Yeah, they lie every waking breath ... but when a rare, superficially implausible event happens they'll make you think it's a lie because they want to control everyone's minds as much as possible
I would never have guessed the guys at this press conference just returned from the greatest adventure of all time. They look more like they just found out they had cancer, and their wives are divorcing them. Or as one of the top comments said, "Looks like a press conference from the losing locker room at the super bowl." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
OK, so now I've watched Allan's video in its entirety. To summarize:
1. In relation to the temperature of the Apollo 13 LEM it is perfect reasonable that in one case the lunar surface was referred to while in the other it was space.
2. The "skin" of the LEM is similar to a dust cover on a Lamborghini. The astronauts were not sitting in the skin that was outside - seriously, Allan implying that they were sitting in the skin does make me wonder about him.
3. The taking off of their spacesuits at some point in the journey can make sense because they used power to run them. So initially they would provide warmth but as they got closer to home and their power was running out they probably sacrificed warmth by taking off their suits. It is an emergency situation and we can imagine they did all kinds of things they wouldn't have normally done and also that they chopped and changed strategies to respond appropriately to requirements.
1. So, whether cold or hot, you are claiming they could have survived 3 days in space in a tinfoil room with no climate control?
2. Allan didn't imply they sitting on the skin--he explained the situation in #1.
3. Seems like fishing, but not really central to the key issue, which is whether #1 is physically possible.
4. I think you need to look around at some more sources of crater info. Like I said, the crater is a question of physics. It would not be a faint ring--it would be several feet deep.
They hadn't just returned from the moon, Virginia, they'd spent 21 days in quarantine. Bit of a test, no? You've just returned from the greatest adventure as you say and then you've got to spend three weeks playing cards with two guys you've been sardined with for three days prior and I don't think that Neil and Buzz, for example, were the greatest of friends. Those guys were amazing. https://www.space.com/apollo-11-astronauts-quarantined-after-splashdown.html
The thing is there is masses of evidence ... and all of it supports the reality of going. Not being overly enthusiastic at a press conference simply isn't evidence they didn't go - it might act as a support to evidence but it's not evidence of itself, it really is a nothing burger as they say.
TO ALL DISBELIEVERS OF THE MOON LANDINGS: Nothing could apply more to you guys than:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”
― Alexander Pope, An Essay On Criticism
Re video from Allan Weisbecker (who I must say I have admired greatly but now I wonder about). I asked ChatGPT about the discrepancy between what Alan Bean of Apollo 12 said about the LEM without climate control heating up because it's "always sitting in the sun" and the problem Apollo 13 had of losing heat when it lost the power for climate control.
There are two different situations: sitting on the lunar surface in the sun (what Alan Bean was referring to) and travelling through space where the spacecraft is not necessarily in the sun.
Just put the question out there and it will be answered oracle-like. The secret to determining the truth of the moon landings is: ask questions, don't jump to conclusions based on limited knowledge. Don't paddle only in the waters of the naysayers, you need to extend beyond those waters to the ayesayers and see what they have to say.
The correct approach is not rocket science and yet ...
I haven't looked at the SpaceX missions but my suspicions would be that they were real because I don't see the point of faking them.
ChatGPT is like Wikipeida or essentially any source - use with caution. The point is that there is nothing in the video that doesn't say in one case the astronaut is referring to the lunar surface and in the other instance space. We'd need more information. Also, it makes perfect sense.
I started watching your video above and stopped I'm afraid right at the beginning because of the nonsense about waving flag and lack of blast crater, both points of which have been responded to endlessly on the internet. Seriously, how does the same hogwash keep spinning and spinning and spinning around?
However, I'm certainly persevering with Allan W. video because I'm curious to see if I can work out if he's genuine or an agent and I have to say the video has this very deliberately curated feel about it.
He's dead. He was my friend for many years. What you see online is exactly what he was like in person--a brilliant photographer and writer who wrote what was in his heart.
Wow! I have to say I'm most impressed with what he's done on 9/11 and other things and how he called out James Corbett and Richard Grove so he certainly seems genuine ... but what he's done on Apollo not so impressive which isn't to say he's not genuine. There's loads of genuine people who don't believe in the moon landings obviously.
BTW, re a "curated feel"--I know for a fact the many, many hours of work Allan personally put into his videos, writing, photos, and investigations. "Not seeing any reason to fake SpaceX" is lame--everything is about CONTROL--that's why all the major news is faked.
Allan really had a keen eye with a lot of knowledge of photography that he acquired over a lifetime, so he was in a better position than most to render an expert opinion about SpaceX and NASA fakery.
BTW both Allan and I thought that the flat earth movement was a psy-op specifically designed, at least in part, to stop what was becoming a widespread exposure of NASA fraud. The idea was discredit the idea of NASA fraud by associating it with FE. There were a lot of "slick" FE videos that came out right away, establishing that association.
I believe the 'there are no viruses' thing is associated with the FE psyop.
The bad guys have infiltrated the 'truth movement' with these absurd ideas in order to discredit the movement, in the same way that they say 'people who believe we never went to the moon are loonies' - human beings being social animals and having a primal fear of ostracism, they are more likely to go with the majority, so they are scared of even thinking about a perceived fringe idea. So they will believe the most absurd things if it means they are safe within the majority.
Also the reason is an upcoming "public/private partnership" with SpaceX, to do what NASA was supposed to be doing all those years. Can't remember where or when I read that...
I believe Miles Mathis has a fair few things to say about deodorant guy (Elon Musk). Basically, he is just the frontman for the DoD. He has zero intelligence, zero creativity, zero inventiveness. And the idea of landing a rocket on a platform that isn't, erm, the video in reverse (!!!) is effing ridiculous. But what's totally scary is the number of people who actually believe it all.
That's the psychology that explains everything, imo.
Don't equate "responded to endlessly" with truth, because there are endless NASA shills and trolls. They are endlessly defending or faux-exposing NASA, or defending or faux-exposing the shills and trolls who are defending and faux-exposing NASA.
I'm not equating "responded to endlessly" with truth, however, the responses given make perfect sense. I know NASA lies because the Challenger disaster is the most in-your-face psyop of all time so it's not a case that I blindly believe responses but when the responses seem reasonable I have no reason to disbelieve them.
But in the first place, why would I believe a know-nothing who says there should have been a crater? What does this person know? He doesn't know ANYTHING. He just says "crater" which is what agent, Bill Kaysing, said back in 1976.
A number of supposed "anomalies" were planted in people's minds. Why should stars appear in the photos? What do people who say this know? They don't know anything. They don't know that the astronauts went to the moon during lunar daytime which lasts an earth month and just as we don't see stars on earth during the day they're not seen during lunar daytime either.
The crater is a question of physics--if force is blasting toward the ground, which it allegedly was, then it would have created a blast crater in the soft dirt.
Not for nothing Petra there were mass amounts of evidence that covid was real....'testing tents' free vaccines' 'emergency use authorization letters' 'press conferences' 'news reports' 'tic tok videos of people lying in a hospital bed regretting not taking the vaccine' I could go on all day........
Also to be clear 'evidence' is something that is admissible in court and frankly I do not need evidence to know the truth.... evidence can be a lie, evidence can be the truth, evidence is not always believed or thought as true.
Something seemingly this big as NASA (and all its sub contractors) can be compartmentalized to the point that everyone plays there part making the whole soap opera look real.
For me it is simple.... the Lunar Module...... I dare anyone to view the Apollo archives and scrutinize the picture of the Lunar Module supposedly on the moon inch by inch.
You can enlarge these photos and look very very close at the construction of the Lunar Module.
There was ZERO evidence that covid was real just a lot of propaganda. What has been presented for the moon landings actually qualifies as evidence.
You need to be able to distinguish what is evidence and what is propaganda. Sure, the evidence presented for the moon landings could be faked ... but it shows no signs of it.
You'll need to put a link to a specific photo where you think the LEM shows signs of not being airtight.
I always knew Apollo 13 was full of shit, but after watching that, it is beyond absurd.
As an English, I'm very familiar with Derren Brown - he has essentially told people just what mind control is capable of even without childhood trauma/MK-Ultra stuff.
I'm only part way through so far, Petra (obviously I'll have to do longer comments later - and this is a great post for prompting a discussion - so long as everyone keeps it civil), but one strikingly obvious bit of science screams out at me with your little description of Gemini 8 - you said it started revolving, eventually reaching one revolution per second? Well, have you heard of centrifugal force? I'm just wondering about 1/ what the G-force of that fast a revolution would create, and 2/ whether Armstrong ever said anything about that either during the flight or afterwards. I'm not sure what the diameter of Gemini 8 was (hold on, I'll see if I can find out - ok, it was 3.05m). I can calculate the centrifugal force of that of course (there are online tools do so), but imagine if you're on a roundabout 3 metres in diameter and it's spinning at 1 rev per second? What I can say is that 3 rpm usually equates to earth gravity. So we're talking about a force of 60/3 equals 20G.
If this wasn't ever mentioned then either 1/ it was never spinning that fast, or 2/ Houston, we have another problem, and we're talking about a fake event.
Yes - I couldn't find a decent centrifugal force calculator straight up until after I did the comment. I found one which said it was around 12G rather than 20. Still, in these circumstances our ol' friend ChatGPT is startlingly helpful. It confirmed that with a 3m radius at 3m/s weighing 3175Kg it's 12.04G. However, this uses Pi=3.14 - from our Mathis readings we know it's actually Pi=4 when motion is involved, so add another 4/3.14 to that. Let's call it 13G. According to ChatGPT you'd black out in less than a minute, although it clarifies this by saying the astronauts were more centrally placed, say at a radius of 1m (from the centre), not 3m, meaning the actual G was around 4. This is manageable for short durations (in the case of Gemini 8 it was 20-30 minutes). So I will let them have that one.
However there was a really curious bit which ChatGPT just suddenly came up with (without being asked) when it quoted a bit from the mission transcript, where the astronauts essentially say Houston we have a problem we are 'tumbling end over end', then mission control says can you repeat that, and they say we confirm we're tumbling end over end. Except apparently the post-mission analysis says it wasn't end over end, but a rotational spin. So there is a serious anomaly there. ChatGPT's excuse is it was the stress of the moment, but it also talks about a tribute to Armstrong's coolness under pressure that he corrected the spin. Still, maybe initially he wasn't sure, but I think you'd be able to tell the difference between tumbling end over end and spinning round and round.
In terms of the G, by the way, the Gemini craft was around 5m long, so if it was end over end then add another 2/3rds (66.6 lol) to that G force. Apparently there was some tangential spin too so that makes it even more impressive flying if it really happened. You can understand why they gave the guy Apollo 11.
Curious, but unanswered question - but of course by investigating these fascinating things we learn a lot. I am willing to accept the authenticity of Gemini 8 - although this is largely because I have a sci-fi fan's confirmation bias thing going on - I want these things to have happened.
Sometimes, even though AI is swiftly stealing my livelihood, I do appreciate its usefulness!
One criticism I do have of your article, though, is that you are kind of cherrypicking bits from Dave's series. Yes, of course to do the whole thing justice you'd need either a really long article or a series of them (that would be a great idea actually, tackling each of Dave's chapters one by one), but it could be construed as a little unfair bordering on the straw man fallacy. I believe that in a later chapter Dave does answer the counter-articles to his Chapters 1 and 2.
And yes, he doesn't exactly provide any 'evidence' as such, he is simply asking pertinent questions. And there are definitely questions to be asked about the sheer rapidity (and total recklessness for that matter) of the schedule for the Apollo missions, which Dave does talk about. Gemini too. Compare this to the current Artemis programme, and it's an entirely different approach (allegedly with better tech).
Dave's analysis of Gemini is also very interesting - I've not actually come across anyone else who suggests that a lot of Gemini was also faked (mind you I haven't properly looked). I think the overall point of Dave's work is that it's like throwing the ball back into the believers' court and saying the onus is on you to explain all these points - like how come you can go straight from Apollo 10 to Apollo 11 with nothing in between?
I don't believe he mentions the one glaring anomaly about the size of the planet in Apollo 8's moonrise image, which should be 6 times larger (given the relative sizes of the moon and the planet). And it is a valid question to ask why there aren't masses of beautiful images of the planet from Apollos 11-17 (from the surface, I mean). And the stars thing is important - simply saying it needed some longer exposure is not an excuse, because why didn't they just do a longer exposure?
How come the 'science' they carried out hasn't actually achieved much? What about all the Helium-3? The concept of the fusion torch, after all, was invented in 1969 itself.
These questions don't necessarily say 'it never happened' but they are glaring questions which NASA should be able to provide more than just a half-arsed answer to.
When/if they do go back to the moon with Artemis, will they do any real science? What kind of science and why didn't they do it the first time? Will they show us some genuine beautiful astronomy images, like just for example a live digital camera stream of earthrise? Given we can have these cameras in phones nowadays, you'd hope they will have a livestream, wouldn't you?
NASA is going to have to think very seriously about these questions, because if they want people to believe in the Apollo landings, the Artemis evidence and imagery is going to have look just the same. I for one am waiting with bated breath to see what they come up with. I'm not surprised they delayed Artemis I from what was supposed to be this November by at least a year. If they did fake the Apollo landings then they must be shitting themselves about the Chinese getting there before them and taking some lovely videos. Then again, one would have to accept the Chinese are in on it too. Which would not surprise me, given their so-called 'Zhurong' Mars lander is full of anomalous shit. I think the Mars thing is possibly a far more interesting subject for fakery than the moon, tbh.
The one thing I just can't accept though, for purely emotional reasons, is that the Russian's Venera images were fakery. I'm not having that. I want to see what these places really look like. Because I'm just a big child.
Evelyn, I reject your claim of cherry-picking or strawmanning. My job isn't to refute every single thing, it's simply to point out a number of claims that do not refute the moon landings and, as suggested, by the anonymous blogger who analyses the first two parts, it is not simply a question of him getting things wrong, he seems to be lying.
