9/11, JFK, latest
Comments 171

Why the argument “JFK was a bad man” misses the point


by Catte

The trouble with the recent “debate” in the comments over the merits of JFK as man and president is it isn’t really a debate. The claims made by our article JFK: the war on our heroes, and the claims made in response BTL are not mutually incompatible or even contradictory.

We point to the numerous sources for JFK having made the decision to confront some powerful forces within the US establishment, and the likelihood of his having been murdered as a response to this.

The alleged “counter claims” that JFK was flawed, selfish, and prepared to play along with the MIC doesn’t in any way rebut this point. Flawed, selfish, corrupt people can stumble into some sort of heroism even by accident. They can, even unwittingly, challenge hidden power structures and be punished for that. And clearly something of this kind happened to JFK. However much his ready charm and superficial attractiveness might be reminiscent of Obama, we need to remember that Obama left office alive and well. As has every other president since 1963.

JFK didn’t get his head blown off in Dallas for simply being just like all the rest of them, did he? However flawed, selfish etc etc he may have been, that’s not why he was killed. And it’s the reason he was killed that should be our focus.

The real point is that JFK’s murder – like Trump’s embarrassing political neutering – exposes the true nature of power in the US and beyond. It exposes the puppet nature of the executive and its relative impotence. It exposes the unaccountable reach of the deep state and its assumption of the right to act in its own perceived interests, even to the point of assassination.

The larger point of our article was that the discrediting of JFK as an emblem of the hope for a better world is of itself a political act, and one that most greatly benefits the same forces that may have killed him. It’s probably not a coincidence that debunking “Camelot” has been a staple of the liberal media for several decades now. There has been no comparable push to de-throne other “heroes” whose iconography upholds the status quo a lot more effectively than does the memory of JFK. The only cultural “heroes” we can be permitted must not embody the questioning of authority and the status quo. And JFK’s death – even if not his life – mean he will always embody those dangerously subversive ideas.

JFK’s public murder, like 9/11, gives us a rare glimpse into usually hidden things, and that is why they will always matter. The argument that JFK was no better than the worst misses the point and – worse – has been used by gatekeepers to distract from the only salient point – that he was murdered by powerful people who assumed they were above the law – and were entirely right about that.

I suggest it’s more important to focus on that than to be lulled into saying, along with Chomsky, “well, JFK was a bad man, so who cares who killed him?”


171 Comments

  1. @Flaxgirl: if you write another response and I don’t answer, it’s not because I’m ignoring you. I just have to get away from this thread, now… I’ve given all the time to it that I can/should/will. I’ve said what I have to say on the matter; it’s all there. Thanks!

    SA

    Like

  2. So, Mods: thanks for allowing me the space to lay out some evidence that the Apollo Program was elaborate, expensive and highly effective Cold War propaganda… and one of the interlocking Big Lies which include JFK’s “Magic Bullet” (and so on). I don’t want to spend another minute restating these facts, so, for anyone interested: you can *CTRL + F * the following phrases to my comments to get right to the hearts of my argument:

    1) “So: ignore the silly music and the channel itself, possibly”

    That should take you to a very effectively damning compilation of “astronauts” on wires (to simulate lunar gravity).

    2) “Now, I fully believe there was a massive Apollo Space Project”

    Which comment explains my theory of the “Why” of the Hoax and a tiny bit of the “How”

    3) Do some reading on Gus Grissom/ Scott Grissom/ Thomas Baron (avoiding the obvious NAZA whitewashes!)

    4) Further important contextualizing info I didn’t get a chance to go into (which dovetails with the much larger issue of “Operation Paperclip” and the post-War mass relocation of high-level Nazis into US GOV/ Tech/ Universities and, of course Intelligence):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1309924/Germans-at-last-learn-truth-about-von-Brauns-space-research-base.html

    Like

  3. What is the significance of the JFK murder? To my mind, it underscores that America, as with all so-called liberal democracies, by means of the political ascendancy of private wealth, is dominated by criminal and unaccountable networks of self-serving and rent-seeking political elites.

    The significance of this public execution is identical to the significance of the 2001 Anthrax Scare, as analyzed by Graeme MacQueen: it was a reminder to all power brokers in the U.S. of who it was that was in charge and that non-compliance to the imperatives of concentrated private wealth might get you dead.

    The brazenness of the murder, in full public view, and the subsequent travesty that was the Warren Commission drove home the message: if we have to resort to intrigue and murder to have “our” way, “we” will. In fact, intrigue and murder (and by extension, the rapacious oppression and exploitation of ordinary people everywhere) is what we are about.

    This isn’t a particular failing of the character of the U.S. It’s just that the U.S. establishment happens to be the most powerful of all such establishments among the current iterations of “civilization” in the style of the Roman Republic and, consequently, is the most brutally and overtly uncompromising.

    Of course, you can argue the moral rectitude or corruption of the ‘good President,’ just as you can about anyone else, but to reduce the public significance of his murder to “that,” kinda misses the crux of the bigger issue in my opinion: in America, precisely as it was intended by the civically sanctified Framers of the American Constitution, it is the ruling crony capitalist class that governs and not the ‘people,’ and ultimately, it does so through the connivances and conspiracies of its cliques and their uncontested sway over both the public and hidden institutions of brute force.

    That’s the vein in which I read and understood Kit’s recent pieces on the assassination of JFK: “Behold the head of a traitor, flying back and to the left.” Indeed.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Big B says

    [Those who did not read or comment on the original Kit article referred to here, may find what I am about to say out of order …well, hey ho …]

    Catte: I have just reviewed the comments BTL on Kit’s piece – and I can find absolutely no justification for this editorial hit piece. The argument that “JFK was a bad man” simply does not exist; the corollary “who cares who killed him” can only be attributed to Mark “fuck JFK” Mason. The “counter claims” that Arrby and I made were not addressed: that is why there was no “debate”. Instead, you wrote this piece, changed the point of attack, and invalidated the “counter claims” as wrong views – without bothering to address them. This is a worrying development: hitherto you have had a non-interventional free speech editorial policy – is this about to change? In defense of Camelot? You couldn’t have picked a worse cause …

    Whether other readers can see it or not: you have claimed authority here – especially writing ‘above the line’. You (Admin) asked for a critique of Kit’s piece – which I effectively addressed in what turned out to be article length comments. I am not claiming that I have definitive knowledge, or even that I am right: I merely wanted to present that there is an equally valid antithesis to your enshrined views. You have effectively dismissed those “counter claims” as somehow “missing the point”. How? I feel I very much addressed the point without any invective – by addressing the very examples Kit used. I would refer you again to my second paragraph if you think that I was in any way trying to diminish the importance of his death. It is important for all the reasons you say: but do we have to build a cult out of the man to imbue his death with praeternatural importance???

    The effect of this is to say we are right; and you are wrong. Really: there can be no alternative view on this? Let’s stick to the facts: we do not even know WHO killed JFK; ergo – we certainly do not know WHY? We are all speculating in the abstract – yet you effectively claim authority for your speculation, and advance it as definitive. ON WHAT GROUNDS???

    Like

    • Not to mention the fallacy of the “they killed him, he must therefore have been doing something good” argument. Aren’t Mafia chieftains sometimes “whacked” by other Mafia chieftains? I agree (with many) that the killing of JFK is important for reasons that are largely irrelevant to whether he was himself an Imperial Toxin; even the “why” is not entirely necessary if we can locate andpiece together fragmented confessions from various co-conspirators. It’s more about “who” and, if possible, “how,” no?

