a few planes flying and then just at the point in the video linked to below we see a ship blow up ... but no planes. The bombing looks as if its coming from the ship itself not from planes similar to the video I linked to on my page where we see the explosives are submerged.
US Archives - https://youtu.be/WvhJboFYFX4?si=o4Am5_bkqLIuREi1&t=112
Video on my PH page - planes then explosion from submerged explosives (there are also other examples later)
https://youtu.be/qiaX4jbdeLE?si=FlugooU7CMrkf6J2&t=149
FACT: All the visual evidence supports fake and none of it favours real. That is all you need. I don't know what you mean by trustworthy.
We have been told that Pearl Harbor was something that it clearly was not. There's a huge mismatch between show and tell.
WHEN DID I ARGUE THEY CARED ABOUT ANYONE? THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT! The argument is that the evidence supports fake and none of it favours real. That is all that is required. They told us a story that the "show" part doesn't match.
"Information" can be propaganda. You need to judge by what is actually shown.
Can you provide any visual evidence that favours an unevacuated bombing of Pearl Harbour? If you cannot then you have no case.
If that's not enough for you, OK, but it's more than enough for me.
911 was performed (no matter how) to lionize Islam as geopolitical force. David Rockefeller said as much in his Autobiography by claiming it was caused by America's one-side support of Israel. "They'll blow us up if we keep favoring Israel."
They won't blow them up because they're all in it together at the top. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for absolute sure were in on 9/11.
You don't understand at all what I wrote above. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan wanted to be lionized by the 9-11 hoax. The hoax was perpetrated to make the West cave to Islam. David Rockefeller reinforced the 9-11 message in his Augobiography. Immigration from Islam to the West vastly increased after 9-11 per the plan.
It's irrelevant. They're all in it together whether Islam is lionized or not.
I think you're being excessively kind to the psychopathic American government/intel agencies, Petra - the idea that they would baulk at the idea of killing their own people, whether in 9/11 or Pearl Harbour, in order to provide a pretext to kill millions more is ludicrous. Especially when you consider how little they care about their own citizens on a daily basis. And I'm not just talking Covid 'vaccines'.
These people are psychopaths and monsters first and foremost - so Occam's razor suggests they will always choose the option that satisfies their bloodlust the most, if they think they can get away with it. Which they clearly can.
Occam's Razor says we choose the hypothesis that fits the evidence with the fewest questions and assumptions raised. The evidence shows that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were evacuated events.
Of course they don't care about the people because what are they doing now? This is not collateral damage, they are DELIBERATELY killing people. My rule of thumb is: when they tell you people are being killed, they're not and when they tell you they're saving people they're killing them.
If the psyop is not about killing people only about your BELIEF in deaths then they want to maintain the psyoppery of faking the death. If they do it for real they remove that element of mind control and psyops are all about maximising mind control not minimising it. Plus it's often not practicable to kill people - demolition companies are not going to agree to leave people in buildings for terror stories ... on the other hand, health professionals by the thousands can be propagandised and coerced into jabbing people with a substance that is harming and killing in mindblowing proportion.
It's all about mind control.
Occam does not apply to conspiracies. There is every reason to assume that conspirators would make their plans purposely complex, too complex for most to follow.
CIA front "demolition companies" follow orders.
I'm not sure how you can possibly say mind control isn't maximised, but minimised if there are real deaths. Mind control is about trauma, meaning a real trauma is far more effective than a simulated one.
I think your version of Occam's razor seems only to apply to 'neutral' facts/evidence, but not to psychology. My point is that you always have to remember that psychology lies at the root cause of everything they do. Once you understand their psychology it's only then that you can truly read them like a book and decipher everything they do - and, indeed, plan to do.
Furthermore, which again I shall have to write about elsewhere at length, one also has to consider the planning meeting, at which, like at any planning meeting, they will choose the most efficient option which is most likely to succeed. It's only once they've got that basic plan that they think about embellishing it. Today, these embellishments more often than not are specifically aimed at the sceptics or, dare I say it, 'psyop detectives'. Hence the creation of fake evidence to cover up real events. Straw men and suchlike. And if none of the sceptics pick up on this manufactured trail of fake evidence, then they can always get one of their agents/cognitive infiltrators to do it.
I'll reply separately about Pearl Harbour, as this is a classic example of what I'm talking about. The idea that nuclear weapons don't exist is another one.
What I mean is that if you kill people for real then their belief in the killing is correct and there's no mind control insofar as you're not making them believe something that isn't true. People were traumatised by 9/11 but the evidence shows that the death and injury were faked and this is revealed to us Revelation-of-the-Method style. Evelyn, it's all laid out clearly:
--- Layers of propaganda
--- Truth told underneath
It's not complicated.
If 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured there would be a single piece of evidence that favoured that claim ... but there isn't - not a single one. All purported evidence is either clearly fake or isn't particularly convincing. There's nothing, nada, niente ... it's all smoke'n'mirrors.
When you fool people you have better control over them ... and that's what they like.
I'm sorry but that's not how mind control really works. Unless we're talking about two different kinds of MK here. Which I admit may well be possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MK you're suggesting here is about getting people to believe what you want them to believe so they develop an infantilised learned helplessness, in which they are constantly relying on the 'epistemic authorities' to tell them what to believe (Room 101 style). Thus in this instance it's about getting people to believe stuff that isn't true. Am I reading you correctly here?
The MK I'm primarily talking about is similar, in the sense that it's getting people to believe what you want them to believe - because people's beliefs condition their opinions, and their opinions condition their responses. But it's the 'responses' which is the most important aspect of this type of MK. It's a form of conditioning, in other words. And that relies on them absolutely believing in the event/trauma itself, with no scepticism.