FACT: Dave does not say anything - unless you can point to it - that refutes the reality of the moon landings in a 14-part book.
I do not understand why this fact doesn't have more meaning to the disbelievers. This fact is huge. Even though he mixed the truth with lies he still put forward items that debunked the 9/11 and Boston Bombing narratives so why NOTHING for the moon landings? Unless you've got something, of course. Have you got anything?
Hmm. I don't think I would necessarily jump to a conclusion that someone is lying. They might simply be mistaken. I've been myself on a number of occasions. And we can't assume that people know everything about a subject, or are not simply working through a hypothesis. It takes time to become acquainted with a subject matter, and people do often jump to conclusions.
I really didn't think much of that anonymous blogger's refutation. Aside from anything else there was no understanding of the stylistic, ironic nature of Dave's way of writing. The blogger seems to mistake humour for a serious point, so he comes up with this 'irrelevant' thing. Er, no, it's called humour, mate.
I can, however, kind of understand where you are coming from with your criticism of Dave not necessarily providing anything definite. But he was largely writing rhetorically. He puts forward a significant number of genuinely valid questions, the intention of which is to make the reader think. Like, for example, the sheer rapidity of the Apollo schedule, getting from, say Apollo 8 (December 1968) to Apollo 11 in only 7-8 months. Of course that's not 'proof' but it does raise serious questions.
That's what I got from Dave's Moondoggie anyway. Furthermore, in my view the onus is actually on Nasa, or the moon landing believers, to come up with a killer piece of evidence to prove it happened. Simply 'debunking' points put forward by sceptics isn't enough. So far, every piece of 'proof' I've come across can be explained away (faked, in other words), and is not proof.
And if it was a fake event then it's of a completely different type to the other ones we talk about. 9/11 for example. Thus, the same 'method' and 'intention' doesn't apply. Apollo after all was not designed to get people upset about terrorists or some foreign government and support a war and such like. It has a different reason behind it, and was clearly very important to them. Today, I don't think they actually care a jot whether people believe in 9/11 or not - they have achieved their objective. The moon landings, however, are still important and in fact have significantly increased in importance with the new space race with China and Artemis etc.
Anyhow - you ask if I've got something? Ok - I already mentioned it, which is the Apollo 8 earthrise picture. The 'earth' in that picture looks the same size as the moon does from down here. It should, however, be six times larger. This is the kind of anomaly which Nasa must've been furious about, with whichever tech guy/photoshopper did it, because clearly this schoolboy error didn't occur to them until after. Now they have to make all the planetary images from the moon look the same size. Same as the Viking Mars lander image. They really, really didn't think about the consequences. Of course, saying that this photo is a fake in itself does not disprove either Apollo 8 or the rest of the programme, because it only proves the existence of a fake photo - but, that fake photo itself does require explanation.
I will also have another look at Aulis and provide some links to other anomalous photo evidence - essentially we're talking 'continuity errors', not necessarily shadows in the wrong places. Footprints seeming not to have any starting point, for example. An odd footprint perpendicular to the others. Backgrounds changing relative to the LEM. That kind of thing. Stuff in the foreground (rocks etc.) changing from one pic to another.
I'll see what I can find. But equally - these are not 'killer arguments' to prove it was faked - they simply prove the existence of fake photos. So like I say, what's the reason for the fake photos? Curious...
Humour is a fabulous way to convey propaganda isn’t it but BloggerMan isn’t interested in humour he’s interested in the truth and so while those inclined to disbelieve the authorities may be seduced by Dave’s humour as intended (I’m pretty sure I was when I read WTM as my first port of call on my moon landings journey) BM is only interested in whether what is put forward contains relevant truth or not. Yes people can genuinely be mistaken but there are numerous indicators that Dave is not.
Here are what I consider killer pieces of information demonstrating the truth of the moon landings.
All imagery being consistent with a brightly-lit surface from a single source, ie, the sun against a black sky which I’d suggest is actually impossible to achieve on earth at night.
The footage of the astronauts moving on the lunar surface being consistent with 1/6th earth’s gravity.
Neil Armstrong talking us through the footage taken of the final 3 minutes of the Eagle landing against Google Moon. If you disbelieve the moon landings then you have to believe that Google Moon is a total crock. That’s a pretty big call. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqe7-rFRrkc
I suggest you do some research on the Earthrise photo and see if you can get an explanation for why it doesn’t seem the right size to you. Maybe check ChatGPT? The thing about reality is that a single anomaly cannot simply come along and overturn it. If there are sufficient items that align perfectly with a certain image of reality then that MUST be the image. If anything comes along that seems to overturn it it will just be something that seems to overturn it, it cannot really overturn it because that’s not the way reality works. If you have a jigsaw puzzle and half the pieces show a desert, a piece that comes along that represents a tropical forest in Malaysia is simply not part of that jigsaw.
Also, an argument that holds no water is “Could be faked,” without in the first instance some clear evidence of fakery. Before you can make claims of “could be faked” you need one clear instance of it. No one has presented that one clear instance for the moon landings. Moreover, “could be faked” and “could be faked without detection” are two entirely different things. Many things are faked but not faked convincingly, eg, every psyop known to man.
With regards to the 10,000 hours of transcripts. I thought of an analogy which you'll understand. I gather you don't believe in the existence of coronaviruses, yes? Partly because you think there are flaws with the viral isolation process?
Ok - let's say there are flaws, and not get into that part of the science. But what you then have to do is explain the 10,000 instances of laboratories around the world all producing the same results (it's probably a lot more than 10,000 but I'll stick to that number for illustrative purposes). How many people does that involve? All of them, after all, must be 'in on it' - they must all be lying and carrying out their fraudulent experiments in exactly the same way (are all virologists chosen from a select pool of liars and sociopaths?).
Remember, if you think 'isolation' simply produces 'junk proteins' then you have to explain how every one of those presumably random junk proteins reacts in exactly the same way to various agents, such as antibodies. Even if you think isolating the antibodies is equally fraudulent and simply produces 'random bits of junk protein' then you need to explain how the biochemical analyses always produce the same results.
My point here is that we really are talking the equivalent of '10,000 hours of transcripts' (which, ironically, would've required far fewer people to fake than viral isolation techniques - and remember there is such a thing as 'in-character improvisation', which every actor going through drama school will practice hundreds of times). If you believe that 10,000 instances of viral isolation can be faked consistently, then you also have to accept the possibility that 10,000 hours of transcripts can be consistently faked. You can't have it both ways, in other words.
Not 10,000 hours of transcript, 10,000 hours of audio ... although the transcripts are there too.
I don't think they're equivalent and I don't know what these labs have actually come up with.
Natural conversation that varies enormously from moment to moment is nothing like people doing experiments that follow a bogus experimental path. They're just not the same at all.
Evelyn, at this point I think it's a case of you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe in the moon landings. I have no doubt and there's nothing you've said that makes me doubt them. You haven't come up with anything. The earthrise photo is just not something I feel I can have an authoritative opinion on and there's too many parts of the moon landing puzzle fitting real for anything to come along and overturn that reality as far as I'm concerned. That's not how reality works.
My post wasn't about proving the reality of the moon landings it was proving that Dave McGowan has not put forward a single item in Wagging the Moondoggie that debunks the moon landings. I rest my case. If you've got anything from that book that you thinks debunks the moon landings let me know.
Ok - I get you. Obviously it would get far too OT to ramble on about biochemistry (I must do a post about it sometime - as I do understand the science). My point was simply that the 'bogus experimental path' always seems to produce the same repeatability result. I.e. the proteins they isolate are always the same proteins. The other option is that they are all lying, and the experiments do not all produce the same result. That point being there must be coordination/complicity between all, say, 10,000 labs and the technicians who work there. Which is a serious conspiracy.
As you are aware, carrying out a massive fake event requires a massive amount of coordination, that's to say everyone involved all playing their specific part. Personally I think there is a logistical limit to that. Ironically, this is indeed an argument in favour of the moon landings having taken place. But my point was that it's exactly the same argument with regards to 'fake viruses' - some 'fakes' cannot possibly be fakes because they exceed that logistical limit.
I do, however, accept the fact that the logistical limit in question (say, number of people all acting in concert) is much higher than most people suspect. 9/11 being a case in point - if your version is true (entirely fake) then that requires a lot of people, maybe four figures. Mind you, so do other versions of the event.
Anyway - I'll leave it there, then. As you know, I am personally fascinated by the entire psychology of these things. I think the psychology is crucial, and ultimately far more revealing than the simple 'details' of this or that event. Particularly as it tells us a lot more about the 'big picture'.
You raise some interesting points of course. With regards to earthrise, I did actually check in with ChatGPT about that a while back. For example the idea that there's no light diffusion because no atmosphere etc. This effect is in fact negligible, and cannot account for a 6x difference in apparent size.
One of the problems with ChatGPT is that it takes a lot of its information from 'information/data obtained from the missions themselves'. An example would be 'how did the astronauts survive the van Allen belts?' - ChatGPT would answer something like 'the amount of radiation they received would have been short-lived and not enough to be permanently harmful' - then you ask 'how do you know it's not enough', and it then says 'because the mission data collected when they went through the belts confirms it'. See what I mean? The same is true for stuff like temperature differentials on the moon ('how do you know what the temperatures were?' 'Because the astronauts measured it').
If the mission was faked then the data was faked. We have to remember also that various probes already passed through the belts and recorded this data. So the real question is whether that data is also lying, and if the probes said 'it would be fatal' (let's say earlier in the 1960s), then they would immediately have to rethink the entire project.
I believe one thing DM points out is that massive amount of data (including photos) from the lunar reconnaissance probes which has not been made public - including zero images of an 'earthrise' (or stars, for that matter). DM suggests those photos were used for fakery purposes.
Obviously these are just speculations, mind - I'm not saying either way. It's more a comment on ChatGPT's sources along with Nasa shenanigans about withholding data (given they have always been part of the DoD that's not surprising - cf. Corona spy satellites).
The only way one can get round ChatGPT's programming is to start off with pure science, but not tell it why you are asking (meaning you already need to have a good understanding of the science). This is how I did it when I asked about Gemini 8. It had no idea I was referencing Gemini 8 with the G-force calculation because it does not possess 'human intuition'. At least, not officially, anyway! Human intuition can be mimicked by an AI with a sufficient dataset, because intuition is simply 'pattern recognition' and 'best guesses'.
Anyhow, that was my first point. I think I should answer each one separately because I finally looked up what 'tl;dr' means yesterday.
Sorry I forgot the Earthrise thing came up before. There are quite a number of things re the moon landings that I feel I simply don't feel qualified to make pronouncements on so I avoid them. It's just so much easier to stick to more tangible artifacts such as 1000 hours of audio, the Neil Armstrong footage vs Google Moon, the fact that every single photo shows only a single light source and a number of them show very bright lighting across a vast distance which is difficult to explain for fakery. How do you get that really bright light across what looks like a reasonably vast distance against a black sky on earth?
Fake things have a feel about them, it's never going to be just the odd thing that you go, "Hey that's fake".
I will have a look at the google moon thing shortly - clearly I also need to re-familiarise myself with DM's book as it's been maybe a year since I first read it, so a lot of my comments are from memory. Likewise I need to study your American Moon thing otherwise I will just be firing wayward shots across bows and such like - and you deserve a far more learned and erudite response. You may after all be correct in saying that DM didn't come up with anything concrete aside from some (actually important, if not interesting) rhetorical questions. I like people who make me think. And especially those who do it in an entertaining way.
With regards to the technical possibilities of fakery, though, like a black sky and single light sources and simulating 1/6th gravity etc. - I think the general 'they faked it' hypothesis is that this was all done in a massive hangar/stage set (Cardington, I believe is mentioned by Aulis - near where Kubrick was living). Special effects, even in 1969, were in fact quite capable of such things. For a single light source that's just a massive single floodlight/beam, black sky is a perfectly black drape across the walls, and 1/6th gravity yeah, that would take some time and practice to get right but the point is 'it's not impossible'. Difficult, sure, but not beyond the capabilities of special effects.
Anyhow - 'possible' is not the same as 'definite', as we both accept. One thing I do love about this subject is that one learns so much new stuff when studying it. That alone is worth the effort.
Yeah, it was just a big drill basically. There were no attacks to stand down for - they just push a whole lot of nonsense at you to bamboozle you. Obviously, they had to orchestrate it carefully so that most of the people participating didn't know that it was all orchestrated - although obviously quite a few people were in on it. No idea how they did it but they have their ways and means. I love General Richard Myers answer to Cynthia McKinney's question in Congress "Did the activities of the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impair the military’s ability to respond to the attacks?"
Yeah it was a doozy - a very big doozy. I think we can infer a number of "bombings" aka "part demolitions" which have done some damage such as Bologna Station 1980 and the 1995 Oklahoma bombing most likely occurred in a drill-type situation.
I thought I'd read your article on American Moon - sorry if that slipped by me. I'll get on to that in due course.
One thing I would say about Dave McGowan and whether, as you surmise, he is/was an agent, is that I would very much take issue with the idea that a person who in retrospect seems to be an agent was always an agent. One has to consider the possibility of someone being made the proverbial offer you can't refuse. With regards to Dave, one of the most striking omissions in your article is his book 'Programmed to Kill', which is obviously the most important thing he ever wrote, and neatly ties together the child abuse network and MK-Ultra, with the Vietnam Phoenix program and 'serial killers' woven in, clearly showing the connections between all of them, plus what we now call Operation Mockingbird, namely the total capture of the mainstream media (and the legal system for that matter). That book simply can't be called a 'limited hangout' - and we shouldn't judge whether something is or isn't a limited hangout solely by the public impact it has or hasn't had. If, say, 10 million Americans (armed with the 2nd amendment no less) had read Programmed to Kill then you would probably have a civil war by now, and it simply couldn't be kept under wraps. At the very least, there wouldn't be CIA or a child abuse network.