      The Camelot brainwashing goes deep, you know. These threads could do worse than work as a kind of informal group-encounter therapy for confronting one’s own previously-undetected/ unsuspected Brainwashing. Every few years, it seems, more layers of the blinders fall from my eyes… and each successive layer that’s removed, I assume the process is complete. Until…

      Like

      • My friend, the process is never complete, as you say. Assuming absolute Buddhahood is achievable: were anyone ever dedicated enough to get there (here) – they would be compelled to break on through to the other side! Until …

        Like

          • And the Dalai Lama is in the pocket of the CIA. That’s kind of the point: have no heroes. The reversal of the whole psychic projection and fragmention process (that the whole cult making – hero worship synthesis is symptomatic of ) is the real process of change. Indentify with the internal source – not the external “dead President” effect!

            Liked by 2 people

    • wimblepole says

      I strongly disagree that you or anyone has been editorially overruled “above the line”.

      Those who have read Kit’s article and reviewed the comments will be aware you have been invited on multiple occasions to contribute an article, presenting your viewpoint “above the line”. I fail to see any justification for framing your position in the way you have above.

      Why don’t you think about editing your “article length comments” into a piece?

      I think that any more blustering BTL only serves to undermine your position from this point on, don’t you? I for one encourage you to use OffGuardian’s format to present your views and I suggest you take them up on their offer.

      All the best,

      Like

      • “You strongly disagree?” …take “them” up, that’s cute …I like that …especially from a first time commenter that posts separate comments on two different forums telling me to toe the party line? If you really are a commenter, wimblepole, why not critique my comments …instead of making a proxy argument from authority???

        All the best …

        Like

        • If any of us want to respond to anything you say BigB you can be confident we will do it under our regular identities.

          Like

          • I’m pleased to hear it (and there is no way to tell otherwise – that is NOT sarcastic.) BTW: as Harry said below – I believe what I say. But before my criticism gets misinterpreted – it was only ever my intention to be constructive. In no way was I trying to undermine or disrupt: and I apologize if my passion made it seem that way.

            Liked by 1 person

    • wimblepole says

      I would love to participate in this school boy-level sparring session, and witness you become more and more entrenched in your indignation, to-ing and fro-ing, jostling to get the last word… I can feel myself being drawn in….. But I’m not going to.

      Why don’t I critique your arguments? I did not respond in order to do that, I responded to your dishonesty here, portraying the editorial policy as something it is not.

      I have followed OffG since the start, don’t belittle it with your whining and whinging and fibs. The admins – or ‘they’ since they have introduced themselves on many occasions BTL (to yourself included) – have offered you an opportunity to pen your own article and express your view. DON’T start spreading lies around about fictional editorial strong-arming. The editors here work tirelessly and often thanklessly and, frankly, it is outrageous to throw these ugly accusations around after you’ve received AN INVITATION TO CONTRIBUTE.

      Maybe it’s time to face up to whatever it is that drives you into this pointlessly defensive, obnoxious position… and for no reason!! There is NO reason, except own your choices, that has brought you to this place.

      Perhaps you are exorcising your own frustrations… a sense of a lack of personal fulfilment in your life, a failure to live up to your potential?? Believe me I have that too, in spades, and it’s very easy to externalise it and troll a small, well-intentioned alternative news site.

      Yes, you can continue to bluster like a pro. But soon (starting now from my POV) everyone will start ignoring you. I guess you’ll move onto the next forum or lay low here until you see your next opportunity to manufacture fake division between yourself and a perceived ‘authority’ that stands in the way of the value you have to offer.

      Very symbolic. Maybe you can’t help yourself.

      You write well though. Don’t waste it sparring with dickheads like me, manufacturing fake hierarchy, fake opposition and fake obstacles for yourself BTL. Keep your dignity.

      All the very best.

      Like

      • Harry Stotle says

        That’s a little unfair – most of the discussion (on each side) seems to be driven by conviction rather than brinkmanship, even if personal feelings have crept into the debate somewhat.
        Anyway, there is nothing wrong with getting pumped up about an important issues – in this context it is more to do with individual passions rather than some sort of failing.

        I strongly agree with your observation that the Off-G team do a brilliant job and it doesn’t hurt to let them know this, not least the spirit of honesty that pervades the comments section.

        Having said that I do not think the evidence (vis-a-vis JFK) is on their side, although I say this with the caveat that I am not as immersed as others in this period of history.

        We can’t blame John for the sins of the father, or the criminal way Teddy abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne after Chappaquiddick, but the actions of these important actors do point to a form of moral cowardice within the family, and without wishing to sound like a bargain basement Sigmund Freud I do think there was something pathological about the relationship between John, Bobby and Marilyn, not least the fact lying must have been integral to the dynamic between them as well as other members of their family such as Jackie and Ethel.

        The sexual greediness exhibited by the Kennedy brothers is an important clue to the way other people were ultimately seen as subservient to their needs, much in the way the smarmy character of Bill Clinton was exposed after his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

        Like

        • Family constellations, family karma, epigenetic inheritance, we all have this as part of who we are an who we become.
          But I felt to say I admire Robert Kennedy Jr for his courage and integrity in both holding environmental polluters to account – but even more so for address vaccine pollution/toxicity in particular the thimerosol (mercury) that is largely replaced by alluminium – but still used in flu shots some others.
          Speaking and campaigning in public against pharma corruption and lack of accountability for harm or transparency to scientific verification – is no small thing.

          Like

      • Wimblepole: your comment is hilarious – and very revealing (of you.) Just what exactly do you think you are defending? And just as important: why do you feel the need to be a proxy defender of this site – if it’s not yours? Have I touched a nerve by childishly blustering that Camelot is a castle of the mind? At least I offered constructive criticism that points to that being the transformational POV. And what exactly have you brought to the debate???

        [FWIW: I do appreciate the efforts of those that run this site: why should that even be in question? But do I have to agree with every comment and every article? Surely not?]

        After all the free speech forums and, quite frankly some quite outrageous comments BTL that have been given an airing (which I applaud): surely I can express my reasoned opinions without anyone falling out? You don’t have to agree: you could offer constructive criticism – instead of trying to quash my freedom of speech? As Admin have made clear: they will comment for themselves – but you couldn’t help but comment for them? Bizarre.

        Like

        • wimblepole says

          I’m glad we can both have a chuckle from our respective POVs. The perfect way to resolve things. The best way to climb down.

          Please try not to self-aggrandise, there is no conspiracy of identity and no one is “quashing your freedom of speech” (actually I have witnessed quite the opposite). This is just grandstanding, pure and simple, and is unbecoming.

          Your points about JFK are fine and worthy of discussion. I suggest you stick to those. Perhaps one day you’ll submit a piece here and many people will enjoy reading your thoughts from a platform that befits your self-styled position of authority a little better.

          All the best,

          Like

          • And perhaps one day you will drop the adopted persona of a self-styled freelance vigilante and actually contribute something worth saying to the discussion?

            I look forward to your further comments …

            Like

  5. The article firmly achieves its purpose of outlining and identifying those power sources behind the JFK assassination ,how they were abe to control the cover-up and the narrative of a lone killer for so many decades and indeed divert the HSCA away from a full investigation back to blaming the Mafia.,which was a fall-back limited hangout after “Castro did it “had lost some of its persuasiveness( tho it provided the ammunition,” fear of WW3,” for LBJ to be able to validly shut down any investigation beyond the lone nut and to browbeat Warren into chairing the Commission named after him)……..

