What if spreading conspiracy theories itself is a true conspiracy?

Oh most definitely, ConspiracyTest.org collaborators, most definitely but not in the way you think so let me explain ...

---

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

— Upton Sinclair

We can substitute “salary” with “reputation”, “self identity”, “group identity” and “paradigm of how the world works”.

---

Conspiracies are real. Throughout history powerful people have conspired to mislead, harm and kill for their own power and profit but in the disinformation age it has become increasingly difficult to know which conspiracy theories are truly likely to be true.

What if spreading conspiracy theories itself is a true conspiracy?

— ConspiracyTest.org Introduction

As anticipated, all nine collaborators on the ConspiracyTest.org site failed the intellectual humility test I invited them to respond to simply by not responding to it but I shall continue in my one-sided communication with them regardless, in the hope that someone, somewhere will benefit from it.

Spreading conspiracy theories

I’d be curious to know who the CT.org collaborators think spread conspiracy theories but those of us a little more awake know perfectly well who initiates and promulgates them in order to facilitate their spread.

The power elite are not content with targeting the ~90% of the population willing to believe their narratives, no, the 90% is not enough. In order to effectively control us, the ~10% anticipated disbelievers of their narratives must also be fooled and to that end rather than a more-or-less single narrative as presented to the 90% - in big psyops at least - multiple streams of propaganda are pushed out for the disbelievers in order that they both fail to grasp the truth and split into factions, a debilitating position which gives them no hope of communicating the truth to any of the 90% who might be slightly open to it. 9/11 is an exemplar of a psychological operation (psyop) embodying multiple streams of propaganda targeted to the disbelievers.

On the odd occasion, where suitable, the power elite will weaponise the truth against the disbelievers by making it seem false. I have only had a cursory look at Flat Earth but I’ve read claims it is a psyop and it makes perfect sense that it would be. I have looked at the moon landings hoax claims, however, and it is clear that intelligence agents have been employed to initiate and spread the conspiracy theory that astronauts didn’t land on the moon in order to both dupe the disbelievers and undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they call out the many lies we are told.

In this article I will outline some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories targeted to the disbelievers and expose how the astonishing achievement of the moon landings has been made to look faked.

9/11 conspiracy theories for the disbelievers

Some of the conspiracy theories targeted to the disbelievers:

• 9/11 was an “inside job” and the US government callously and cold-bloodedly left those poor people to die in the buildings. Reality: 9/11 was the biggest demolition job of all time in the guise of a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills in the further guise of a real terrorist attack. Demolition professionals do not leave people behind in buildings for a terror story - nor would all the other people needing to be involved be very happy with that scenario. Moreover, all the evidence shows that death and injury were staged and we expect in psyops that only what is wanted is done for real … while the rest is faked. They didn’t want to kill people, they only wanted us to believe in their deaths and doing something for real when you don’t want it for real in a psyop is antithetical to psyop MO.

• Competing theories for how the buildings were destroyed: thermite/nanothermite, nukes, DEWs and good old controlled demolition. Reality: controlled demolition because that’s the only known method for high rise steel frame buildings to come down and we have no reason - other than what is suggested by propaganda - to believe they used a method other than the only known method.

• Israel did it! Reality: Yes, Israel was involved but the notion it was actually “responsible” is absurd. Moreover, every man and his dog was involved including Australia whose PM, John Howard, just happened to be paying a “surprise” visit to Washington on the fateful day and we can see how the staged refugee boats in August and October coordinated around 9/11 in the leadup to the November 2001 federal election means that Australia was right in there - see How major fraud propelled John Howard to election victory in 2001.

For more on 9/11 see:

The conspiracy theory promulgated by intelligence agents that the moon landings were faked

The moon landings happened and they were an awesome achievement. All the evidence tells us they happened … but what tells us they didn’t happen is propaganda produced nominally at least by a number of agents including but not limited to Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel, Massimo Mazzucco and Bill Kaysing whose purpose is to implant in the minds of those with a perfectly valid inclination to disbelieve the authorities most of the time nonsenses such as:

• we should see stars in the photos - no we shouldn’t

• there should be a crater under the lunar module - no there shouldn’t

• shadows should appear parallel if there’s only a single light source - not necessarily

• the astronauts are attached to wires - no, they’re not

• it would have been impossible to get through the Van Allen Belts and, in fact, a NASA engineer indicated that - oh please, no

What really takes the cake with the moon landing conspiracy theory is that they started pushing out anti-moon landing propaganda BEFORE the landings happened, namely, in the 30-minute 1968 BBC drama, The News-Benders.

For more on the anti-moon landing propaganda targeted to those inclined to disbelieve the authorities (correctly most of the time) see:

Why does a hardcore psyop analyst recognise the awesome achievement of the moon landings while her identical twin sister does not?

Soon after I started waking up to psyops, a friend suggested I embark on studying the moon landings, starting with the moonhoax “bible”, Wagging the Moondoggie, by Dave McGowan. I found it compelling but when I started to look at the evidence myself I was stopped dead in my tracks by the communications between the astronauts and mission control which sounded so authentic. After further study involving looking up all the explanations for seeming anomalies identified by the disbelievers and recognising that all the evidence was internally consistent as well as consistent with expectations of the very alien lunar conditions I determined they really happened. However, repeated failed attempts to persuade my sister and a couple of disbelieving friends that they really happened prompted the thought:

---

As there seems to be a type of person who disbelieves the authorities almost by default, the power elite will have identified this profile and could it be that the first person to say we didn’t land on the moon, Bill Kaysing, was an agent whose purpose was to dupe the people belonging to this profile and undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they called out the very many real lies?