In my view that book is one of the most important ever written. And I seriously doubt you or anyone else could debunk it. So, in order to discredit the book, clearly the best option is to discredit the messenger, by calling him an agent. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but if it is true that he was made that proverbial offer then it is that book, not anything else, which would've prompted that offer.
I'm not going to say anything about his 9/11 stuff in this comment - there's an IGSP studies article I would need to read first about the people who came up with the 'no planes' theories all being spooks. Personally I think Dave was largely correct in his 9/11 analysis, and it's interesting that a lot of the information he used seems to have been memory holed.
Anyway - I like your article, Petra, because I like being provoked into some serious thinking. Thank you.
I had a brief re-look at that IGSP article I mentioned about the no-planers to remind myself, and Joel seems only to be talking about the pentagon (flight 77). He believes it was a plane that hit, which tbh seems a little ridiculous to me - leaving aside anything else about Dave McGowan, I think his analysis of the pentagon aspect of 9/11 is very good (explosives fitted to the building etc.). If I recall correctly I think Dave suggests that 77 and 93 were both shot down, but he does believe in the two planes hitting the towers. But then you can add all the fakery on top of that. I'm inclined to go with that hypothesis myself tbh.
Interestingly Joel lists Dave amongst his 70 no-planers, and has a brief look at their bios. What I find curious, though, given Joel's obvious interest in the abuse network, is that he doesn't mention Programmed to Kill. You would've thought he would. So I think this omission is suspicious to say the least. I would not be surprised if Joel is another one of those who was given that proverbial offer, especially after his Dutroux article. Then again, if he is accusing McGowan of being a spook, then he wouldn't want that to discredit his own articles about the Network.
Some of his stuff is spot on, but some of it is incongruously bad. This is often a big red flag to me - how someone can be intelligent enough to work out that, say, A, B and C are false flags or psyops, but then they go and believe, or say they believe, that X and Y are not. I think there are serious psychological discrepancies there. So, if we look at the chronology, thus when did they switch from A, B and C to promoting X and Y, then we may have narrowed down the time window at which they received the offer.
Given how AI has just stolen my livelihood away and I shall have to choose between eating and heating this winter, I would be a lot more amenable to such an offer myself, I have to say. Given I am under no illusions about being able to stop anything, I will be happily reincarnating in 500-1000 years after the NWO phase has imploded and ended, I'll get to learn all about what is in our own future today, and then I will be a historian able to look back and document all that happened, armed with my past life memories of this life. So I would be happy to accept the offer so long as they provided me with some genuine information to answer some of my pressing questions. It doesn't take much to switch from counter-subversion to subversion, after all. Both are equally fun. Maybe this is why Dave's work is so much fun to read and often quite tongue in cheek.
Impossible to take anyone seriously as an an investigator or researcher who believes this hoax. Not to mention what NASA is really for, by looking at their presentation:
I'm afraid I can't take seriously anyone who thinks the moon isn't a solid object - what the guy says in the first video.
I'm familiar with all the seeming anomalies suggesting the moon landings were faked but they're all perfectly well explained.
This article isn't about proving the moon landings so much as showing that Wagging the Moondoggie is a work of propaganda and nowhere in its 14 chapters does it put forward anything that refutes their reality. No one has argued against my claim so far. How is it possible to write 14 chapters to show the moon landings were faked without putting forward a single thing that does that?
But Petra, even if only a few, or even just one of those proofs is accurate, that’s enough evidence.
There doesn’t need to be any fakery or deception whatsoever around real events.
None of those strings seen in the “moon landing” video or numerous ISS videos have ever been explained. They can’t be, because they are just one of dozens of clues that it’s a total psyop.
Secondly, controlled opposition; (whether that’s Dave or not) appear to have a pattern of being allowed to reveal past or very obvious psyops, yet told to maintain more current ones.
I haven’t read his book, but if it speaks to how these psyops are done that’s evidentiary as - modus operandi.
Also, if one is determined to maintain an obvious, glaring psyop whether that’s the moon landing or some other faux historical event that’s sold to the public only through television (which can be pre-recorded and pieced together, then broad-cast as an entire event at a later date as with the Freemasonic Agent, Zapruder film) and no other evidence is offered, as also with the moon landing hoax, one may remain unconvinced (for a multitude of reasons) no matter how much evidence is shown to the contrary.
Because I’ve noticed most people don’t know how to deprogram themselves from brain washing techniques, and remain easily convinced by governmental and scientific fraud and other psyops such as voting or religion.
Psychological and emotional attachment to “beliefs” versus evidence, are the norm.
But I’d advise those who have been conned by Astro-nots to take a look at aulis.com which has excellent articles.
What you need to understand, Researcher, is that I have absolutely no doubt that the moon landings happened. In a nutshell:
—- All the imagery exhibits a very bright single light source completely consistent with the sun and completely inconsistent with artificial light sources
—- the movement of the astronauts is completely consistent with a lower gravity
—- the 1,000 hours of audio communications for the Apollo program that I’ve dipped into here and there sound 100% authentic and I’d argue would be impossible to fake without detection and also fakery of such a ludicrous size would NEVER be attempted
—- Subtleties in the evidence such as small amounts of dust on the landing pads of the LEM only visible in high res photos with the magnifier are completely unexpected of fakery
—- I’ve look endlessly at all the supposed anomalies and have seen perfectly good explanations for them
—- There is an anti-moon landing propaganda agents leading the anti-moon landing movement including Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel and others who say not a single word of relevant truth and lies.
There isn’t really anything you can tell me that will change my mind at this stage simply because I find the evidence too overwhelming. However, I will consider looking at items one by one. Why don’t you give me what you regard as the most compelling piece of evidence against the moon landings?
I don’t think there’s much point if you’re certain, yet you actually have no personal knowledge or experience re the landings or space travel.
I would suggest you to start investigating the masonic aspects of NASA and the esoteric in general.
Also, Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun being involved in NASA is a giant red flag.
The most compelling piece of evidence (for me) you’ve already dismissed: When I saw the HD pics of the “lunar module” I knew instantly it was all a psyop. I’ve been up in enough small planes (and large) to know a flight worthy, and aerodynamic device when I see one, versus a prop.
Fakery of a ludicrous size is done all the time: Germ theory. Vaccines. Every war is based on fakery and fraud. Every election in every fake country. Every court case. Every religion. The entire monetary and trade system. And the stock markets which are all centrally owned and controlled. The education system as indoctrination. The entire media itself is nothing more than a brainwashing delivery system.
For thousands and thousands of years, one group’s ruled the entire world and ALL they do is occult real knowledge and conduct massive global hoaxes, whilst stealing from and farming humanity.
This is a group who rule the world by deception and fraud, it’s not just one fraudulent, government “space” agency.
I recognise the Challenger disaster as the most brazen psyop of all time with the alleged dead people walking around with the same or very similar names. I mean, seriously, so I know that NASA lies and just generally that we are lied to constantly. However, they really, really wanted to go to the moon ... and they did.
What makes no sense at all for fake is the team of agents they have employed to push "we didn't go" propaganda. If we really didn't go, they could have pushed out agents to say some lies so the disbelievers would make fools of themselves repeating those lies but generally agents tasked with that job MIX truth with lies, they don't just say lies ... and yet all the agents - Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, etc ONLY say lies. If we really didn't go surely they'd put in a few genuine things that say we didn't go.
And what's interesting is none of the disbelievers have picked this up. Why does this fact not get the significance it deserves? What it means is that the disbelievers are not doing due diligence.
The LEM wasn't meant to be aerodynamic as it is only used in the vacuum of space. You're using the wrong criteria to judge it.
I've never been to space and nor have you but I know - or have no reason to doubt - that the moon sky is black day and night. This is HUUUUUUUGE. Trying to fake bright sunlight reflected off the lunar surface convincingly is - in my opinion - impossible but whether it is (or was back then at least) impossible or not these are two facts:
--- there is no evidence of fakery (all claims about non-parallel shadows and fall off have been responded to convincingly)
--- they do not stint on the evidence - there's loads and loads of images
I simply judge by the consistency of the evidence matching expectations of the alien lunar environment. It is overwhelming ... and then there's the 1,000 hours of communications between astronauts and mission control - you cannot fake this kind of evidence without detection ... and if you could here are two facts:
It does ... but when people disbelieve that clear truth due to their insufficient knowledge and understanding then that insufficiency needs to be addressed.
Virologists are very cagey and do not respond to the challenges issued to them. Apollo enthusiasts are, much to the contrary, always at the ready to explain things to those who doubt the moon landings.
My moon landings journey:
1. Read Wagging the Moondoggie - found it compelling
2. Looked at the evidence myself and when I got to the audio between astronauts and mission control stopped dead in my tracks. Thought, "No way, could this audio be faked, it's much too natural-sounding." I didn't know it at the time but there's about 1,000 hours of audio recorded by the astronauts and mission control for the Apollo program alone - and more for the other programs. If you think you could fake this kind of audio without signs of fakery you'd need to demonstrate it.
3. Looked at the imagery and noted how brightly-lit the lunar surface was against the black sky which would be impossible to achieve on earth - you cannot fake sunlight on earth at night-time - or you certainly couldn't then. They never shoot outside at night if they want to show daytime.
4. Looked up every supposed anomaly put forward by the disbelievers to find there was always a perfectly good explanation.
5. When finding that the disbelievers were impervious to my claims that the moon landings really happened wondered if those in power might have pushed out agents to encourage their disbelief in order to undermine them when they called out the very many real lies Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style ... and sure enough.
I've done my due diligence and I don't need to do more. I see reality a bit like a jigsaw puzzle - when you have enough pieces of the puzzle there isn't any piece that can come along and overturn that image. If it seems there is then it's simply a piece that wasn't part of the puzzle in the first place.
If you have a single piece of evidence you think debunks the moon landings I will consider it but I am certainly not going to waste my time looking at a video that starts with the claim that the moon is not a solid object.
Actually it's you 'anti-virologists' who are cagey and don't respond to biochemistry. If you do not understand biochemistry then you really need to shut up about it. Or learn biochemistry and then disprove the existence of viruses. Which you will not be able to do once you learn biochemistry.
Petra, you keep making comments like 'I can't comment on that because I'm not an expert', but you keep on insisting that X = whatever, and then you dismiss Y = whatever whilst still admitting you don't understand the science.
The moon landings are a case in point. You have no understanding of physics, for example. Anti-virology - you have zero understanding of biochemistry. So how the hell can you pass judgement on anything involving physics or biochemistry?
Here's an example, and as someone who understands this science I will endeavour to link the two.
We have the technology to 'tag' via chemical staining individual strands of RNA, even specific amino acids. We can then, after tagging, introduce those individual nucleotides to various reagents to see what happens according to the immutable laws of chemistry.
Same thing is true of 'moon landings'. If I went to the moon there are dozens of experiments I could perform to prove I was on the moon. Stuff that could not be faked. Unfortunately, nothing any of the 12 alleged astronauts who stepped on the moon did proved that they were there. They never did any worthwhile ground breaking science. If they did, you'd be able to come up with a killer argument to prove they went there. But you can't, can you?
Name me just one scientific experiment the Apollo astronauts did that proves they were on the moon, and that can't be faked.
A blind spot, an emotional or psychological attachment. A misplaced belief.
Or controlled opposition.
They dirty themselves up all the time, with something absurd to discredit their other theories that are either truthful reveals or partial truths.
An example of dirtying oneself so they can be dismissed by the mainstream, is Icke with his lizard non-sense and proclamation that he’s the son of god.
Or Miles Mathis revealing the JFK assassination was a hoax, then writing follow up non-sense that he ruled from the shadows, when presidents aren’t elected; have no power and are all puppets of the privately owned corporations masquerading as governments.
Another example is Mathis discrediting himself with the common Jesuit psyop of the evildoers being Jews, when in fact, all the faux religions are one, (Cult of Saturn) all psyops and all collude against the populace using mind control techniques such as fear programs and repetition.
The last option as to *why* may be an ignorance as to how fraud, trickery can be achieved in a particular field…
As with Petra’s apparent belief in the audio recordings, since she has no direct knowledge whether the recordings she heard were pieced together over months, like a movie, heavily edited, or even, entirely scripted Freemasonic drivel.
I can’t speak to anyone’s motivations, but trust literally nobody in the “truth community” because it appears most have been strategically placed, backed or promoted, pre and post 2020, and the more confusion and division that results, works to the central planners advantage.
Do you agree that DM mixes truth with lies on both 9/11 and the Boston Bombing? If not, why not?
Can you identify anything he says in Wagging the Moondoggie that refutes the moon landings?
My intention is not to debunk him so much as to show he's an agent whose purpose is to mislead those who recognise the lies they drown us in ... to disbelieve the one actual truth - the moon landings - Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style.
I have pondered the "moon landing" for a long while, and give good probability that what They showed Us was fake. Whether They actually landed or didn't is unclear, but I ask why the stuff We were shown had so many issues. I give very high probability that, as I saw reported, NASA put out the PPP (pancake planet psyop) to distract Us from looking for why the "moon landing" stuff was problematic.
So the question becomes... Why? I can think of two possibilities, and there may be more, that do not require Me to toss My observations, measurements, calculations, geometry, logic, and reason, as does the PPP (pancake planet psyop)...
The first is that They're hiding a secret space program where all the $$$ is going, and the second is that Michael Tsarion is correct.
According to Michael Tsarion, there were some "Bad Guys" (BG) being chased across Our galaxy by some "Good Guys" (GG). The BG arrived in Our solar system, set up a decoy on Tiamat (the planet between Mars and Jupiter), then came to Earth and hunkered down.
The GG arrived, saw the decoy, checked for native sapient life, found none, and blew the planet up (explaining the asteroid belt). They were suspicious, though, and checked the other planets, somehow determining that the BG were here. And They found plenty of sapient life native to the planet. So... They put a barrier up around the globe above low earth orbit that We can't get through. They moved the moon into place to be a "guard tower" (explaining the many stories around the globe of a time when there was no moon, and the claims "the gods" put it there). Also explaining "The Watchers."