    Gaeton Fonzis important work where he describes living through the purge of the HSCA 77/78 to his attempts to gather evidence of the involvement in the assassination and with Oswald the patsy, of David Atlee Phillips exposes the massive media control and political leverage this power structure commands but it was only after Gaetons death that Tony Veciana who had kept quiet for many years in fear of his life did finally confirm that DAP was deeply involved with the slaying of his President through at the least controlling the patsy ……

    the article accurately recognises the posthumous assassination of JFK as malicious deliberate diversion sewn by those forces still today intent on maintaining the fiction for whom Chomsky acts a leading gate-keeper……

    Its clear that JFK was always deeply uneasy over becoming militarily bogged down in S,E Asia,having successfully pursued a settlement over Laos, and did not want to commit combat troops to Vietnam from where he was withdrawing completely after winning his 2nd term in 64 ,policy swiftly reversed by LBJ…he was also set up over the Bay of Pigs by Bissell,Dulles and Cabell but accepted full responsibility. But it was hardly surprising owing to the intense anger and hatred over what was sold to and easily accepted as a JFK betrayal by anti-Castro Cubans centred around Miami/JM Wave evolved into yet another assassination plot following Chicago but before Tampa and most certainly would have offered up shooters for the ground floor level of Dallas to join with any the Mafia chose to contribute for it is certain that Mafia bosses did know that a hit was coming …….

    It was a hit aimed at redefining US foreign policy and preventing any rapprochment with USSR .The Kennedy family understood this within days and indeed sent a message to Khruschev through a private envoy otherwise visiting Moscow that a complex domestic plot by the powerful political right had murdered JFK and that relations between the 2 nations would likely henceforth again freeze over, an entirely accurate prediction…….

    The Kennedy family made a conscious decision to publicly go along with Warrens findings until at least RFK could gain the Presidency as to do otherwise would make them personally vulnerable to more violence.But part of the reason why RFK wanted the Presidency was awlays understood by those who had so brutally slain his brother and arranged for the blame to attach to the most unfortunate Oswald.

    [edited to break text into paras for readability]

    Like

  6. archie1954 says

    Assassinating a democratically elected president destroys democracy. It cancels the votes of the majority of Americans who voted for him!

    Like

    • rtj1211 says

      Well it was pretty much the barest majority in US history and that raises the question of ballot box stuffing, which we know LBJ engaged in in Texas. Not that Republicans were any better.

      Like

  7. A big thumbs up for your great and candid analysis. This is journalism 101. Question look at events evalute the facts related to what ever the matter might be. Mckinley and Lincolns did not get the same character assassination from any gatekeepers of the time but then again the MIC was not as prominent or powerful as it is today.
    What troubled times we r living in the west , critical thinking and has been replaced with confirmaation bias and totalitarian mindset.

    Liked by 1 person

    • rtj1211 says

      I must say critical thinking has been largely absent from the UK since 1975. Just look at the nature of education and exams. Just look at the standard of media output. Look at the quality of politicians. And look at the total replacement of community values with money making by any means.

      Critical thinking is very depressing if you can do nothing after having thought critically. For most, critical thinking is a tool to guide actions, not to get your rocks off. So if your soul tells you not thinking is a better survival mode, many will suspend their critical faculties…..

      Like

      • Eric McCoo says

        Totally agree, well said .

        To me it’s a result of the creeping Americanisation (obsession with money and corruption) of Britain. I predicted we’d be dumbed down to American levels by 2030 but we’re pretty well there already. I taught beside academics who taught A levels in college. They said they were massively dumbed down.

        Dumbing down links

        http://dumb.scrapthetrade.com/

        My problem is with young professional like doctors who believe they are as intelligent/capable as the older generation when they absolutely aren’t. Also, when you read the shambling, uninformed, sneering idiocy of Brian Cox, JK Rowling, Gary Lineker and the rest of the virtual signallers, you despair.

        Like

        • Under a global technocracy critical thinking is the reserve of the very few and being engineered out of the very many. All by consent. Not of course at the front end of what people think is going on, but in their own choices, acted upon.
          I like Corbett’s commentaries and attitude. He’s recently made some documentaries on how and why big oil – etc – and extends it to ‘Data is the new oil’ (in terms of control/choke points). I take all this into my own psyche while observing the world – so I don’t only see it in terms of them and us. I see that thinking is already the power by which a negative outcome is brought about and maintained.

          “Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”
          Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1923

          All fear operates propaganda unless brought to an honesty of being. Dishonesty of being invites insanity under terror – but with a narrative overlay by which to limit one’s consciousness of feared truth.

          But I hold that recognition of hell, honest acknowledgement of insanity – opens a quality of being that is NOT that – and offers a foundation from which to (truly) live – including the focus of intention and attention in unified purpose instead of a mind divided against itself.

          Part of the dynamic is of decision makers surrendering/abnegating responsibility to contractual Corporate law by which to maintain or lose less privilege or power under subjugation – rather than address, embrace or meet the rising of need and demand from people. It’s a collective ‘breakdown’ of self-responsibility that opens to a manipulative opportunism – that employs armies of lawyers, and financial wizkids and every other ‘expertise’ that can be harnessed to the ‘War on – motivates the rank and file to give allegiance.
          Sacrifice your relationships (and your integrity) or meet exclusion, penalty and pain for yourself and those dear to you. Note that integrity is thus covered over and lost to belief or witness. But that anyone can be found in a movement of the true of their being and live it -regardless whatever they were before.

          Like

  8. Kennedy ran for office when America was still fresh in its official post-War role as uncontested Super Power of the Solar System; in other words, in 1960, Murkka was already recognizably itself, and had very strong filters in place to keep non-psychopaths out of higher office. Just as you aren’t allowed into creepy fraternities like Skull&Bones or Bullingdon Club (oink) without doing something blackmailworthily awful, TFIC don’t let you play POTUS unless they have some very bad shit on you. It’s just good business, man. JFK’s daddy didn’t buy the office for a choir boy and he didn’t buy it for the laughs. For every bad thing we’re fairly sure JFK signed off on (reverse-reminiscent of BHO’s drones)… pretty well-documented in these comment threads… you can be sure there is danker shit in the vault.

    I just don’t trust suave, charming, handsome politicians with big, expensive, slickly-photographed mythologies. But my opinion of JFK’s “true nature” is irrelevant. The point is: only the most naive little, Bible-hugging, backwater grannies on Earth believe that LHO shot magic bullets (or even that he shot anything at all that day). TFIC culled JFK for their various reasons and as the conspiracy ages it will show more and more cracks (how many deathbed confessions have we missed or dismissed already?).

    We don’t need to buy into Come… I mean… Camelot … to want to see this Flagship Conspiracy unravel. It’s the Domino Theory of Conspiracies! If Dallas gives up its pearl, Apollo is next, then Chapman/ Lennon and… but, yeah. Let’s not get too excited. One thing at a time.

    And, first thing’s first: can we please stop arguing about JFK’s underwear? Was it clean? Was it dirty? It was bloody… that’s all we know for sure.

    PS Oh, and re: Chomsky: hah! The guy’s on the payroll. (MIT’s, I mean).
    PPS “Good JFK” theory reminds me of Lefty Academic friends who buy into the “Good branch of the CIA” theory…

    Like

      • Colin, enough with the archly gnomic jabs. What, exactly, is your point? And did you read all of my comment before commenting? Because: it wouldn’t appear that you understand who my comment is aimed at.

        Like

    • In the must-see, what-woke-me-up 3.5 hour film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick, youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM by Francis Richard Conolly, the filmmaker points out the bootlegging criminality of JFK’s father, Joe Kennedy, and it seems as though this phenomenon may have, at least, in part, led to his assassination. Apparently, Pater promised the Mafia (due to his own obligations to them) that JFK would do certain things (can’t remember what) and when JFK, wanting to share no part of his father’s criminality, did not oblige, the Mafia were not at all happy. JFK was, unfortunately, between a rock and a hard place, in relation to his father’s criminality. I wonder if this phenomenon has anything to do with the fact that the Kennedy family has never spoken out about the two brothers’ assassinations. Not being able to start squeaky clean is pretty much an insurmountable impediment.

      So StAug, you don’t believe Grenfell was a hoax but you think the moon landings were while I believe the reverse. Truly, I do think people who do not believe we landed on the moon simply give reasonable licence to those brandishing the term “conspiracy theorist”. I think the biggest mistake people make (and I made it myself) before viewing the film mentioned above is to judge things by their plausibility and implausibility. While one explanation may be more plausible, the more implausible explanation may be the correct one. Regardless, we must always judge by the evidence.