In the case of, say, 9/11, it seems clear that the 'response' is about fear, anger, hatred of brown people wearing funny costumes and full support for a murderous imperialist war of resource theft and the destruction of Israel's adversaries in the Middle East etc.
Your version of this MK, revealingly, seems only to apply to sceptics of the actual event, 9/11 in this case. So if none of us sceptics can trust any of the evidence then, clearly, we are at a total loss to provide a coherent historical account/narrative, meaning that we, too, experience the same infantilised learned helplessness as the 'normal people' who take the event at face value (meaning we now have to rely on agents/cognitive infiltrators). The effect on a sceptic, in other words, has a different intention. And I am suggesting this 'fake events narrative' for want of a better term, is a very, very recent phenomenon in the sceptic movement, perhaps only arising properly in web 2.0 over the last decade or so. I for one never heard a scratch about it 20 years ago. And that, to me, is a big red flag and points towards a concerted, distinct agenda and operation specifically targeting dissidents. It may well work very well on people who have only recently arrived to the scepticism thing, but for seasoned old timers it simply won't work, because we gathered and sifted through mountains of evidence at the time of these events, none of which pointed towards a fake event.
So whilst I agree with you about the existence of MK, perhaps we are indeed talking about different forms of MK and indeed, a different target audience. Normal people, after all, would simply dismiss all evidence of fakery or false flaggery or whatever, thus the MK doesn't work in the same way on them. For them, it's just pure trauma, not Operation Mindfuck.
Yes, there's two psyops - one for the believers and one for the disbelievers but in the case of 9/11 both are designed to traumatise because both involve belief in real death and injury.
Simon Shack was saying fakery as far back as about 2008 or 9 I think. I learnt about him two years in to my study around 2016 but I was still in thrall to some of the propaganda so I was like "some fake / some real" but then I had an epiphany in 2018 that - of course, face palm - it was all fake.
https://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=b1264ae03cd6b2555350168b7e224045
Hmm - I'll have to look into this Simon Shack bloke. Thanks for the tip. 2008-9 would probably make sense in terms of my hypothesis about a fake events narrative.
I can't remember if you've done a similar analysis of 7/7 by the way - that one certainly merits a good discussion.
Ok - I had a brief look at this Simon Shack bloke and if I were you I'd seriously remain sceptical, at the least, of anything he says.
The clue is in his 'Tychos' astronomical 'model', which is utterly ludicrous for anyone who knows anything about this kind of stuff.
It's also full of misinformation: example: "For instance, the diameter of the tiny Sirius B is only 0.4888% that of its host SIRIUS A (the brightest star in our skies).
Now, the diameter of Mars is only 0.4881% that of our Sun. That's right: the relative sizes of Sirius A & Sirius B are near-identical to the Sun & Mars! Thus, one cannot reasonably argue that the very idea of Sun & Mars being binary companions is "untenable" or "preposterous" - since our very brightest star system (Sirius) is a testimony to the existence of such highly-unequal bodies orbiting around each other. Please know that the "Newtonian" ad hoc explanation for how the teeny-weeny Sirius B (somewhat smaller than Earth) could possibly be the binary companion of the huge Sirius A (somewhat larger than our Sun) is that Sirius B must be made of EXTRAORDINARILY dense matter, in the order of 400,000 X denser than our earthly matter! The question thus becomes: just how dense must one's brain matter be to unquestioningly buy such nonsense?"
Sirius B hasn't always been 'small' - it used to be a massive blue-white star (bigger and brighter than Sirius A) which collapsed into a white dwarf 120 million years ago. Furthermore the orbital distance and period of Sirius A/B is totally different (far larger) to Sun-Mars. My point is that anyone can easily find that out in less than a minute simply by looking on effing wikipedia.
As you, Petra, are very much aware of Miles Mathis, this strikes me as some kind of cognitive infiltration attempt to discredit Miles' physics. Miles, unlike this bloke, actually backs up his physics theories with evidence and mathematical reasoning and so on. In other words it's science, not pseudoscience.
So, simply from this fact alone, either 'Simon Shack' also happens to be 'Miles Mathis' (the 'committee at Langley' version of Miles) both of whom are engaging in Operation Mindfuck, or this 'Simon Shack' is the bad guy.
As I say, when we examine 'evidence', we also have to examine the source of that evidence. In this instance, although I may well have a deeper look later, I am very glad I know a fair bit about physics (and Sirius, for that matter) because now I am very confident of retaining my ability to not take anything on that forum as gospel. It must be a brilliant place for the deposition of all manner of misinformation. I wouldn't necessarily give it the name 'honeypot', but it's certainly a depository. And we all know about 'depositories' eh!
That's a very interesting forum. Must be a total Mecca for the bad guys to deposit all their newly manufactured fakery, presented as contemporary. Mandela effect 2.0.
I shall have to make some time sometime to do a longer browse. There's clearly a lot to get through.
None of this explains why James McCanney tells stories about Soviet space program contacts that he had while working in the American program that related accounts of animals and cosmonauts coming back from lunar orbits cooked from the radiation in the Van Allen belt.
I can think of an explanation. James McCanney is one of the anti-moon landing propaganda crew. Whoever he is though why should we believe him or the people who spoke to him?
In the same vein, why should we believe you?
I believe I make a case with enough evidence to support it. If you don't think I do fair enough.
It is hard to beat Bart Sibrel's videos.
Due diligence, Vonu. Here's a video pointing out his lies. Dave McKeegan doesn't just say he's wrong, he points out that he's actually lying. Why would he lie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03x2MC3wv5Q
How can we image planets and stars many light years away but can't image the debris left on the moon?
It is more like extraordinary and unnecessary diligence.