We can't get through that barrier and live...and They don't want Us to know.
When there is masses of purported evidence for something such as the moon landings then I don't see how it couldn't be clear if they were real or fake. And, in fact, not one single piece of evidence contradicts expectations considering the alien lunar conditions - moreover the evidence fits those conditions in ways you wouldn't expect of fakery - subtleties such as a faint radial exhaust pattern under the LEM and minute amounts of dust on the landing pads, for example - this is not the signature of fakery, this the signature of authenticity.
People are misled by psyops into thinking that it's easy to fake stuff. Sure, it's easy to fake stuff unconvincingly - every psyop known to man does that but it's not easy to fake stuff convincingly. Faking stuff convincingly and faking stuff unconvincingly are two entirely different things.
Also, rather than trying to work out how things should work in space - I mean, how can you be sure? - just look at the pieces of evidence and see how they are so perfectly consistent with each other as well as consistent with expectations.
Petra, you are a victim of your listed fallacies; just in your above response you stated “...dust on the landing pads, for example - this is not the signature of fakery, this the signature of authenticity.” Plus...
When people say “...not one single piece of evidence contradicts expectations...” is pure obfuscation. The government owns all the evidence what the public sees is what the government allows. The person using that phrase knows it and is hoping it becomes the show-stopper. That phrase is in constant use when speaking about voter fraud, COVID, Kennedy assassination, et al. The retort of “how do you know the government isn’t hiding anything from the people?” is never proven which means the person questioning the validity of available evidence is working within a closed system that your counterpart controls.
The book “Programmed to Kill” is loaded with facts and a must read for everyone.
I have to disagree with you, IP. What we see of the evidence is a lack of the "curation" you get with faked evidence, eg, there is 1,000 hours of audio between the astronauts and mission control for the Apollo program - you don't fake a 1,000 hours of that kind of conversation and I'd argue it's simply not possible to do a realistic job of it. "Curated" evidence feels different from that presented for the moon landings. We have 119 fake testimonies from firefighters on 9/11 (although no audio, only transcript) while we do have both video and transcript for the fake testimonies of the survivors of the alleged attack on the USS Liberty. Of course, with these items they TELL you it's faked Revelation-of-the-Method (RoM) style.
The thing is we don't know what faked evidence that they try really hard to make realistic looks like as far as psyops go, do we? We've never seen it.
I think when there's just so much evidence that's what you judge by.
IRREFUTABLE FACTS:
1. If the moon landings were faked, they weren't done RoM style making them the only psyop we know of that weren't done that way.
2. No one has pointed to anything that clearly says they were faked.
3. Agents have been pushed out to say astronauts didn't land ... but have not put one thing forward that actually debunks the moon landings.
If Dave McGowan could put in some truth at least for 9/11 and the Boston Bombing why wouldn't have put some truth in for the moon landings? He wrote 14 chapters and yet couldn't put a single piece of truth against the moon landings in any of them?
You do recognise that Dave McGowan is an agent, right? ... and there is no way that Programmed to Kill won't contain lies. I shall need to take a look at it.
The important term is "purported." I think it's clear that *what They showed Us* was faked. I ponder a camera set up to catch the "first step on the moon..." I ponder astronauts leaping no higher than We might leap on Earth, and when sped up, look like normal earth-bound leaps. I ponder flags that seem to be blowing in the wind... I ponder many other things *of what They showed Us.*
I am not saying that We have not been to the moon some other way - electrogravitically, for example; We have had that tech (well hidden) since the 1950's - but what They gave Us to see I give high probability was filmed in a studio.
All the things you ponder are explained. There is no flag blowing in the wind, the flag is continuing to move in a resistance-free environment after being pushed into the surface of the moon.
Every question asked about any seeming anomaly is answered. All you need to do is look it up. For example:
Neil did; It was a camera mounted on the side of the LM. Just before he climbed down, Armstrong pulled a lanyard to deploy the camera package which mounted a low quality, slow scan, TV camera. The slow scan is why there was ghosting on the image as the background image was not totally overwritten by the moving image of the astronauts in the foreground.
When you watch the entire video of Apollo 11’s time on the moon, about an hour, you can see them walk up to the camera and change the lens a couple times. It’s obviously attached to the side of the spacecraft. They were their own camera crew with the lander acting as their tripod.
I like this subject and the interaction. Critiquing others is an art unto itself. The entire body of work (in Dave’s case... the complete article) needs to be addressed, t can appear as cherry picking otherwise. In Dave’s case, he has a running monologue throughout his writings that are on-line and additionally he highlights entertainment as one of the values he offers... this was especially true with the Boston bombing.
One of the biggest concerns I have/had is the electronics regarding the heating and cooling of the space suits. Given the huge swings of temperatures going from full exposure of light to the shadows... this has not been properly addressed. We were still struggling with monolithic semiconductors*, in 1969, while the Processors are still a decade away (I understand DARPA and their advanced technologies but the Processors were not a part of that). Miniaturization was a large influence on the ability to make it to outer space.
* 1966 semiconductor technology was incorporated into the space craft controls as those controls were integrated into multiple functions.
This is an explanation of how the space suits worked. The thing is lots of things can be said and how do we know if they're true or not? That's why I look at the actual evidence to see how well it aligns with expectations according to what I can understand and also look for inconsistencies. When things are faked there will be inconsistencies. I haven't found any.
I think the secret tech idea is eminently true - and it's a far better explanation that the ridiculous space opera story, fun though that sounds. You should know that the whole Exopolitics/Disclosure Project is yet another psyop.
The secret tech thing would also explain the faking of footage from Mars (rovers and landers and such like). There is absolutely stuff 'they' don't want people to know about, because if people knew, the cabal would collapse instantly - see also the Brookings Report on covering up the existence of ETI.
Part 4 is about the Drake equation, zoo hypothesis etc., Part 5 deciphers the SETI messages (wow signal etc.).
Given the wow signal shows undeniable signs of being artificial/intelligent design, I really do need to write a speculative article about whether it was ETI or a 'fake event' (i.e. the cabal did it). I personally don't think they did, because if they wanted to fake an ETI message they'd make it much simpler, because as per the Brookings Report they wouldn't actually want everyone to believe it, or their system of social control would collapse.
Oh, I am fully aware that the Disclosure Project is a psyop. LOL! I just cannot rule out an ET involvement here. Too many things written thousands of years ago, too many things that that would be the best explanation of.
I agree on the WOW thing. That was just not the way They would have constructed something like that, and therefore suggests ET as well.
I'm not sure what to think, really, and no offense to you, about the moon landing and space stuff, generally. But I will say this about 9/11... It seems to be highly probable, according to a lot of information I've perused about it, that there never were ANY airplanes at all, and the whatever-it-was that damaged the Pentagon, the hole in the wall had no trace of having WINGS on the thing, if if if something actually went flying into it from the outside, as opposed to a bomb on the INSIDE or such-like.
I tell ya, we've been lied to SO MUCH it's hard to trust much of ANYTHING anymore.
But it IS a good job you've done writing this! Cheers.
It’s not a question of probability about the nominated passenger airliners. There is zero evidence of any of the four crashing. 9/11 was just a massive demolition job (evacuated as they all are) in the guise of an anti-terror drill in the further guise of a real terrorist attack.
Okay, I was trying not to be too bullish in case you were going to be annoyed, lol.
I think it was DEW's that brought down the Twin Towers AND Building 7... Directed Energy Weapons, same as most of these "forest fires" and weird fires that burn things from the inside out.
I don't think there were ANY airplanes, anywhere. I think it was "Dustification" as Dr. Judy Wood has explained in lectures and videos and her book. And I think it's also quite likely that 9/11 included some Israeli "help," as well.
And I think that a whole bunch of things that we're told are "natural" or "accidents"-- such as trains full of toxins being deliberately exploded after derailing, by accident... and destroying a lot of farmland that has minerals under it... or oil, whatever it was...
Oh, the tangled web they weave... I'm pretty much fed up with it. I think it's high time we take these fuckers out of power. Lethal Injection.
I have to disagree with you on dustification. I think what's quite possible is that the footage shown to us of the twin towers is actually fake as suggested by Simon Shack to disguise the clear evidence of controlled demolition and "dustification" was pushed out as distraction propaganda.
In the three years prior to 9/11, Controlled Demolition, Inc (who they told us presented the WTC cleanup plan 11 days after the fateful day) achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects - I mean I think we can only infer this looks like a practice run, right? And nowhere is it mentioned any special type of demolition used. Surely, for such a big operation they would use tried and trusted methods ... and certainly WTC-7 is your standard implosion.
You're absolutely entitled to think whatever makes sense to you.
I am using a term that Dr. Wood invented for the use of Directed Energy Weapons, which creates "dust" of these buildings before they even hit the ground... Cars covered in it, all over everywhere, you'll recall the photos, etc.
The films that I saw were pretty convincing, and she gets in there and explains it all.
Maybe she's wrong, but she's DAMN smart, and she explains her theory very very well. I've listened to her in at least two movies, maybe four? about the event and I'd highly recommend you give her a listen... Pretty interesting, even if you don't agree with her. She's all about the evidence and the science of it all, not politics or govt BS or whatever... She's very cool, I like her brain.
If you had worked inside the program as an engineer for 35 years , you’d know that there exists an established gravy train that captures hundreds of thousands of degreed professionals. We realize that our missions are dressing for the public so they don’t realize that we get our money for nothing and our chicks for free.
We know, but the salaries pay for our kids college and our beach condo.
You may be right. I was not there in the 1960s and 70s. Still seems strange how so many can become so excited about maybe lobbing something to hit the moon, and scroll to a video of footage taken on Mars. 2024 device to the moon vs a successful landing of a working rover on Mars???
If people can’t envisage the exponential inconsistency in scope and impossibility of these two magic shows, no evidence to the contrary can sway them from the illusions.
As a critical thinking engineer with an extremely questioning attitude, I must keep quiet during the magical performances or risk the anger of the audience. They desperately want to believe.
I think your point about the physical impossibility of the Mars landers is something that is far too frequently overlooked, precisely because 'they' focus everyone's attention on the 'moon landing conspiracy theory'. IMO, Mars is far, far more important.
The original Viking lander image is clearly fake, because of the azure coloured sky. Which they quickly corrected but the damage was already done. Their problem is that they now have to ensure every subsequent image looks the same.
With regards to the moon, I have said this elsewhere but the Apollo 8 'earthrise' picture is the same principle as the Viking photo. From the moon this planet should be 6x larger than the Apollo 8 picture. Notice how there are no images from the other missions, despite the 'fact' that the command modules were allegedly orbiting the moon for days. Where is the scientific data from the command modules?
As for Mars, there are global dust storms every 3 years. Thar requires a fuck of a lot of dust. Last time there was anything other than wind erosion on Mars was 4 billion years ago. So, truth about Mars is that it's a desert with, what, a few kilometres depth of sand on the surface. It's not like fucking Tatouine. This means that the presence on Mars of genuine outcrops, like on Cydonia (the so-called face) is proof that Mars has been inhabited in the past. Not by humans, of course. But if the people understood this, that advanced life is that old and that widespread, then they would ask serious questions of the cabal and simply no longer tolerate being subjugated. This is the point about the 'Brookings Report' - which suggested covering up the existence of ETI. My alter ego wrote about this here: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/welcome-to-dexos-part-iv?r=2s9hod
That's part 4. But especially check out part 5.
I would imagine the 'moon landings' are simply a way of preventing or delaying all of this revolutionary knowledge until the cabal can achieve totalitarian control. That's the big picture.
Unfortunately, most people aren't even aware that there even is a big picture...
I wonder if anyone can believe Apollo 13 wasn't faked, after watching this 20 minute video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3di6odvdNZk&list=PLmgH9CC5ZMHNbV5TzfnpkUvaA-MyjiTNn&index=6
I would never have guessed the guys at this press conference just returned from the greatest adventure of all time. They look more like they just found out they had cancer, and their wives are divorcing them. Or as one of the top comments said, "Looks like a press conference from the losing locker room at the super bowl." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
OK, so now I've watched Allan's video in its entirety. To summarize:
1. In relation to the temperature of the Apollo 13 LEM it is perfect reasonable that in one case the lunar surface was referred to while in the other it was space.
2. The "skin" of the LEM is similar to a dust cover on a Lamborghini. The astronauts were not sitting in the skin that was outside - seriously, Allan implying that they were sitting in the skin does make me wonder about him.
3. The taking off of their spacesuits at some point in the journey can make sense because they used power to run them. So initially they would provide warmth but as they got closer to home and their power was running out they probably sacrificed warmth by taking off their suits. It is an emergency situation and we can imagine they did all kinds of things they wouldn't have normally done and also that they chopped and changed strategies to respond appropriately to requirements.
4. He says there should have been a crater. https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-lander-And-by-blast-crater-I-dont-mean-a-huge-hole-in-the-ground-I-mean-any-disturbed-soil-The-soil-underneath-the-lander-was-completely-untouched
In fact, there is a faint radial exhaust pattern seen under the LEM.
Allan clearly didn't do his research properly.
1. So, whether cold or hot, you are claiming they could have survived 3 days in space in a tinfoil room with no climate control?
2. Allan didn't imply they sitting on the skin--he explained the situation in #1.
3. Seems like fishing, but not really central to the key issue, which is whether #1 is physically possible.
4. I think you need to look around at some more sources of crater info. Like I said, the crater is a question of physics. It would not be a faint ring--it would be several feet deep.
They hadn't just returned from the moon, Virginia, they'd spent 21 days in quarantine. Bit of a test, no? You've just returned from the greatest adventure as you say and then you've got to spend three weeks playing cards with two guys you've been sardined with for three days prior and I don't think that Neil and Buzz, for example, were the greatest of friends. Those guys were amazing. https://www.space.com/apollo-11-astronauts-quarantined-after-splashdown.html
The thing is there is masses of evidence ... and all of it supports the reality of going. Not being overly enthusiastic at a press conference simply isn't evidence they didn't go - it might act as a support to evidence but it's not evidence of itself, it really is a nothing burger as they say.