      And there is a ton of evidence we went to the moon. It’s absolutely fascinating how they overcame all the engineering obstacles to get there. One (logically fallacious) argument people put forward is that, around the time of JFK’s inspirational declaration, the Russians were far more advanced than the US in space technology. Within earth orbit yes, but they didn’t have Saturn V, the rocket that was able to launch a spacecraft out of earth orbit – their rockets blew up, making moon landings a bit of a non-starter for them. When you look at the false flags/staged events of 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston/Manchester/Mogadishu bombings, Brussels, Orlando, Westminster, London Bridge, Jo Cox murder, Paris x2, Nice, Berlin Truck, Mumbai attacks, Melbourne donut guy, and on and on and on and f*king on, the “official story” crumbles so very easily. In many cases, all you have to do is a Google Image Search and see that the images do not match the story at all. In the case of the Mogadishu truck bombings, which, as far as I can tell, no one on the internet is calling a hoax, I simply did a Google Image Search and saw so very clearly that there was absolutely zero suggesting the deaths of 500 people and some of the bandaging is very obviously faked.

      We went to the moon, StAug, and it was an amazing achievement. To me, it’s like the boy who cried wolf. We’re lied to so very much we believe everything is a lie. So very much is, but not that. The Moon Machines series comprising videos on six elements (rocket, command module, lunar module, lunar rover, spacesuit and navigation computer) is absolutely fascinating (youtube.com/watch?v=mucb4Ttt1oY&list=PLTu8nanTJo7GvulBxz9JT9JcXeXimM1Vr ) and the channel Vintage Space youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg ) has a lot of fascinating tidbits on the Apollo program. There is no way in the world that, for example, you could fake the conversations of astronauts talking on the moon. They are most definitely unfakeable. People who think we didn’t go to the moon are missing an astounding piece of human history, they really are. Please watch some videos on it.

      Like

      • “We went to the moon, StAug, and it was an amazing achievement.”

        Nah. I have an extensive background in the physical sciences, FG. The sheer enormousness of the achievement of making a roundtrip journey to the moon with living payloads was far beyond 1969 technology, and it’s still beyond 2017 technology, as NASA has admitted. Most people don’t understand the extreme hazard, for living things, of passing , unshielded, through the Van Allen Belts, and then being bathed in cosmic radiation on the surface of the Moon: adequate shielding would be too heavy. Not to mention the hazards of being pelted with micrometeorites; it would only take one strike by a pebble-sized bullet to decompress a spacesuit or the “lunar module” itself. The improbability of being able to take one decent photo with a chest-mounted camera, with no view-finder, containing film that’s alternately exposed to near-absolute zero cold, and +270 degree F temps, while also being bathed in x-rays… yet producing thousands of studio-quality shots… is enough of a tip-off. Or the eerie soundlessness of the supposed landing: so these guys are literally sitting inches above a rocket engine exerting 80k pounds of thrust as they’re landing, but all we hear is their speech transmissions to “mission control”? Yes, the surface of the Moon is a soundless vacuum… but not the interior of the module. There should have been a deafening roar, not pleasant chit chat. And then there’s the strange footage of the bad Hollywood effect of the lunar module launching from the Moon to rendezvous (flawlessly) with the command module: the movie camera following the module’s ascent is supposedly being radio-controlled: no lag? Again: that amazing 1960s tech, when “super computers” had the computational capacity of digital watches. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves: why would astronauts in 1/6th Earth gravity appear to be floating about in slo-mo, when, since weighing only about 60 pounds including their packs, their limbs should be moving even faster than than on Earth? Why not footage of astronauts jumping ten-feet high? Why is the footage of dust being kicked up b the “lunar rover” (more incredible tech: how did they fit the rover, in a compartment roughly the size of two phone booths, with two grown men?) suspiciously similar to what you’d expect to see of dust being kicked up in Earth gravity, in Earth atmosphere?

        Oh: and: why hasn’t any industrial nation been second to claim the prize? You mean Germany/ China/ UK/ Russia/ India/ Japan/ France still can’t catch up to that amazing American ’60s tech? Why haven’t we been “back”? Why did NASA admit that “we” still haven’t solved the shielding problems? Why hasn’t the US, or anyone else, even been further out in space than the roughly 400 miles of the space station (which I believe is not faked)? 400 miles versus 237,000 miles… that’s one helluva gap, Flax Girl.

        To recap: you think that a highrise made of shoddy material, full of “useless eaters”, catching fire and killing lots of Serfs is less probable than NAZA’s (amazing how Von Braun went from a Nazi rocket scientist who exploited slave labor to a hero with a slide rule in the segregated south) supposed series of nearly-flawless, and unrepeatable Russkie-topping miracles, at the height of the Cold War.

        Sorry, but the irony is a bit too much, man! Laugh. Gus Grissom was executed for threatening to expose the Apollo program as a sham; and the NASA analyst who investigated Grissom’s claims and prepared
        a serious report on all that was hit by a train (not joking) and the damning report disappeared… along with all the recordings of technical data from the program. You’re aware of the fact that the images of the “live” footage was filmed from a TV screen and only then broadcast to the world, right? Hilarious. Just like Holland’s “Moon rock”… which turned out to be petrified wood.

        Nah. When you write “it was an amazing achievement” you sound shockingly wide-eyed, Flax Girl. Ditto when you write: “There is no way in the world that, for example, you could fake the conversations of astronauts talking on the moon.”

        Hmmmm.

        Like

          • @StAug: “why hasn’t any industrial nation been second to claim the prize [of sending a man to the moon]? You mean Germany/ China/ UK/ Russia/ India/ Japan/ France”
            Because Germany China Russia & Japan had better things to do: production of goods which people actually wanted and were willing to pay for while Great Britain though too poor to waste public money on the scale of Kennedy’s Moondoggle neverless aped the master by foolish military expenditure like Trident and invading small countries to steal their resources when UK Ltd could have imitated Germany, Japan, China & Russia to buy said resources by offering honest goods at an honest price.

            Like

            • “Because Germany China Russia & Japan had better things to do”

              Ah, those sensible governments and all their sensible politicians! Yet, space programs (eg the ISS) of some sort continued; you’d think the exponentially-more-powerful tech would make a robot-trip to the Moon’s surface possible for Japan, at least. And Mars programs of some sort continue to be mentioned… it’s just the (much nearer than Mars) Moon we’re bored with, I guess. BTW: let’s see some of those amazing high-res satellite images of all that hardware the US left on the Moon… I keep reading about it, but I never actually see it… all I ever see are arrows pointing at specks! We have spy-camera technology that can read your license plate from the stratosphere, but no convincing images of that noble old tinfoil-and-tar paper “lunar module” and dune buggy set! Dammit! Laugh

              Like

              • PS Here’s something about Japan’s not-sensible Space Program: in 2019, they hope to achieve a “soft landing” on the Moon’s surface with a robot probe… in preparation for sending humans! Holy Shit, those Americans were so smart in the 1960s! With laughably primitive tech, they did in big-assed, fearless, patriotism-stoking leaps what Japan, with 21st century tech, is still painstakingly struggling to replicate half a century later! Makes a Yankee expat proud: we were gods back then!

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

                Like

                  • Admin: why are they “fun”? Do you mean “fun” as in “kooky”? If we relate 9/11 to “JFK” is that also “off topic”?

                    I’d argue that “JFK” is only of current interest at all to the extent that the Illusions are all connected… the brainwashing interlocks. To dismantle the Wall of Propaganda/ Brainwashing, removing the larger bricks from any particular part of the Wall is useful. And to examine our own brainwashing, we need to be frank in confronting our individual responses re: which theories are to be taken seriously while others are dismissed with a chuckle.