---

I consulted that trusty source for psyop clues, Wikipedia … and sure enough, they leapt out at me like an evil jack-in-the-box. The never-ending changes to ‘ol Billy’s Wikipedia page is something to behold. Currently it says:

Kaysing's daughter, Wendy L. Kaysing, has stated that she hopes to one day write a book about her father with Kaysing's nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, not to reiterate Kaysing's hoax claims, rather to talk about her father as a person.

However, the version I viewed included mention of a working book title, ‘Life and Times with "Wild" Bill Kaysing, the Fastest Pen in the West.’

Who knows why the working book title has been removed. I looked up the nephew with the amusing name, Dietrich von Schmausen, to find a talk by him, Alien Disclosure, in which we see the supposed Dietrich speak in a fake German accent and indications he’s a professor at the North American Institute for Xenobiological Research (of which no record outside the video).

From “discussing” the moon landings with my sister, I can see our approaches are completely different. We’re both independent thinkers and equally willing to disbelieve official narratives but what guides us in determining the truth is very different. My observation is that the fundamental characteristic distinguishing our approaches is that on the subjective / objective continuum, my sister is towards the subjective end while I’m towards the objective end.

Subjective independent thinkers

My sister, like many other independent thinkers, relies very much on her font of knowledge, ability to reason and common heuristics to work things out. Some of the reasons she puts forward for rejecting the reality of the moon landings are:

• if we’d gone to the moon we would have gone again - this reason falls into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis contrary to fact

• software programs never work first time so the landings couldn’t have succeeded first time - falls into the logical fallacy of false equivalence (landing on the moon is a very different phenomenon from developing a software program and, funnily enough, during the landing process of the lunar module on Apollo 11 mission, the software for the lunar module's onboard computer experienced an error that caused the computer to shut down and recycle multiple times

• the shadows aren’t parallel indicating multiple light sources [they only seem non-parallel], the lunar module looks fake [in fact, its appearance is consistent with its purpose]

• they just don’t make sense and I cannot accept something that doesn’t make sense to me

When I advised my sister that Bill Kaysing was an agent her response, like responses from other disbelievers, was, “It’s nothing he’s said that makes me disbelieve them.” That may be true, however, the glaringly obvious problem for the disbelievers that they conveniently ignore is that none of them - not one - has picked up that Bill Kaysing says not a word of truth refuting the moon landings and none of what he says would have come out of the mouth of a person with the job title, Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, the company who made the rockets to go to the moon. Nor have they picked up that not a single word from Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel and Massimo Mazzucco refutes the reality of the moon landings. Not a single word. See the “Moonhoax” psyop.

---

Those responsible for the Bill Kaysing anti-moon landing propaganda pull zero punches in making him a complete buffoon … because they know how the disbelievers think, they know they tend to rely on their current font of knowledge and ability to reason and will not do the research necessary to recognise Bill Kaysing for who he really is.

---

Objective independent thinkers

Unlike my sister, my approach to determining the truth is simply to canvass as widely as possible to see what’s being said on both sides of the argument and to focus on the most tangible, irrefutable facts in the first instance. Following that method it becomes obvious that the Apollo enthusiasts are far better versed in the Apollo missions than the disbelievers and that any seeming anomalies are perfectly reasonably explained.

The nature of reality

I believe that what tends to mislead the disbelievers is that because we’re subjected to so much fakery, fakery is easy. Yes, it’s easy to fake but it’s not easy to fake without the fakery being detectable, certainly not something on the scale of the moon landings. In their psyops, those in power give it away with their Revelation of the Method, they simply don’t go to any bother to aim for realism, they go the other way, making their anomalies gobsmackingly obvious with the confidence gained over millennia that the majority will not only be spellbound by their nonsense but will valiantly defend it to its critics, notable protectors being our friends at ConspiracyTest.org. But even if they weren’t giving it away, their lies would reveal themselves, the narrative of 19 terrorists being the cause of the destruction of high-rise steel frame buildings by crashing airliners into them cannot be made to simulate reality credibly even if they tried their hardest because, a priori, it contradicts the laws of physics.

You cannot fake 1,000 hours of audio communications between astronauts and mission control without fakery being detected, especially not communications involving 15 people on two communications loops as shown in First Men on the Moon, an online interactive featuring the Eagle lunar landing from 18 minutes before touchdown. There is no precedence of anything remotely like it and the 64-million-dollar question is: why on earth would you try to fake so many hours when there is absolutely no need for the appearance of reality?

Claims of “could be faked” hold no water unless there is good reason to suspect fakery and there is simply no precedence of natural-sounding fakery of people involved in the type of communications involved in the Apollo missions or of so many people in any situation at all.

Evidence is king and massively overrides an individual’s claims of what they think must, should, would or could have happened.

They wanted to go to the moon and everything lined up for them to go at the time … whether they will ever go again makes absolutely no difference to the evidence they went.

Twins - 9/11, climate change and the moon landings

My sister worked out 9/11 and dangerous CO2-induced climate change were false narratives much sooner than I did … but I got there in the end. She hasn’t got and probably never will that the moon landings hoax is a psyop.