TO ALL DISBELIEVERS OF THE MOON LANDINGS: Nothing could apply more to you guys than:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”
― Alexander Pope, An Essay On Criticism
Re video from Allan Weisbecker (who I must say I have admired greatly but now I wonder about). I asked ChatGPT about the discrepancy between what Alan Bean of Apollo 12 said about the LEM without climate control heating up because it's "always sitting in the sun" and the problem Apollo 13 had of losing heat when it lost the power for climate control.
There are two different situations: sitting on the lunar surface in the sun (what Alan Bean was referring to) and travelling through space where the spacecraft is not necessarily in the sun.
Just put the question out there and it will be answered oracle-like. The secret to determining the truth of the moon landings is: ask questions, don't jump to conclusions based on limited knowledge. Don't paddle only in the waters of the naysayers, you need to extend beyond those waters to the ayesayers and see what they have to say.
The correct approach is not rocket science and yet ...
Curious, do you think the SpaceX missions were real?
I don't think the weight of the evidence shows we went to the moon, not by a long shot.-but you can hear Astronaut Petit explain why we never went back in this video. I don't pretend to be an expert on it or anything.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI&list=PLmgH9CC5ZMHNbV5TzfnpkUvaA-MyjiTNn&index=1
I'd spend a few more hours reading Weisbecker's extensive work on NASA before I'd consult ChatGPT, since it has been programmed to lie, and can't even do basic math. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2023/7/13/chatgpt-on-the-childhood-vaccine-schedule-soothing-lies
I haven't looked at the SpaceX missions but my suspicions would be that they were real because I don't see the point of faking them.
ChatGPT is like Wikipeida or essentially any source - use with caution. The point is that there is nothing in the video that doesn't say in one case the astronaut is referring to the lunar surface and in the other instance space. We'd need more information. Also, it makes perfect sense.
I started watching your video above and stopped I'm afraid right at the beginning because of the nonsense about waving flag and lack of blast crater, both points of which have been responded to endlessly on the internet. Seriously, how does the same hogwash keep spinning and spinning and spinning around?
However, I'm certainly persevering with Allan W. video because I'm curious to see if I can work out if he's genuine or an agent and I have to say the video has this very deliberately curated feel about it.
He's dead. He was my friend for many years. What you see online is exactly what he was like in person--a brilliant photographer and writer who wrote what was in his heart.
Wow! I have to say I'm most impressed with what he's done on 9/11 and other things and how he called out James Corbett and Richard Grove so he certainly seems genuine ... but what he's done on Apollo not so impressive which isn't to say he's not genuine. There's loads of genuine people who don't believe in the moon landings obviously.
He sounds pretty right on to me...
But this is not my usual purview.
BTW, re a "curated feel"--I know for a fact the many, many hours of work Allan personally put into his videos, writing, photos, and investigations. "Not seeing any reason to fake SpaceX" is lame--everything is about CONTROL--that's why all the major news is faked.
Allan really had a keen eye with a lot of knowledge of photography that he acquired over a lifetime, so he was in a better position than most to render an expert opinion about SpaceX and NASA fakery.
BTW both Allan and I thought that the flat earth movement was a psy-op specifically designed, at least in part, to stop what was becoming a widespread exposure of NASA fraud. The idea was discredit the idea of NASA fraud by associating it with FE. There were a lot of "slick" FE videos that came out right away, establishing that association.
I believe the 'there are no viruses' thing is associated with the FE psyop.
The bad guys have infiltrated the 'truth movement' with these absurd ideas in order to discredit the movement, in the same way that they say 'people who believe we never went to the moon are loonies' - human beings being social animals and having a primal fear of ostracism, they are more likely to go with the majority, so they are scared of even thinking about a perceived fringe idea. So they will believe the most absurd things if it means they are safe within the majority.
Also the reason is an upcoming "public/private partnership" with SpaceX, to do what NASA was supposed to be doing all those years. Can't remember where or when I read that...
I believe Miles Mathis has a fair few things to say about deodorant guy (Elon Musk). Basically, he is just the frontman for the DoD. He has zero intelligence, zero creativity, zero inventiveness. And the idea of landing a rocket on a platform that isn't, erm, the video in reverse (!!!) is effing ridiculous. But what's totally scary is the number of people who actually believe it all.
That's the psychology that explains everything, imo.
Don't equate "responded to endlessly" with truth, because there are endless NASA shills and trolls. They are endlessly defending or faux-exposing NASA, or defending or faux-exposing the shills and trolls who are defending and faux-exposing NASA.
I'm not equating "responded to endlessly" with truth, however, the responses given make perfect sense. I know NASA lies because the Challenger disaster is the most in-your-face psyop of all time so it's not a case that I blindly believe responses but when the responses seem reasonable I have no reason to disbelieve them.
But in the first place, why would I believe a know-nothing who says there should have been a crater? What does this person know? He doesn't know ANYTHING. He just says "crater" which is what agent, Bill Kaysing, said back in 1976.
A number of supposed "anomalies" were planted in people's minds. Why should stars appear in the photos? What do people who say this know? They don't know anything. They don't know that the astronauts went to the moon during lunar daytime which lasts an earth month and just as we don't see stars on earth during the day they're not seen during lunar daytime either.
The crater is a question of physics--if force is blasting toward the ground, which it allegedly was, then it would have created a blast crater in the soft dirt.
Not for nothing Petra there were mass amounts of evidence that covid was real....'testing tents' free vaccines' 'emergency use authorization letters' 'press conferences' 'news reports' 'tic tok videos of people lying in a hospital bed regretting not taking the vaccine' I could go on all day........
Also to be clear 'evidence' is something that is admissible in court and frankly I do not need evidence to know the truth.... evidence can be a lie, evidence can be the truth, evidence is not always believed or thought as true.
Something seemingly this big as NASA (and all its sub contractors) can be compartmentalized to the point that everyone plays there part making the whole soap opera look real.
For me it is simple.... the Lunar Module...... I dare anyone to view the Apollo archives and scrutinize the picture of the Lunar Module supposedly on the moon inch by inch.
You can enlarge these photos and look very very close at the construction of the Lunar Module.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
I do not need to do anything other than take a look at those pictures of the LM on the moon to see it is not what it purports to be.
I do not see water tight with the LM due to its construction, thus it cannot be airtight ....right?!?!
Look closely at those seems, look at the missing rivets, the uneven construction.....
The people are really being 'mocked' by these 'mock ups'
There was ZERO evidence that covid was real just a lot of propaganda. What has been presented for the moon landings actually qualifies as evidence.
You need to be able to distinguish what is evidence and what is propaganda. Sure, the evidence presented for the moon landings could be faked ... but it shows no signs of it.
You'll need to put a link to a specific photo where you think the LEM shows signs of not being airtight.
I always knew Apollo 13 was full of shit, but after watching that, it is beyond absurd.
As an English, I'm very familiar with Derren Brown - he has essentially told people just what mind control is capable of even without childhood trauma/MK-Ultra stuff.
Brilliant link - thank you!
Wow! Thanks for the links.
I'm only part way through so far, Petra (obviously I'll have to do longer comments later - and this is a great post for prompting a discussion - so long as everyone keeps it civil), but one strikingly obvious bit of science screams out at me with your little description of Gemini 8 - you said it started revolving, eventually reaching one revolution per second? Well, have you heard of centrifugal force? I'm just wondering about 1/ what the G-force of that fast a revolution would create, and 2/ whether Armstrong ever said anything about that either during the flight or afterwards. I'm not sure what the diameter of Gemini 8 was (hold on, I'll see if I can find out - ok, it was 3.05m). I can calculate the centrifugal force of that of course (there are online tools do so), but imagine if you're on a roundabout 3 metres in diameter and it's spinning at 1 rev per second? What I can say is that 3 rpm usually equates to earth gravity. So we're talking about a force of 60/3 equals 20G.
If this wasn't ever mentioned then either 1/ it was never spinning that fast, or 2/ Houston, we have another problem, and we're talking about a fake event.
I'll have to check those calculations though.
Good catch! Indeed, that is a heck of a lot of G! You'd think it would be brought up.
It is brought up. The astronauts were starting to black out and had to act quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoIVst4VCOQ
Yes - I couldn't find a decent centrifugal force calculator straight up until after I did the comment. I found one which said it was around 12G rather than 20. Still, in these circumstances our ol' friend ChatGPT is startlingly helpful. It confirmed that with a 3m radius at 3m/s weighing 3175Kg it's 12.04G. However, this uses Pi=3.14 - from our Mathis readings we know it's actually Pi=4 when motion is involved, so add another 4/3.14 to that. Let's call it 13G. According to ChatGPT you'd black out in less than a minute, although it clarifies this by saying the astronauts were more centrally placed, say at a radius of 1m (from the centre), not 3m, meaning the actual G was around 4. This is manageable for short durations (in the case of Gemini 8 it was 20-30 minutes). So I will let them have that one.
However there was a really curious bit which ChatGPT just suddenly came up with (without being asked) when it quoted a bit from the mission transcript, where the astronauts essentially say Houston we have a problem we are 'tumbling end over end', then mission control says can you repeat that, and they say we confirm we're tumbling end over end. Except apparently the post-mission analysis says it wasn't end over end, but a rotational spin. So there is a serious anomaly there. ChatGPT's excuse is it was the stress of the moment, but it also talks about a tribute to Armstrong's coolness under pressure that he corrected the spin. Still, maybe initially he wasn't sure, but I think you'd be able to tell the difference between tumbling end over end and spinning round and round.
In terms of the G, by the way, the Gemini craft was around 5m long, so if it was end over end then add another 2/3rds (66.6 lol) to that G force. Apparently there was some tangential spin too so that makes it even more impressive flying if it really happened. You can understand why they gave the guy Apollo 11.
Curious, but unanswered question - but of course by investigating these fascinating things we learn a lot. I am willing to accept the authenticity of Gemini 8 - although this is largely because I have a sci-fi fan's confirmation bias thing going on - I want these things to have happened.
Sometimes, even though AI is swiftly stealing my livelihood, I do appreciate its usefulness!
One criticism I do have of your article, though, is that you are kind of cherrypicking bits from Dave's series. Yes, of course to do the whole thing justice you'd need either a really long article or a series of them (that would be a great idea actually, tackling each of Dave's chapters one by one), but it could be construed as a little unfair bordering on the straw man fallacy. I believe that in a later chapter Dave does answer the counter-articles to his Chapters 1 and 2.
And yes, he doesn't exactly provide any 'evidence' as such, he is simply asking pertinent questions. And there are definitely questions to be asked about the sheer rapidity (and total recklessness for that matter) of the schedule for the Apollo missions, which Dave does talk about. Gemini too. Compare this to the current Artemis programme, and it's an entirely different approach (allegedly with better tech).
Dave's analysis of Gemini is also very interesting - I've not actually come across anyone else who suggests that a lot of Gemini was also faked (mind you I haven't properly looked). I think the overall point of Dave's work is that it's like throwing the ball back into the believers' court and saying the onus is on you to explain all these points - like how come you can go straight from Apollo 10 to Apollo 11 with nothing in between?
I don't believe he mentions the one glaring anomaly about the size of the planet in Apollo 8's moonrise image, which should be 6 times larger (given the relative sizes of the moon and the planet). And it is a valid question to ask why there aren't masses of beautiful images of the planet from Apollos 11-17 (from the surface, I mean). And the stars thing is important - simply saying it needed some longer exposure is not an excuse, because why didn't they just do a longer exposure?
How come the 'science' they carried out hasn't actually achieved much? What about all the Helium-3? The concept of the fusion torch, after all, was invented in 1969 itself.
These questions don't necessarily say 'it never happened' but they are glaring questions which NASA should be able to provide more than just a half-arsed answer to.
When/if they do go back to the moon with Artemis, will they do any real science? What kind of science and why didn't they do it the first time? Will they show us some genuine beautiful astronomy images, like just for example a live digital camera stream of earthrise? Given we can have these cameras in phones nowadays, you'd hope they will have a livestream, wouldn't you?
NASA is going to have to think very seriously about these questions, because if they want people to believe in the Apollo landings, the Artemis evidence and imagery is going to have look just the same. I for one am waiting with bated breath to see what they come up with. I'm not surprised they delayed Artemis I from what was supposed to be this November by at least a year. If they did fake the Apollo landings then they must be shitting themselves about the Chinese getting there before them and taking some lovely videos. Then again, one would have to accept the Chinese are in on it too. Which would not surprise me, given their so-called 'Zhurong' Mars lander is full of anomalous shit. I think the Mars thing is possibly a far more interesting subject for fakery than the moon, tbh.
The one thing I just can't accept though, for purely emotional reasons, is that the Russian's Venera images were fakery. I'm not having that. I want to see what these places really look like. Because I'm just a big child.
Evelyn, I reject your claim of cherry-picking or strawmanning. My job isn't to refute every single thing, it's simply to point out a number of claims that do not refute the moon landings and, as suggested, by the anonymous blogger who analyses the first two parts, it is not simply a question of him getting things wrong, he seems to be lying.
FACT: Dave does not say anything - unless you can point to it - that refutes the reality of the moon landings in a 14-part book.
I do not understand why this fact doesn't have more meaning to the disbelievers. This fact is huge. Even though he mixed the truth with lies he still put forward items that debunked the 9/11 and Boston Bombing narratives so why NOTHING for the moon landings? Unless you've got something, of course. Have you got anything?
Hmm. I don't think I would necessarily jump to a conclusion that someone is lying. They might simply be mistaken. I've been myself on a number of occasions. And we can't assume that people know everything about a subject, or are not simply working through a hypothesis. It takes time to become acquainted with a subject matter, and people do often jump to conclusions.