                    “Apollo” and “Sandy Hook” and, possibly, “Boston Bombing” would appear to be less “okay” to address than “JFK”, “9/11” and “ISIS”. Why? Plenty of credible evidence to go around.

                    “Flat Earth” was weaponized to taint all parapolitical research; pushing back isn’t possible if we do our own TFIC-supporting demonization of certain topics, IMO.

                    I made a passing reference to “Apollo” in my “JFK” comments and commenters responded, so I defended my passing reference… it was nothing more disruptive than that, surely.

                    Like

                  • @Admin. I introduced the Moondoggle on Nov 19 because nobody else seemed to mention this aspect of Kennedy’s hubris. Even at its inception in the 60s, scientists were saying that robots and space cameras would be cheaper and do a better job of gathering data; and economists were calculating how many schools and hospitals etc could have been built with those public funds. “We shall go anywhere, pay any price …”. For what?

                    Like

                    • “For what?”

                      A hyper-patriotic congressional funding bonanza, most of which could go in a nice fat Black Budget, perhaps? Imagine how big this Black Budget must have grown the day after Rummy gave his famous “war on Pentagon waste” speech! I forget the exact date…

                      Like

                    • Didn’t they have enough black budget with all the CIA drug and arms running? Are you messin’: Rummy’s speech was the day before the big one – 9/10!

                      Like

          • I read Dave McGowan’s Wagging the Moondoggie (love the title), St Aug and while I agree with lots of other stuff he’s written and that he also writes compellingly about the “moon hoax”, he’s simply wrong. Just watch Moon Machines and if you still think we didn’t go, fair enough, there’s nothing more I can say on the matter. You might also find snippets on Vintage Space interesting, eg, Verbs, Nouns, and the Apollo Guidance Computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8S_T772H1c.

            Like

            • Fg: this demonstrates how vulnerable The Masses are to Propaganda/ Brainwashing when the Masses have been deliberately under-educated by The State. Your logic, math and science are not adequate to this discussion. Also quite weird how intermittently trusting you are of The State (or whatever System) that you normally distrust in all things by default.

              On the last phase of the supposed mission the “command module” was supposedly travelling at something like 2km/sec… the “lunar module” was something like 3,000kg and it had to dock with an object travelling at 2km/sec with zero margin for error, using fire-extinguisher-like RCS “course correction” gas jets for steering; the sheer number of super-precise real time course-correction commands (of precise duration and thrust) would have had to be well beyond the speed and scope of such primitive computers working with lagging radar feedback; how many operations per second were they capable of, in parallel? For sending a ballistic missile to a general target: sure. If you want to understand the real limits of Apollo rocket technology, you need to have a general idea of the history of the ICBM; War is Uncle Sam’s meat and potatoes, after all and NASA tech is War Tech. The most accurate ICBM (guided missile) was probably the “Midgetman” of 1991… with a range of 7,000 miles and a CEP (circular error probable) of “90 meters”. Close enough for horseshoes, as they say… and that was the high point of computer-guided trajectory control in 1991… leagues beyond 1969… and is that figure for accuracy even true?

              Golly-Gee YouTube Propaganda Videos for Ignorant Teens (clever move having a young hipster hottie delivering the propaganda) are probably good enough for covering up the absurdity of the proposition that ’60s tech could either pre-plot this maneuver flawlessly (and pull it off in less than three hours, and do so for 6 missions in three years with only one minor hiccup) … or direct it from Earth-based computers (with radar feedback)… or from a computer on the “lunar module” (or perhaps a good ole boy with a joystick pulled the whole thing off?) but anyone who isn’t scientifically/ technologically ignorant, or brainwashed, or both, can only chuckle at this fairy tale…. which is precisely on par with the “magic bullet” fairy tale and the “steel-frame building collapses in footprint from jet fuel fire” fairy tale and all the rest. The video you link to talks around the crux of the matter by going into a tertiary detail (ie the interface). It’s called a “strawman” argument.

              And why is someone bothering to produce videos to “confirm” NASA’s myths for kids? Because they are doubling down on the propaganda. They know that (again) if one of the Big Propaganda Fantasies falls apart, they all do.

              Which is why Christianity is still the necessary irrational undercoating for any citizen of the Murrkkan Empire: if they can get you (consciously or subconsciously) to buy the super-absurd Jesus story at a young age, your relationship with Logic/Facts is seriously (maybe permanently) compromised already.

              I guess we pick and choose the bullshit we fall for. Me, I opt to believe that poor people probably died in the Grenfell Tower fire… as crazy as that sounds to you! It takes all kinds, dude.

              But we’d better stop now before we get another caution….

              SA

              Like

              • Yes, we should stop, but just quickly, as I said, I judge by the evidence and the evidence shows, regardless of seeming impossibilities, that we went to the moon just as it shows that Grenfell was staged. Why don’t you just try watching Moon Machines – you can always stop if you think the videos are rubbish.

                Like

                • @flaxgirl. Like you, I believe that Yankee boots have trod on Lunar soil. And I agree with Admin that the objective validity of this belief is “off topic” except insofar as the Moondoggle was profferred as an example of extravagance at the Court of Camelot; whether all that public money was spent on a real Man in the Moon or a fake one, spent it undoubtedly was.

                  Like

          • wimblepole says

            Jarrah White’s channel is a very interesting place to begin looking into the Moon landings. His videos are a sincere exploration by a dedicated young man, and it’s also touching to chart his technological progression (scientifically, experimentally and as a youtuber) throughout the years. He is actually studying astrophysics at University at present I believe.

            His videos are genuine, a bit quirky and unpolished (particularly to begin with), but you get an overriding feeling that this is a person free of vanity or pride who has no choice but to deal with the truth as he sees it.

            He is my “control” on this issue. Increasingly there are more and more people on both sides of the debate with undisclosed agendas… One minute someone’s talking sense about a plausible alternative take on something…. and the next they’re discussing flat-earth science. Are they there purely to discredit and misdirect a proper discussion?? Who knows.

            Anyway, I’ve never had any notion Jarrah White had an agenda other than an earnest desire to shine a light on the Moon Landings. Plus he has loads of videos, all meticulously credited and researched. I have a lot of respect for the guy.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Yeah, White’s material always seemed good to me, too. Which is rare… the field, as I say, is flooded with Disinfo. And now they’ve poisoned it with “Flat Earth” bullshit (an admitted master-stroke of anti-Truth from TFIC)…

              Like

        • “Nah. I have an extensive background in the physical sciences, FG.”

          There is so much false information here that you are obviously lying. I doubt you even took a 1st year physics course, like Statics or Dynamics. Everything you stated as been debunked, millions of times online. But let’s do it again.

          “Most people don’t understand the extreme hazard, for living things, of passing , unshielded, through the Van Allen Belts, and then being bathed in cosmic radiation on the surface of the Moon: adequate shielding would be too heavy.”

          Nonsense: These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth’s magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through in a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray.

          The actual amount of radiation received by the Apollo astronauts during their passage through the van Allen belts is estimated to be about 2 rems (or 20 milli-Sieverts). In comparison, a modern chest X-ray will deliver about 10-20 millirems
          to the subject, radiation doses from background radiation (cosmic rays,
          radon, uranium deposits, etc.) for the average human living on Earth is
          on the order of 100 millirems per year, and annual doses for people
          working around radiation (for example, X-ray technicians, nuclear power
          plant workers, etc.) can range up to 0.4 rems per year. The “maximum
          permissible dose” for radiation workers on Earth is 5 rems per year or
          25 rems in a single emergency exposure. So, 2 rems is certainly a lot, but by no
          means would it cause instant death or illness. And in fact is most
          likely to cause no noticeable immediate or long term effects.