I really didn't think much of that anonymous blogger's refutation. Aside from anything else there was no understanding of the stylistic, ironic nature of Dave's way of writing. The blogger seems to mistake humour for a serious point, so he comes up with this 'irrelevant' thing. Er, no, it's called humour, mate.
I can, however, kind of understand where you are coming from with your criticism of Dave not necessarily providing anything definite. But he was largely writing rhetorically. He puts forward a significant number of genuinely valid questions, the intention of which is to make the reader think. Like, for example, the sheer rapidity of the Apollo schedule, getting from, say Apollo 8 (December 1968) to Apollo 11 in only 7-8 months. Of course that's not 'proof' but it does raise serious questions.
That's what I got from Dave's Moondoggie anyway. Furthermore, in my view the onus is actually on Nasa, or the moon landing believers, to come up with a killer piece of evidence to prove it happened. Simply 'debunking' points put forward by sceptics isn't enough. So far, every piece of 'proof' I've come across can be explained away (faked, in other words), and is not proof.
And if it was a fake event then it's of a completely different type to the other ones we talk about. 9/11 for example. Thus, the same 'method' and 'intention' doesn't apply. Apollo after all was not designed to get people upset about terrorists or some foreign government and support a war and such like. It has a different reason behind it, and was clearly very important to them. Today, I don't think they actually care a jot whether people believe in 9/11 or not - they have achieved their objective. The moon landings, however, are still important and in fact have significantly increased in importance with the new space race with China and Artemis etc.
Anyhow - you ask if I've got something? Ok - I already mentioned it, which is the Apollo 8 earthrise picture. The 'earth' in that picture looks the same size as the moon does from down here. It should, however, be six times larger. This is the kind of anomaly which Nasa must've been furious about, with whichever tech guy/photoshopper did it, because clearly this schoolboy error didn't occur to them until after. Now they have to make all the planetary images from the moon look the same size. Same as the Viking Mars lander image. They really, really didn't think about the consequences. Of course, saying that this photo is a fake in itself does not disprove either Apollo 8 or the rest of the programme, because it only proves the existence of a fake photo - but, that fake photo itself does require explanation.
I will also have another look at Aulis and provide some links to other anomalous photo evidence - essentially we're talking 'continuity errors', not necessarily shadows in the wrong places. Footprints seeming not to have any starting point, for example. An odd footprint perpendicular to the others. Backgrounds changing relative to the LEM. That kind of thing. Stuff in the foreground (rocks etc.) changing from one pic to another.
I'll see what I can find. But equally - these are not 'killer arguments' to prove it was faked - they simply prove the existence of fake photos. So like I say, what's the reason for the fake photos? Curious...
Humour is a fabulous way to convey propaganda isn’t it but BloggerMan isn’t interested in humour he’s interested in the truth and so while those inclined to disbelieve the authorities may be seduced by Dave’s humour as intended (I’m pretty sure I was when I read WTM as my first port of call on my moon landings journey) BM is only interested in whether what is put forward contains relevant truth or not. Yes people can genuinely be mistaken but there are numerous indicators that Dave is not.
Here are what I consider killer pieces of information demonstrating the truth of the moon landings.
10,000 hours of audio recordings between astronauts and mission control for Apollo alone. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
All imagery being consistent with a brightly-lit surface from a single source, ie, the sun against a black sky which I’d suggest is actually impossible to achieve on earth at night.
The footage of the astronauts moving on the lunar surface being consistent with 1/6th earth’s gravity.
Neil Armstrong talking us through the footage taken of the final 3 minutes of the Eagle landing against Google Moon. If you disbelieve the moon landings then you have to believe that Google Moon is a total crock. That’s a pretty big call. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqe7-rFRrkc
I suggest you do some research on the Earthrise photo and see if you can get an explanation for why it doesn’t seem the right size to you. Maybe check ChatGPT? The thing about reality is that a single anomaly cannot simply come along and overturn it. If there are sufficient items that align perfectly with a certain image of reality then that MUST be the image. If anything comes along that seems to overturn it it will just be something that seems to overturn it, it cannot really overturn it because that’s not the way reality works. If you have a jigsaw puzzle and half the pieces show a desert, a piece that comes along that represents a tropical forest in Malaysia is simply not part of that jigsaw.
Also, an argument that holds no water is “Could be faked,” without in the first instance some clear evidence of fakery. Before you can make claims of “could be faked” you need one clear instance of it. No one has presented that one clear instance for the moon landings. Moreover, “could be faked” and “could be faked without detection” are two entirely different things. Many things are faked but not faked convincingly, eg, every psyop known to man.
With regards to the 10,000 hours of transcripts. I thought of an analogy which you'll understand. I gather you don't believe in the existence of coronaviruses, yes? Partly because you think there are flaws with the viral isolation process?
Ok - let's say there are flaws, and not get into that part of the science. But what you then have to do is explain the 10,000 instances of laboratories around the world all producing the same results (it's probably a lot more than 10,000 but I'll stick to that number for illustrative purposes). How many people does that involve? All of them, after all, must be 'in on it' - they must all be lying and carrying out their fraudulent experiments in exactly the same way (are all virologists chosen from a select pool of liars and sociopaths?).
Remember, if you think 'isolation' simply produces 'junk proteins' then you have to explain how every one of those presumably random junk proteins reacts in exactly the same way to various agents, such as antibodies. Even if you think isolating the antibodies is equally fraudulent and simply produces 'random bits of junk protein' then you need to explain how the biochemical analyses always produce the same results.
My point here is that we really are talking the equivalent of '10,000 hours of transcripts' (which, ironically, would've required far fewer people to fake than viral isolation techniques - and remember there is such a thing as 'in-character improvisation', which every actor going through drama school will practice hundreds of times). If you believe that 10,000 instances of viral isolation can be faked consistently, then you also have to accept the possibility that 10,000 hours of transcripts can be consistently faked. You can't have it both ways, in other words.
Not 10,000 hours of transcript, 10,000 hours of audio ... although the transcripts are there too.
I don't think they're equivalent and I don't know what these labs have actually come up with.
Natural conversation that varies enormously from moment to moment is nothing like people doing experiments that follow a bogus experimental path. They're just not the same at all.
Evelyn, at this point I think it's a case of you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe in the moon landings. I have no doubt and there's nothing you've said that makes me doubt them. You haven't come up with anything. The earthrise photo is just not something I feel I can have an authoritative opinion on and there's too many parts of the moon landing puzzle fitting real for anything to come along and overturn that reality as far as I'm concerned. That's not how reality works.
My post wasn't about proving the reality of the moon landings it was proving that Dave McGowan has not put forward a single item in Wagging the Moondoggie that debunks the moon landings. I rest my case. If you've got anything from that book that you thinks debunks the moon landings let me know.
Ok - I get you. Obviously it would get far too OT to ramble on about biochemistry (I must do a post about it sometime - as I do understand the science). My point was simply that the 'bogus experimental path' always seems to produce the same repeatability result. I.e. the proteins they isolate are always the same proteins. The other option is that they are all lying, and the experiments do not all produce the same result. That point being there must be coordination/complicity between all, say, 10,000 labs and the technicians who work there. Which is a serious conspiracy.
As you are aware, carrying out a massive fake event requires a massive amount of coordination, that's to say everyone involved all playing their specific part. Personally I think there is a logistical limit to that. Ironically, this is indeed an argument in favour of the moon landings having taken place. But my point was that it's exactly the same argument with regards to 'fake viruses' - some 'fakes' cannot possibly be fakes because they exceed that logistical limit.
I do, however, accept the fact that the logistical limit in question (say, number of people all acting in concert) is much higher than most people suspect. 9/11 being a case in point - if your version is true (entirely fake) then that requires a lot of people, maybe four figures. Mind you, so do other versions of the event.
Anyway - I'll leave it there, then. As you know, I am personally fascinated by the entire psychology of these things. I think the psychology is crucial, and ultimately far more revealing than the simple 'details' of this or that event. Particularly as it tells us a lot more about the 'big picture'.
You raise some interesting points of course. With regards to earthrise, I did actually check in with ChatGPT about that a while back. For example the idea that there's no light diffusion because no atmosphere etc. This effect is in fact negligible, and cannot account for a 6x difference in apparent size.
One of the problems with ChatGPT is that it takes a lot of its information from 'information/data obtained from the missions themselves'. An example would be 'how did the astronauts survive the van Allen belts?' - ChatGPT would answer something like 'the amount of radiation they received would have been short-lived and not enough to be permanently harmful' - then you ask 'how do you know it's not enough', and it then says 'because the mission data collected when they went through the belts confirms it'. See what I mean? The same is true for stuff like temperature differentials on the moon ('how do you know what the temperatures were?' 'Because the astronauts measured it').
If the mission was faked then the data was faked. We have to remember also that various probes already passed through the belts and recorded this data. So the real question is whether that data is also lying, and if the probes said 'it would be fatal' (let's say earlier in the 1960s), then they would immediately have to rethink the entire project.
I believe one thing DM points out is that massive amount of data (including photos) from the lunar reconnaissance probes which has not been made public - including zero images of an 'earthrise' (or stars, for that matter). DM suggests those photos were used for fakery purposes.
Obviously these are just speculations, mind - I'm not saying either way. It's more a comment on ChatGPT's sources along with Nasa shenanigans about withholding data (given they have always been part of the DoD that's not surprising - cf. Corona spy satellites).
The only way one can get round ChatGPT's programming is to start off with pure science, but not tell it why you are asking (meaning you already need to have a good understanding of the science). This is how I did it when I asked about Gemini 8. It had no idea I was referencing Gemini 8 with the G-force calculation because it does not possess 'human intuition'. At least, not officially, anyway! Human intuition can be mimicked by an AI with a sufficient dataset, because intuition is simply 'pattern recognition' and 'best guesses'.
Anyhow, that was my first point. I think I should answer each one separately because I finally looked up what 'tl;dr' means yesterday.
Sorry I forgot the Earthrise thing came up before. There are quite a number of things re the moon landings that I feel I simply don't feel qualified to make pronouncements on so I avoid them. It's just so much easier to stick to more tangible artifacts such as 1000 hours of audio, the Neil Armstrong footage vs Google Moon, the fact that every single photo shows only a single light source and a number of them show very bright lighting across a vast distance which is difficult to explain for fakery. How do you get that really bright light across what looks like a reasonably vast distance against a black sky on earth?
Fake things have a feel about them, it's never going to be just the odd thing that you go, "Hey that's fake".
I will have a look at the google moon thing shortly - clearly I also need to re-familiarise myself with DM's book as it's been maybe a year since I first read it, so a lot of my comments are from memory. Likewise I need to study your American Moon thing otherwise I will just be firing wayward shots across bows and such like - and you deserve a far more learned and erudite response. You may after all be correct in saying that DM didn't come up with anything concrete aside from some (actually important, if not interesting) rhetorical questions. I like people who make me think. And especially those who do it in an entertaining way.
With regards to the technical possibilities of fakery, though, like a black sky and single light sources and simulating 1/6th gravity etc. - I think the general 'they faked it' hypothesis is that this was all done in a massive hangar/stage set (Cardington, I believe is mentioned by Aulis - near where Kubrick was living). Special effects, even in 1969, were in fact quite capable of such things. For a single light source that's just a massive single floodlight/beam, black sky is a perfectly black drape across the walls, and 1/6th gravity yeah, that would take some time and practice to get right but the point is 'it's not impossible'. Difficult, sure, but not beyond the capabilities of special effects.
Anyhow - 'possible' is not the same as 'definite', as we both accept. One thing I do love about this subject is that one learns so much new stuff when studying it. That alone is worth the effort.
None of the attacks of 9/11 could have been completed if Dick Cheney had not ordered NORAD to stand down for drills that went live.
Yeah, it was just a big drill basically. There were no attacks to stand down for - they just push a whole lot of nonsense at you to bamboozle you. Obviously, they had to orchestrate it carefully so that most of the people participating didn't know that it was all orchestrated - although obviously quite a few people were in on it. No idea how they did it but they have their ways and means. I love General Richard Myers answer to Cynthia McKinney's question in Congress "Did the activities of the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impair the military’s ability to respond to the attacks?"
It's a complete load of gobbledygook starting with: "The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6crfATz6PI&t=377s
It had to be the only time when a drill culminated in the demolition of three skyscrapers.
Yeah it was a doozy - a very big doozy. I think we can infer a number of "bombings" aka "part demolitions" which have done some damage such as Bologna Station 1980 and the 1995 Oklahoma bombing most likely occurred in a drill-type situation.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/bologna-1980-and-mogadishu-2017.html
Oklahoma - https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=2GYH46SMG5U7
All the drills on 9/11 ... minus the crucial ones to produce the "injured" they didn't tell us about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001
ae911truth.org , which suddenly cannot be found by Firefox.
How do skyscrapers fall into their foot prints without an attack?
The appropriate question would be, how do skyscrapers fall into their footprints with an attack?
How would the demolition of a habitable and inhabited skyscraper not be considered an attack of some kind?
You’ve got a good point there
Controlled demolition. Where have you been living?
Wherever my van has been parked, since 1984, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I thought I'd read your article on American Moon - sorry if that slipped by me. I'll get on to that in due course.
One thing I would say about Dave McGowan and whether, as you surmise, he is/was an agent, is that I would very much take issue with the idea that a person who in retrospect seems to be an agent was always an agent. One has to consider the possibility of someone being made the proverbial offer you can't refuse. With regards to Dave, one of the most striking omissions in your article is his book 'Programmed to Kill', which is obviously the most important thing he ever wrote, and neatly ties together the child abuse network and MK-Ultra, with the Vietnam Phoenix program and 'serial killers' woven in, clearly showing the connections between all of them, plus what we now call Operation Mockingbird, namely the total capture of the mainstream media (and the legal system for that matter). That book simply can't be called a 'limited hangout' - and we shouldn't judge whether something is or isn't a limited hangout solely by the public impact it has or hasn't had. If, say, 10 million Americans (armed with the 2nd amendment no less) had read Programmed to Kill then you would probably have a civil war by now, and it simply couldn't be kept under wraps. At the very least, there wouldn't be CIA or a child abuse network.