          “Not to mention the hazards of being pelted with micrometeorites; it would only take one strike by a pebble-sized bullet to decompress a spacesuit or the “lunar module” itself. ”

          This is completely false. A pebble can do damage, but that depends on the size. Here is a photo of what a tiny fleck of paint from an old satellite did after it struck one of the windows of the space shuttle. The crater it left in the shuttle’s window was about half an inch wide:

          https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b4e101853496d96b281f33763a197b42-c

          You can see that the Shuttle was not completely destroyed at all. Further, many spacecraft have spent decades in space, like the Voyager 1 and 2, without being struck by large pebbles. This is a matter of probability: it is unlikely that a spacecraft will be hit by a random pebble in space. Again, taking the Voyageur example, why didn’t it collide with a large pebble in all these decades? Basic probability. The Oort cloud has a diameter of about 10^5 astronomical Units, so a volume of about 10^1 5AU^3. It contains about 10^12 objects, so the average distance between objects is about 1000 AU. That’s ENORMOUS, making the probability of an object hitting another object extremely low.

          “The improbability of being able to take one decent photo with a chest-mounted camera, with no view-finder, containing film that’s alternately exposed to near-absolute zero cold, and +270 degree F temps, while also being bathed in x-rays… yet producing thousands of studio-quality shots… is enough of a tip-off.”

          The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and poses were planned in advance as part of the mission. NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo astronauts. All photos taken on the surface of the Moon by the astronauts can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.

          Both built around the Hasselblad 500EL body, these two cameras featured a mostly-automated process, thanks largely in part to the electronic motor. The astronauts needed only to set the distance, aperture, and shutter speed. Once the shutter was pressed, the frame was exposed, the film was wound to the next frame, and the shutter was reset. Other features present to these two cameras was the use of special-designed locks for the film magazines, levers for the aperture and distance settings and featured a simple sighting ring, rather than a reflex mirror viewfinder.

          Regarding the temperature and camera gear: the first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface. There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them.

          Most equipment (including photographic and television cameras)
          was designed with special protective measures so as to allow them to
          operate properly in the Moon’s harsh environment. As for equipment
          and photographic film, the radiation on the Moon was not high enough
          to damage (or even fog) film to any perceptible degree, and most other
          equipment is much more rugged than photographic film.

          “Or the eerie soundlessness of the supposed landing: so these guys are literally sitting inches above a rocket engine exerting 80k pounds of thrust as they’re landing, but all we hear is their speech transmissions to “mission control”? Yes, the surface of the Moon is a soundless vacuum… but not the interior of the module. There should have been a deafening roar, not pleasant chit chat.”

          Obviously there’s no air and thus no sound outside the craft, and on Earth, almost all of a rocket’s noise comes from shearing action between the exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere. With that taken out of the equation, rockets are much more peaceful. Significant vibration did transfer through the structure to the astronauts during descent, but comparatively little noise. In any case, their microphones were inside their insulating helmets, mounted close to their mouths, with audio patterns designed to pick up only extremely close sounds. There is no reason to expect their voices would have been drowned out by rocket noise.

          “And then there’s the strange footage of the bad Hollywood effect of the lunar module launching from the Moon to rendezvous (flawlessly) with the command module: the movie camera following the module’s ascent is supposedly being radio-controlled: no lag?”

          The television camera communicated from Earth using a high-gain antenna on the rover, but there was a slight time delay for the radio waves to travel (a couple of seconds) between the Earth and the Moon. So the engineers suggested moving the rover a certain distance from the lunar module and setting the camera to automatically tilt to show the lunar liftoff when commanded from Earth. That was the plan, at least. On Apollo 15, the tilt mechanism malfunctioned and the camera never moved upwards, allowing the lunar module to slip out of sight. And while the attempt on Apollo 16 gave a longer view of the lunar module rising up, the astronauts actually parked the rover too close to it, which threw off the calculations and timing of the tilt upwards so it left view just a few moments into the flight.

          Ed Fendall was the person doing the controlling. In an oral history for NASA done in 2000, he recalled how complex the procedure was:

          “Now, the way that worked was this. Harley Weyer, who worked for me, sat down and figured what the trajectory would be and where the lunar rover would be each second as it moved out, and what your settings would go to. That picture you see was taken without looking at it [the liftoff] at all. There was no watching it and doing anything with that picture. As the crew counted down, that’s a [Apollo] 17 picture you see, as [Eugene] Cernan counted down and he knew he had to park in the right place because I was going to kill him, he didn’t — and Gene and I are good friends, he’ll tell you that — I actually sent the first command at liftoff minus three seconds. And each command was scripted, and all I was doing was looking at a clock, sending commands. I was not looking at the television. I really didn’t see it until it was over with and played back. Those were just pre-set commands that were just punched out via time. That’s the way it was followed.”

          More info:

          https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/leaving-moon-watching-home

          “Again: that amazing 1960s tech, when “super computers” had the computational capacity of digital watches.”

          That was enough computing power to perform the tasks required. Even a digital watch can perform many operations per second. The CPU microarchitecture and original source code have all been released. As someone with a background in computer engineering, I can say that there is nothing fake about this at all. The instruments were powerful enough to do the job.

          “But we’re getting ahead of ourselves: why would astronauts in 1/6th Earth gravity appear to be floating about in slo-mo, when, since weighing only about 60 pounds including their packs, their limbs should be moving even faster than than on Earth?”

          This proves you have zero knowledge about physics. This is such a basic misunderstanding of a simple topic. If the force of gravity is weaker, then you will be less attracted to the planetary mass and therefore, float. Why would you be able to move faster?

          “Why not footage of astronauts jumping ten-feet high?”

          Why “ten-feet”? The astronauts jumped high enough. When the astronauts walked on the Moon, they were wearing bulky, restrictive, 200 pound suits. Any jumping they did was limited at best.

          The Moon has about one sixth the gravity of Earth, so the naïve guess would be you could jump six times higher than on Earth. Things are somewhat more complicated than that. When you jump on Earth you have to expend a certain amount of energy to overcome gravity as you are jumping. Once your feet leave the ground you are in free-fall until you land again. The height of the jump depends on gravity and the speed at which you can propel yourself upwards (because of the slow speeds involved you can safely ignore air resistance). However, calculating the speed at which you leave the ground depends on many things: how strong your legs are, how much mass you have and how strong gravity is. When you move from the Earth to the Moon only the gravity changes. Your legs are the same and your mass is the same. What you have to do is calculate how much faster you leave the ground to find out how high you will go.

          “Why is the footage of dust being kicked up b the “lunar rover” (more incredible tech: how did they fit the rover, in a compartment roughly the size of two phone booths, with two grown men?) suspiciously similar to what you’d expect to see of dust being kicked up in Earth gravity, in Earth atmosphere?”

          Regarding the dust, it actually proves that the footage was taken on the moon and not the Earth, due to the unique way in which the dust was kicked up. Here’s a photo of the dust trail:

          https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/325_1x_/public/import/2014/Grand%20Prix%20Still.png?itok=5kepjL9v

          Tracking the movement of the dust cloud clearly shows characteristic rooster tails and not the simple parabolic arc of a dust cloud we would see produced by a rover driving through, say, dust on Earth. This specific rooster tail shape is contingent on the lunar environment: the initial velocity of dust particles based on the rover’s speed, the gravitational field strength that is one-sixth what we have on Earth, and the complete lack of air resistance because the Moon has no appreciable atmosphere.

          Not only that, but some researchers even plotted the trajectories of dust particles on Earth, taking into account air resistance, and compared with how it would be on the moon:

          https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=5&con=proof-we-landed-on-the-moon-is-in-the-dust#page-3

          Regarding fitting the rover into the spacecraft: these photographs show, the LRV folded to fit within Quad 1 of the lunar module:

          Here’s a diagram of the descent stage; the LRV was folded into a wedge shape so it could fit into Quad 1:

          Here’s a diagram, taken from the Apollo 15 Press Kit, which shows how it was unfolded:

          “Oh: and: why hasn’t any industrial nation been second to claim the prize? You mean Germany/ China/ UK/ Russia/ India/ Japan/ France still can’t catch up to that amazing American ’60s tech? Why haven’t we been “back”?”

          Simple. Because it was extremely expensive and a drain on resources. In 1966, NASA’s budget was a whopping 4.41% of GDP! To put that into perspective, it would be as if NASA’s current budget was $818 Billion! It’s insanely expensive. Right now, NASA’s budget is $18.4 billion, or about 45 times less relatively to its budget in 1966. Not many countries can muster this much money, even giants like Germany. China is planning on going to the moon, but it will take time. China has just recently caught up (it used to be decades behind the West in space), so this makes sense.

          “Why did NASA admit that “we” still haven’t solved the shielding problems?”

          I recall this video of a NASA engineer saying this and how it was misrepresented. It shows a profound (and common) misunderstanding of basic rules of engineering. Automakers do extensive testing of every new model before it goes into production. They test its performance in hot weather and cold, they crash test it, they run it through emissions tests, etc. By this logic, that would prove that automakers have never made cars before. That’s right: The automobile is a hoax. Doesn’t exist. You read it here first, folks. Or it could be that every time you build a new complex system you test the hell out of it, especially if you are NASA building a new space capsule. Space travel is hard, as you can see from the ongoing, regular failure of rockets and payloads. Given all the money and political pressures riding on NASA’s new SLS rocket & Orion capsule (not to mention the moral imperative of safeguarding the lives of the astronauts), it would be shocking—no, scandalous—if the agency did not perform extensive testing of its new hardware. And yes, that includes radiation testing, since we will be flying types of sensitive electronics that have never gone beyond the Van Allen belts before. Computer technology is a little different today than it was in 1969. Maybe you’ve noticed. Finally, if there really were a hoax (there wasn’t) and a cover-up (there wasn’t), how stupid would NASA have to be to put out a promotional video that loudly exposes the whole thing? An agency manages to silence tens of thousands of employees, pulls off the greatest act of deception in history, keeps it quiet for 50 years, then accidentally spills the beans in an official video that they stick on YouTube?

          “Why hasn’t the US, or anyone else, even been further out in space than the roughly 400 miles of the space station (which I believe is not faked)? 400 miles versus 237,000 miles… that’s one helluva gap, Flax Girl.”

          Ever heard of the Voyager probes? If you mean manned probes, then where else do you want humans to go? What is there in-between the Space Station and the Moon that humans can land on and explore? Nothing, the gap is big. And actually, humans are planning on landing on asteroids, but that’s extremely difficult and has only been done by an unmanned probe.

          “Gus Grissom was executed for threatening to expose the Apollo program as a sham; and the NASA analyst who investigated Grissom’s claims and prepared
          a serious report on all that was hit by a train (not joking) and the damning report disappeared… along with all the recordings of technical data from the program.”

          Executed? He died in a tragic accident, and as for the NASA analyst hit by a train… are you implying that this is was malicious death? If so, provide evidence. Nor did Grissom ever “threaten to expose the Apollo program as a sham.” This is entirely false, considering he worked on the program and had criticisms of it, but never said it was a “hoax.

          “You’re aware of the fact that the images of the “live” footage was filmed from a TV screen and only then broadcast to the world, right?”

          Yes. This is perfectly normal, considering the limited broadcast technology at the time.

          Liked by 2 people

            • I apologize, but I feel obliged to respond. My extended family members was involved in this project, so I feel great pain to see an arrogant know-nothing make such false claims.

              Like

              • “My extended family members was involved in this project, so I feel great pain to see an arrogant know-nothing make such false claims.”

                Ah, the old, “my step-brother’s ex-girlfriend was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon” argument! I never get tired of it… and it’s always equally persuasive. Your “furious” ad hominem is just a charming side benefit! Laugh.

                To get specific: if your extended family members were involved at some level, they were probably working in the compartmentalized ranks of the thousands who wouldn’t have had the top-level clearance to be in the know. That’s how these things work (I’m sure that quite a few servicemen of the era believed there was an actual “Gulf of Tonkin incident” to justify “our” official entry in the Vietnam War Crimes debacle).

                Like

                • They were engineers, so they were high up enough to understand what was and wasn’t possible from a technical standpoint.

                  Like

              • In a world of differing perspectives, why even try for a narrative agreement?
                The unifying purpose is not what we believe, so much as why we believe it.
                If we believe that (experience as if) others hurt our ‘beliefs’ – maybe that’s a sign we do not really believe them ourself – or rather – they are being used or masking other agenda that are nothing inherently to do with what the issue seems to be.
                Hurt feelings are not a basis for claiming rights (over others). But they can be a basis for seeking to be heard and not denied voice. In being heard we may find we shift perspective just through the telling.
                Giving honest witness to our own non-acceptance of another’s assertion can be just that – and not a war of wills over setting a definitive outcome – as if one could.

                In truth – it is all passing – but tangibly experienced and obviously meaningful in its moment or the experience could not arise. What is meaningful to who we think we are may be quite irrelevant to who we are the being of.
                When these two are in alignment, the mind is rested of the need to hold it all together.

                ‘All the king’s horses and all the king’s men – don’t need to put Humpty together again’.
                We all have our unique and overlapping perspective on a broken world.
                Perhaps uncovering the nature of it, is both a journey of discovery and an uncovering of common cause in what moves us – if not in the forms it takes.

                Like

                  • The nature of ‘unified purpose’ is not a mental construct but a tangible appreciation – and I do appreciate the synchronicity of such a shared recognition.
                    But I also note the very subject of ‘making special’ reveals itself in the ‘old wine bottles’ in which we habitually express the insight/recognition. “Best comment” – I take as most appreciated comment (to date). No criticism of the fact that ‘best’ came up – indeed gratitude for the serendipity of a living example.
                    Now I don’t ave to ponder all my ‘worse’ comments – or that once you hit a peak there’s only one direction…

                    My sense of engaging in a theme of shared consideration is that nothing is non-feedback – depending only on our filtering as to whether to recognize it. Dialogue honestly engaged is a practice in giving and receiving – in which they came come into balance – as a truly shared sense of worth – rather than attempts to assert or get a sense of worth – that then reinforce the sense of lack.

                    What I feel about the comment – was that it offers a key or a way in, where the attempt to find agreement in forms and symbols and meanings, is inherently filtering in terms of threat or support to our own thought system.

                    I see addiction or identification with our thoughts as a primary ‘conditioning’. Regardless the negatively polarised intent or conditioned actions of others, being able to watch or feel the quality of the thought that arises for me is freedom from reacting as if it is true. I may be moved by a true-felt quality and still come out in phrase or framing of habituated patterns of expression. So – always growing/learning an appreciation.

                    Like

                    • Sheesh! Only you would psychoanalyse a compliment! FWIW: you happened to say exactly what I was thinking – so exactly synchronous. Great minds? Or great mind!

                      Like

                    • I don’t analyze – I just notice or recognize. Analysis takes apart in order to construct a model of definition and control. When you gave the ‘touch in of an appreciation’ I felt it – and yet the form that you used is a great simple example of how are minds are predicated.
                      The use of the term best – is exactly illustrative of what you assign to ‘Them’. I don’t lump you with ‘Them’ – but I reflect to whoever notices, that I have seen the enemy and it is us! ‘Correctness’ seeks to enforce the form without free willingness, understanding or joining in real relationship. I watch the language that I use for my own freedom and sanity. For the corruption that issues from our own mouth (word or definition) is what actually works destruction. While quoting a bit of someone else who is in a sense more killed by ‘specialness’ than by crucifixion – he related directly with people regardless that others found them morally contemptible. But he was pointing to something their minds could only misinterpret – but the heart recognized.