In my view that book is one of the most important ever written. And I seriously doubt you or anyone else could debunk it. So, in order to discredit the book, clearly the best option is to discredit the messenger, by calling him an agent. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but if it is true that he was made that proverbial offer then it is that book, not anything else, which would've prompted that offer.
I'm not going to say anything about his 9/11 stuff in this comment - there's an IGSP studies article I would need to read first about the people who came up with the 'no planes' theories all being spooks. Personally I think Dave was largely correct in his 9/11 analysis, and it's interesting that a lot of the information he used seems to have been memory holed.
Anyway - I like your article, Petra, because I like being provoked into some serious thinking. Thank you.
I had a brief re-look at that IGSP article I mentioned about the no-planers to remind myself, and Joel seems only to be talking about the pentagon (flight 77). He believes it was a plane that hit, which tbh seems a little ridiculous to me - leaving aside anything else about Dave McGowan, I think his analysis of the pentagon aspect of 9/11 is very good (explosives fitted to the building etc.). If I recall correctly I think Dave suggests that 77 and 93 were both shot down, but he does believe in the two planes hitting the towers. But then you can add all the fakery on top of that. I'm inclined to go with that hypothesis myself tbh.
Interestingly Joel lists Dave amongst his 70 no-planers, and has a brief look at their bios. What I find curious, though, given Joel's obvious interest in the abuse network, is that he doesn't mention Programmed to Kill. You would've thought he would. So I think this omission is suspicious to say the least. I would not be surprised if Joel is another one of those who was given that proverbial offer, especially after his Dutroux article. Then again, if he is accusing McGowan of being a spook, then he wouldn't want that to discredit his own articles about the Network.
Some of his stuff is spot on, but some of it is incongruously bad. This is often a big red flag to me - how someone can be intelligent enough to work out that, say, A, B and C are false flags or psyops, but then they go and believe, or say they believe, that X and Y are not. I think there are serious psychological discrepancies there. So, if we look at the chronology, thus when did they switch from A, B and C to promoting X and Y, then we may have narrowed down the time window at which they received the offer.
Given how AI has just stolen my livelihood away and I shall have to choose between eating and heating this winter, I would be a lot more amenable to such an offer myself, I have to say. Given I am under no illusions about being able to stop anything, I will be happily reincarnating in 500-1000 years after the NWO phase has imploded and ended, I'll get to learn all about what is in our own future today, and then I will be a historian able to look back and document all that happened, armed with my past life memories of this life. So I would be happy to accept the offer so long as they provided me with some genuine information to answer some of my pressing questions. It doesn't take much to switch from counter-subversion to subversion, after all. Both are equally fun. Maybe this is why Dave's work is so much fun to read and often quite tongue in cheek.
There’s no evidence for the moon landing that’s convincing, but tons against.
https://rumble.com/v3hzgcq-20-proofs-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings.html?ysclid=lyyiu9ja7672917003
Impossible to take anyone seriously as an an investigator or researcher who believes this hoax. Not to mention what NASA is really for, by looking at their presentation:
https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025
I'm afraid I can't take seriously anyone who thinks the moon isn't a solid object - what the guy says in the first video.
I'm familiar with all the seeming anomalies suggesting the moon landings were faked but they're all perfectly well explained.
This article isn't about proving the moon landings so much as showing that Wagging the Moondoggie is a work of propaganda and nowhere in its 14 chapters does it put forward anything that refutes their reality. No one has argued against my claim so far. How is it possible to write 14 chapters to show the moon landings were faked without putting forward a single thing that does that?
But Petra, even if only a few, or even just one of those proofs is accurate, that’s enough evidence.
There doesn’t need to be any fakery or deception whatsoever around real events.
None of those strings seen in the “moon landing” video or numerous ISS videos have ever been explained. They can’t be, because they are just one of dozens of clues that it’s a total psyop.
Secondly, controlled opposition; (whether that’s Dave or not) appear to have a pattern of being allowed to reveal past or very obvious psyops, yet told to maintain more current ones.
I haven’t read his book, but if it speaks to how these psyops are done that’s evidentiary as - modus operandi.
Also, if one is determined to maintain an obvious, glaring psyop whether that’s the moon landing or some other faux historical event that’s sold to the public only through television (which can be pre-recorded and pieced together, then broad-cast as an entire event at a later date as with the Freemasonic Agent, Zapruder film) and no other evidence is offered, as also with the moon landing hoax, one may remain unconvinced (for a multitude of reasons) no matter how much evidence is shown to the contrary.
Because I’ve noticed most people don’t know how to deprogram themselves from brain washing techniques, and remain easily convinced by governmental and scientific fraud and other psyops such as voting or religion.
Psychological and emotional attachment to “beliefs” versus evidence, are the norm.
But I’d advise those who have been conned by Astro-nots to take a look at aulis.com which has excellent articles.
https://www.aulis.com/index.html
What you need to understand, Researcher, is that I have absolutely no doubt that the moon landings happened. In a nutshell:
—- All the imagery exhibits a very bright single light source completely consistent with the sun and completely inconsistent with artificial light sources
—- the movement of the astronauts is completely consistent with a lower gravity
—- the 1,000 hours of audio communications for the Apollo program that I’ve dipped into here and there sound 100% authentic and I’d argue would be impossible to fake without detection and also fakery of such a ludicrous size would NEVER be attempted
—- Subtleties in the evidence such as small amounts of dust on the landing pads of the LEM only visible in high res photos with the magnifier are completely unexpected of fakery
—- I’ve look endlessly at all the supposed anomalies and have seen perfectly good explanations for them
—- There is an anti-moon landing propaganda agents leading the anti-moon landing movement including Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel and others who say not a single word of relevant truth and lies.
There isn’t really anything you can tell me that will change my mind at this stage simply because I find the evidence too overwhelming. However, I will consider looking at items one by one. Why don’t you give me what you regard as the most compelling piece of evidence against the moon landings?
I don’t think there’s much point if you’re certain, yet you actually have no personal knowledge or experience re the landings or space travel.
I would suggest you to start investigating the masonic aspects of NASA and the esoteric in general.
Also, Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun being involved in NASA is a giant red flag.
The most compelling piece of evidence (for me) you’ve already dismissed: When I saw the HD pics of the “lunar module” I knew instantly it was all a psyop. I’ve been up in enough small planes (and large) to know a flight worthy, and aerodynamic device when I see one, versus a prop.
Fakery of a ludicrous size is done all the time: Germ theory. Vaccines. Every war is based on fakery and fraud. Every election in every fake country. Every court case. Every religion. The entire monetary and trade system. And the stock markets which are all centrally owned and controlled. The education system as indoctrination. The entire media itself is nothing more than a brainwashing delivery system.
For thousands and thousands of years, one group’s ruled the entire world and ALL they do is occult real knowledge and conduct massive global hoaxes, whilst stealing from and farming humanity.
This is a group who rule the world by deception and fraud, it’s not just one fraudulent, government “space” agency.
I recognise the Challenger disaster as the most brazen psyop of all time with the alleged dead people walking around with the same or very similar names. I mean, seriously, so I know that NASA lies and just generally that we are lied to constantly. However, they really, really wanted to go to the moon ... and they did.
What makes no sense at all for fake is the team of agents they have employed to push "we didn't go" propaganda. If we really didn't go, they could have pushed out agents to say some lies so the disbelievers would make fools of themselves repeating those lies but generally agents tasked with that job MIX truth with lies, they don't just say lies ... and yet all the agents - Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, etc ONLY say lies. If we really didn't go surely they'd put in a few genuine things that say we didn't go.
And what's interesting is none of the disbelievers have picked this up. Why does this fact not get the significance it deserves? What it means is that the disbelievers are not doing due diligence.
The LEM wasn't meant to be aerodynamic as it is only used in the vacuum of space. You're using the wrong criteria to judge it.
I've never been to space and nor have you but I know - or have no reason to doubt - that the moon sky is black day and night. This is HUUUUUUUGE. Trying to fake bright sunlight reflected off the lunar surface convincingly is - in my opinion - impossible but whether it is (or was back then at least) impossible or not these are two facts:
--- there is no evidence of fakery (all claims about non-parallel shadows and fall off have been responded to convincingly)
--- they do not stint on the evidence - there's loads and loads of images
I simply judge by the consistency of the evidence matching expectations of the alien lunar environment. It is overwhelming ... and then there's the 1,000 hours of communications between astronauts and mission control - you cannot fake this kind of evidence without detection ... and if you could here are two facts:
--- there's no evidence of fakery
--- there's mountains of the stuff
I simply go by the evidence.
My question is; why would Petra impale herself on this?
''all perfectly well explained.''
Truth stands by itself. It doesn't need schmoozing.
It does ... but when people disbelieve that clear truth due to their insufficient knowledge and understanding then that insufficiency needs to be addressed.
I would bet that the virologists think that they have their contradictions well explained too. Contradictions give away the lie.
Did you watch the entire video linked by The Researcher?
Virologists are very cagey and do not respond to the challenges issued to them. Apollo enthusiasts are, much to the contrary, always at the ready to explain things to those who doubt the moon landings.
My moon landings journey:
1. Read Wagging the Moondoggie - found it compelling
2. Looked at the evidence myself and when I got to the audio between astronauts and mission control stopped dead in my tracks. Thought, "No way, could this audio be faked, it's much too natural-sounding." I didn't know it at the time but there's about 1,000 hours of audio recorded by the astronauts and mission control for the Apollo program alone - and more for the other programs. If you think you could fake this kind of audio without signs of fakery you'd need to demonstrate it.
3. Looked at the imagery and noted how brightly-lit the lunar surface was against the black sky which would be impossible to achieve on earth - you cannot fake sunlight on earth at night-time - or you certainly couldn't then. They never shoot outside at night if they want to show daytime.
4. Looked up every supposed anomaly put forward by the disbelievers to find there was always a perfectly good explanation.
5. When finding that the disbelievers were impervious to my claims that the moon landings really happened wondered if those in power might have pushed out agents to encourage their disbelief in order to undermine them when they called out the very many real lies Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style ... and sure enough.
I've done my due diligence and I don't need to do more. I see reality a bit like a jigsaw puzzle - when you have enough pieces of the puzzle there isn't any piece that can come along and overturn that image. If it seems there is then it's simply a piece that wasn't part of the puzzle in the first place.
If you have a single piece of evidence you think debunks the moon landings I will consider it but I am certainly not going to waste my time looking at a video that starts with the claim that the moon is not a solid object.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bh06t9/eli5_why_does_the_moon_look_transparent_during/
Actually it's you 'anti-virologists' who are cagey and don't respond to biochemistry. If you do not understand biochemistry then you really need to shut up about it. Or learn biochemistry and then disprove the existence of viruses. Which you will not be able to do once you learn biochemistry.
Petra, you keep making comments like 'I can't comment on that because I'm not an expert', but you keep on insisting that X = whatever, and then you dismiss Y = whatever whilst still admitting you don't understand the science.
The moon landings are a case in point. You have no understanding of physics, for example. Anti-virology - you have zero understanding of biochemistry. So how the hell can you pass judgement on anything involving physics or biochemistry?
Here's an example, and as someone who understands this science I will endeavour to link the two.
We have the technology to 'tag' via chemical staining individual strands of RNA, even specific amino acids. We can then, after tagging, introduce those individual nucleotides to various reagents to see what happens according to the immutable laws of chemistry.
Same thing is true of 'moon landings'. If I went to the moon there are dozens of experiments I could perform to prove I was on the moon. Stuff that could not be faked. Unfortunately, nothing any of the 12 alleged astronauts who stepped on the moon did proved that they were there. They never did any worthwhile ground breaking science. If they did, you'd be able to come up with a killer argument to prove they went there. But you can't, can you?
Name me just one scientific experiment the Apollo astronauts did that proves they were on the moon, and that can't be faked.
Go on. I dare you.
There’s a few possibilities as to *why*:
A blind spot, an emotional or psychological attachment. A misplaced belief.
Or controlled opposition.
They dirty themselves up all the time, with something absurd to discredit their other theories that are either truthful reveals or partial truths.
An example of dirtying oneself so they can be dismissed by the mainstream, is Icke with his lizard non-sense and proclamation that he’s the son of god.
Or Miles Mathis revealing the JFK assassination was a hoax, then writing follow up non-sense that he ruled from the shadows, when presidents aren’t elected; have no power and are all puppets of the privately owned corporations masquerading as governments.
Another example is Mathis discrediting himself with the common Jesuit psyop of the evildoers being Jews, when in fact, all the faux religions are one, (Cult of Saturn) all psyops and all collude against the populace using mind control techniques such as fear programs and repetition.
The last option as to *why* may be an ignorance as to how fraud, trickery can be achieved in a particular field…
As with Petra’s apparent belief in the audio recordings, since she has no direct knowledge whether the recordings she heard were pieced together over months, like a movie, heavily edited, or even, entirely scripted Freemasonic drivel.
I can’t speak to anyone’s motivations, but trust literally nobody in the “truth community” because it appears most have been strategically placed, backed or promoted, pre and post 2020, and the more confusion and division that results, works to the central planners advantage.
The whole point of Dave McGowan is to discredit historical revisionism by making revisionist arguments in wildly fallacious terms.
"Debunking" Dave McGowan is a CLASSIC straw-man.
I don't understand.
Do you agree that DM mixes truth with lies on both 9/11 and the Boston Bombing? If not, why not?
Can you identify anything he says in Wagging the Moondoggie that refutes the moon landings?
My intention is not to debunk him so much as to show he's an agent whose purpose is to mislead those who recognise the lies they drown us in ... to disbelieve the one actual truth - the moon landings - Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style.
I have pondered the "moon landing" for a long while, and give good probability that what They showed Us was fake. Whether They actually landed or didn't is unclear, but I ask why the stuff We were shown had so many issues. I give very high probability that, as I saw reported, NASA put out the PPP (pancake planet psyop) to distract Us from looking for why the "moon landing" stuff was problematic.
So the question becomes... Why? I can think of two possibilities, and there may be more, that do not require Me to toss My observations, measurements, calculations, geometry, logic, and reason, as does the PPP (pancake planet psyop)...
The first is that They're hiding a secret space program where all the $$$ is going, and the second is that Michael Tsarion is correct.
According to Michael Tsarion, there were some "Bad Guys" (BG) being chased across Our galaxy by some "Good Guys" (GG). The BG arrived in Our solar system, set up a decoy on Tiamat (the planet between Mars and Jupiter), then came to Earth and hunkered down.
The GG arrived, saw the decoy, checked for native sapient life, found none, and blew the planet up (explaining the asteroid belt). They were suspicious, though, and checked the other planets, somehow determining that the BG were here. And They found plenty of sapient life native to the planet. So... They put a barrier up around the globe above low earth orbit that We can't get through. They moved the moon into place to be a "guard tower" (explaining the many stories around the globe of a time when there was no moon, and the claims "the gods" put it there). Also explaining "The Watchers."
We can't get through that barrier and live...and They don't want Us to know.
But... Who knows?
When there is masses of purported evidence for something such as the moon landings then I don't see how it couldn't be clear if they were real or fake. And, in fact, not one single piece of evidence contradicts expectations considering the alien lunar conditions - moreover the evidence fits those conditions in ways you wouldn't expect of fakery - subtleties such as a faint radial exhaust pattern under the LEM and minute amounts of dust on the landing pads, for example - this is not the signature of fakery, this the signature of authenticity.
People are misled by psyops into thinking that it's easy to fake stuff. Sure, it's easy to fake stuff unconvincingly - every psyop known to man does that but it's not easy to fake stuff convincingly. Faking stuff convincingly and faking stuff unconvincingly are two entirely different things.
Also, rather than trying to work out how things should work in space - I mean, how can you be sure? - just look at the pieces of evidence and see how they are so perfectly consistent with each other as well as consistent with expectations.
Petra, you are a victim of your listed fallacies; just in your above response you stated “...dust on the landing pads, for example - this is not the signature of fakery, this the signature of authenticity.” Plus...
When people say “...not one single piece of evidence contradicts expectations...” is pure obfuscation. The government owns all the evidence what the public sees is what the government allows. The person using that phrase knows it and is hoping it becomes the show-stopper. That phrase is in constant use when speaking about voter fraud, COVID, Kennedy assassination, et al. The retort of “how do you know the government isn’t hiding anything from the people?” is never proven which means the person questioning the validity of available evidence is working within a closed system that your counterpart controls.
The book “Programmed to Kill” is loaded with facts and a must read for everyone.
I have to disagree with you, IP. What we see of the evidence is a lack of the "curation" you get with faked evidence, eg, there is 1,000 hours of audio between the astronauts and mission control for the Apollo program - you don't fake a 1,000 hours of that kind of conversation and I'd argue it's simply not possible to do a realistic job of it. "Curated" evidence feels different from that presented for the moon landings. We have 119 fake testimonies from firefighters on 9/11 (although no audio, only transcript) while we do have both video and transcript for the fake testimonies of the survivors of the alleged attack on the USS Liberty. Of course, with these items they TELL you it's faked Revelation-of-the-Method (RoM) style.
The thing is we don't know what faked evidence that they try really hard to make realistic looks like as far as psyops go, do we? We've never seen it.
I think when there's just so much evidence that's what you judge by.
IRREFUTABLE FACTS:
1. If the moon landings were faked, they weren't done RoM style making them the only psyop we know of that weren't done that way.
2. No one has pointed to anything that clearly says they were faked.
3. Agents have been pushed out to say astronauts didn't land ... but have not put one thing forward that actually debunks the moon landings.
If Dave McGowan could put in some truth at least for 9/11 and the Boston Bombing why wouldn't have put some truth in for the moon landings? He wrote 14 chapters and yet couldn't put a single piece of truth against the moon landings in any of them?
You do recognise that Dave McGowan is an agent, right? ... and there is no way that Programmed to Kill won't contain lies. I shall need to take a look at it.
Brilliant comment. Like I said, I think the lack of reference to Programmed to Kill is telling.
Truth is, however, I like Petra. I like her a lot, and would hate to think of her as an agent. It would really upset me.
The important term is "purported." I think it's clear that *what They showed Us* was faked. I ponder a camera set up to catch the "first step on the moon..." I ponder astronauts leaping no higher than We might leap on Earth, and when sped up, look like normal earth-bound leaps. I ponder flags that seem to be blowing in the wind... I ponder many other things *of what They showed Us.*
I am not saying that We have not been to the moon some other way - electrogravitically, for example; We have had that tech (well hidden) since the 1950's - but what They gave Us to see I give high probability was filmed in a studio.
Electrogravitics – My Knowledge of Free Energy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/electrogravitics-my-knowledge-of
(Free energy and gravity control...)
All the things you ponder are explained. There is no flag blowing in the wind, the flag is continuing to move in a resistance-free environment after being pushed into the surface of the moon.
Every question asked about any seeming anomaly is answered. All you need to do is look it up. For example:
https://www.quora.com/Who-filmed-Neil-Armstrong-stepping-onto-the-Moon-for-the-Apollo-11-mission-and-what-type-of-camera-was-used
Neil did; It was a camera mounted on the side of the LM. Just before he climbed down, Armstrong pulled a lanyard to deploy the camera package which mounted a low quality, slow scan, TV camera. The slow scan is why there was ghosting on the image as the background image was not totally overwritten by the moving image of the astronauts in the foreground.
When you watch the entire video of Apollo 11’s time on the moon, about an hour, you can see them walk up to the camera and change the lens a couple times. It’s obviously attached to the side of the spacecraft. They were their own camera crew with the lander acting as their tripod.
I like this subject and the interaction. Critiquing others is an art unto itself. The entire body of work (in Dave’s case... the complete article) needs to be addressed, t can appear as cherry picking otherwise. In Dave’s case, he has a running monologue throughout his writings that are on-line and additionally he highlights entertainment as one of the values he offers... this was especially true with the Boston bombing.
One of the biggest concerns I have/had is the electronics regarding the heating and cooling of the space suits. Given the huge swings of temperatures going from full exposure of light to the shadows... this has not been properly addressed. We were still struggling with monolithic semiconductors*, in 1969, while the Processors are still a decade away (I understand DARPA and their advanced technologies but the Processors were not a part of that). Miniaturization was a large influence on the ability to make it to outer space.
* 1966 semiconductor technology was incorporated into the space craft controls as those controls were integrated into multiple functions.
This is an explanation of how the space suits worked. The thing is lots of things can be said and how do we know if they're true or not? That's why I look at the actual evidence to see how well it aligns with expectations according to what I can understand and also look for inconsistencies. When things are faked there will be inconsistencies. I haven't found any.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30045/how-do-space-suits-offer-heat-protection-i-e-during-the-lunar-day
I think the secret tech idea is eminently true - and it's a far better explanation that the ridiculous space opera story, fun though that sounds. You should know that the whole Exopolitics/Disclosure Project is yet another psyop.
The secret tech thing would also explain the faking of footage from Mars (rovers and landers and such like). There is absolutely stuff 'they' don't want people to know about, because if people knew, the cabal would collapse instantly - see also the Brookings Report on covering up the existence of ETI.
I did some articles about that: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/welcome-to-dexos-part-iv?r=2s9hod
and this one: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/welcome-to-dexos-part-v?r=2s9hod
Part 4 is about the Drake equation, zoo hypothesis etc., Part 5 deciphers the SETI messages (wow signal etc.).
Given the wow signal shows undeniable signs of being artificial/intelligent design, I really do need to write a speculative article about whether it was ETI or a 'fake event' (i.e. the cabal did it). I personally don't think they did, because if they wanted to fake an ETI message they'd make it much simpler, because as per the Brookings Report they wouldn't actually want everyone to believe it, or their system of social control would collapse.
Oh, I am fully aware that the Disclosure Project is a psyop. LOL! I just cannot rule out an ET involvement here. Too many things written thousands of years ago, too many things that that would be the best explanation of.
I agree on the WOW thing. That was just not the way They would have constructed something like that, and therefore suggests ET as well.
I'll check out Your articles.
This is a parody, right?
What's a parody?
I'm not sure what to think, really, and no offense to you, about the moon landing and space stuff, generally. But I will say this about 9/11... It seems to be highly probable, according to a lot of information I've perused about it, that there never were ANY airplanes at all, and the whatever-it-was that damaged the Pentagon, the hole in the wall had no trace of having WINGS on the thing, if if if something actually went flying into it from the outside, as opposed to a bomb on the INSIDE or such-like.
I tell ya, we've been lied to SO MUCH it's hard to trust much of ANYTHING anymore.
But it IS a good job you've done writing this! Cheers.
It’s not a question of probability about the nominated passenger airliners. There is zero evidence of any of the four crashing. 9/11 was just a massive demolition job (evacuated as they all are) in the guise of an anti-terror drill in the further guise of a real terrorist attack.
Okay, I was trying not to be too bullish in case you were going to be annoyed, lol.
I think it was DEW's that brought down the Twin Towers AND Building 7... Directed Energy Weapons, same as most of these "forest fires" and weird fires that burn things from the inside out.
I don't think there were ANY airplanes, anywhere. I think it was "Dustification" as Dr. Judy Wood has explained in lectures and videos and her book. And I think it's also quite likely that 9/11 included some Israeli "help," as well.
And I think that a whole bunch of things that we're told are "natural" or "accidents"-- such as trains full of toxins being deliberately exploded after derailing, by accident... and destroying a lot of farmland that has minerals under it... or oil, whatever it was...
Oh, the tangled web they weave... I'm pretty much fed up with it. I think it's high time we take these fuckers out of power. Lethal Injection.
I have to disagree with you on dustification. I think what's quite possible is that the footage shown to us of the twin towers is actually fake as suggested by Simon Shack to disguise the clear evidence of controlled demolition and "dustification" was pushed out as distraction propaganda.
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=854&start=90
In the three years prior to 9/11, Controlled Demolition, Inc (who they told us presented the WTC cleanup plan 11 days after the fateful day) achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects - I mean I think we can only infer this looks like a practice run, right? And nowhere is it mentioned any special type of demolition used. Surely, for such a big operation they would use tried and trusted methods ... and certainly WTC-7 is your standard implosion.
https://www.controlled-demolition.com/world-records/
"Dustification" IS controlled demolition.
But I don't mind if you disagree with me.
Normal controlled demolition using explosives isn't and that's what I think happened.
You're absolutely entitled to think whatever makes sense to you.
I am using a term that Dr. Wood invented for the use of Directed Energy Weapons, which creates "dust" of these buildings before they even hit the ground... Cars covered in it, all over everywhere, you'll recall the photos, etc.
The films that I saw were pretty convincing, and she gets in there and explains it all.
Maybe she's wrong, but she's DAMN smart, and she explains her theory very very well. I've listened to her in at least two movies, maybe four? about the event and I'd highly recommend you give her a listen... Pretty interesting, even if you don't agree with her. She's all about the evidence and the science of it all, not politics or govt BS or whatever... She's very cool, I like her brain.
If you had worked inside the program as an engineer for 35 years , you’d know that there exists an established gravy train that captures hundreds of thousands of degreed professionals. We realize that our missions are dressing for the public so they don’t realize that we get our money for nothing and our chicks for free.
We know, but the salaries pay for our kids college and our beach condo.
That might be what it's like now but I think for the moon landings ... people worked way beyond their normal hours. It was a very exciting project.
You may be right. I was not there in the 1960s and 70s. Still seems strange how so many can become so excited about maybe lobbing something to hit the moon, and scroll to a video of footage taken on Mars. 2024 device to the moon vs a successful landing of a working rover on Mars???
If people can’t envisage the exponential inconsistency in scope and impossibility of these two magic shows, no evidence to the contrary can sway them from the illusions.
As a critical thinking engineer with an extremely questioning attitude, I must keep quiet during the magical performances or risk the anger of the audience. They desperately want to believe.
I think your point about the physical impossibility of the Mars landers is something that is far too frequently overlooked, precisely because 'they' focus everyone's attention on the 'moon landing conspiracy theory'. IMO, Mars is far, far more important.
The original Viking lander image is clearly fake, because of the azure coloured sky. Which they quickly corrected but the damage was already done. Their problem is that they now have to ensure every subsequent image looks the same.
With regards to the moon, I have said this elsewhere but the Apollo 8 'earthrise' picture is the same principle as the Viking photo. From the moon this planet should be 6x larger than the Apollo 8 picture. Notice how there are no images from the other missions, despite the 'fact' that the command modules were allegedly orbiting the moon for days. Where is the scientific data from the command modules?
As for Mars, there are global dust storms every 3 years. Thar requires a fuck of a lot of dust. Last time there was anything other than wind erosion on Mars was 4 billion years ago. So, truth about Mars is that it's a desert with, what, a few kilometres depth of sand on the surface. It's not like fucking Tatouine. This means that the presence on Mars of genuine outcrops, like on Cydonia (the so-called face) is proof that Mars has been inhabited in the past. Not by humans, of course. But if the people understood this, that advanced life is that old and that widespread, then they would ask serious questions of the cabal and simply no longer tolerate being subjugated. This is the point about the 'Brookings Report' - which suggested covering up the existence of ETI. My alter ego wrote about this here: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/welcome-to-dexos-part-iv?r=2s9hod
That's part 4. But especially check out part 5.
I would imagine the 'moon landings' are simply a way of preventing or delaying all of this revolutionary knowledge until the cabal can achieve totalitarian control. That's the big picture.
Unfortunately, most people aren't even aware that there even is a big picture...
Can’t like your comments for some reason but totally agree. You are on the money.