                      Shared purpose, vibrational match, moved as one, synchronicity – there are lots of ways to point to – but I prefer to move away from the ‘better/worse’ of any personal sense or capacity.

                      My experience of mindfulness is no mind at all – or something like underwear.
                      Once you you’ve chosen your underwear and embrace your day, it disappears or is no longer requiring attention – unless of course it’s a bad fit – and therefore a poor choice.
                      “Outside in” approaches seek to put Humpty together again. An inside out movement is of a wholeness of being. The artist and the scientist need to work together. Heart and mind as one.

                      As for engaging in the human experience – its a mess! There’s no one who stands shiny and clean. But I also hold there is no personality structure that actually edits or changes or is destructive to the ‘Soul’ for want of a term that points to something prior to or outside of a focus in time and space.

                      I don’t go for ‘something greater than yourself’ as being clear enough – in terms of breaking the isolation of the ego-sense. I feel for something that truly embraces your sense of self – and which is felt or recognized in the act of extending a recognition of worth. Given appreciation – this will grow in its own terms. But weaponised and marketized – it is subverted to a personal sense of possession. Isn’t that what corporately driven technocracy is and does? Possession? Who in their right mind would trade their very joy in being for such a misery as – in our wrong mind – we do? Wrong-mindedness is learned, trained and habituated to run automatically – and is no foundation on which to stand or grow or build anything but its own persistence. But every instance of a true recognition – in whatever forms of relationship – illuminates more of a true foundation as the false falls away. Maybe that is not so rosy – because we are revealed in our deceits and ‘hidden’ hates come to light. But how else to re-evaluate but to re-vision.
                      Rosy visions can help to hide thorny entanglements – but a true bloom rises out of their honest acceptance – and ‘revisioning’ from no attempt to untangle it.
                      I cant force or make you or anyone ‘see’ anything – and in that I celebrate my own freedom 😉
                      And extend it to my relationships that then witness a different quality than disappointment – but that does not mean I don’t miss the fullness of shared creative endeavour when walking the world of the consumed.
                      JFK became associated with a choice that the world did not accept – at that time. But real choices are only deferred – never escaped. Pumping good lives into a bad investment will never raise what never truly lived.

                      Like

              • Not all parts. Some parts of my extended (not immediate) family are from the U.S. Granted, they’re kind of far removed from me (maybe not even blood relatives), but still…

                Like

          • Oh, good, a professional Nasa-Hoax-Debunker-Shill. Snore. Save it for YouTube, chum. Do you do the 9/11 Popular Mechanics Drill, too ?

            Like

          • Actually, there is so much demonstrable bullshit in your “rebuttal” that I’m tempted to take the whole thing apart, line by line… but this whole conversation is officially dangerously off-topic and the mods will be in here with whips any minute. But I do take back my assertion that you’re a “professional debunker”… I’d only glanced at your comment then; it turns out your arguments are too unformed (burning-straw man-fueled) and largely silly for that. Take, eg, “Why “ten-feet”? The astronauts jumped high enough. When the astronauts walked on the Moon, they were wearing bulky, restrictive, 200 pound suits. Any jumping they did was limited at best.” Erm… 1/6th gravity? Ring a bell? 30 lunar-pounds space suit? Earth muscles…? Or the fact that Japan is committed to attempting a manned Moon landing (when they invent the tech, of course), and I never claimed Grissom used the word “hoax”… he merely asserted that the project would never get off the ground (and his son and widow believe he was murdered); or take your blithe dismissal of the hazards of radiation above the lower limits of the Van Allen Belts:

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-radiation-is-risky-business-for-the-human-body

            Like

            • That you did not address my other points is not because of a fear of the mods, but because you have no rebuttal. Any person reading my response will understand that. And that you rely on rude insults makes you even more suspect.

              But let us address the points you mentioned in your above post, because it’s clearly the best that you have:

              “Erm… 1/6th gravity? Ring a bell? 30 lunar-pounds space suit? Earth muscles…?”

              If the astronauts wore those space suits on Earth, how high do you think they could jump? Between their body mass and the space suits, we’re looking at ~350 pounds of person. Such a person, wearing suits equal to or more than their weight, if we are generous, could jump a foot in the air. Multiply that by six and you get 6 ft. Thus, I ask you: why did you choose “ten-feet”?

              Now let’s use some basic math.

              If you push down on a moon-sized body with your legs, the moon will push back up with all the force you can provide. What happens when one jumps?”When you jump, you bend your knees, and rapidly straighten them. As you are straightening, your muscles are pushing down on the ground, and the normal force is pushing up, and that force accelerates your center of mass upwards. So long as you are touching the ground, that force continues to accelerate you upwards, which is why jumpers rotate their feet to keep the ground in contact with their toes as long as they can.

              Imagine a gym on the moon. The height of the jump is given by conservation of energy: mgh = Fd, or h = Fd/mg. When one goes to the moon, the variable g is 1/6 as big, but d is also smaller, because the moment when one’s feet leave the ground is sooner. So instead of h being 6 times as large, it’s maybe only 2 or 3 times as large. Now, instead of a gym, put on a bulky suit. The A7L weighed about the same as an astronaut. So m doubles, so now the maximum jump height is only slightly above what one could do in gym shorts on the earth.

              “Or the fact that Japan is committed to attempting a manned Moon landing (when they invent the tech, of course)”

              And what of it? Japan is working with India to do this. This does not disprove anything I said. This is the best you could come up with?

              “and I never claimed Grissom used the word “hoax”… he merely asserted that the project would never get off the ground (and his son and widow believe he was murdered);”

              Right. And I have debunked all your points, line by line. The moon landings were real, Grissom had criticisms of the project, and he died in a tragic accident, which you are trying to use as a very weak point to “prove” the moon landings were “faked.”

              “or take your blithe dismissal of the hazards of radiation above the lower limits of the Van Allen Belts”

              The article you linked is a generic article written by NASA about the effects of space radiation on the human body. Once again, this does not disprove anything I stated, nor does it prove that it’s impossible or hard to get though the Van Allen Belts without being severely affected by radiation.

              Liked by 1 person

              • 1) re: “ten feet” vs “six feet”: that’s just a quibble, isn’t it? Six will more than do. The occasional six foot vertical hop would certainly have sold the illusion (that they were actually on the Moon) better than running the film a bit slow (or fast, sometimes), which is what they did; that an peter-panning them from wires here and there. Filming a monitor and broadcasting that degraded image (instead of broadcasting a relayed signal) also added to the “other worldly” feeling (btw: NAZA claimed that the video monitor was filmed owing to incompatible technical differences between NAZA and civilian equipment). The problem is, their SFX were as primitive as the technology of the era, and there are moments in the “lunar” vids during which you can see light glinting off the peter-pan-wires they sometimes used to make them appear lunar-weight; there’s even footage of an “astronaut” (or “astronaught”?) losing his footing, stumbling forward and making a forward-and-upwards recovery only possible if he were hung from wires. I will find that footage and post links to it.

                2) “And what of it? Japan is working with India to do this. This does not disprove anything I said.”

                It disproves your assertion that no nation since the Apollo Propaganda Op was foolish enough to spend money trying to get to the Moon “second”. Imagine the prestige. And it really will be a breakthrough when some team finally makes it.

                3) “The moon landings were real, Grissom had criticisms of the project, and he died in a tragic accident, which you are trying to use as a very weak point to “prove” the moon landings were “faked.”

                Grissom’s son goes to great lengths to prove that his father was assassinated for failing to play ball with NAZA. It appears there was a deliberate short-circuit set up to trigger a fire. I will provide links to any of Grissom Jrs work (if it’s still up/ available).

                4) “The article you linked is a generic article written by NASA about the effects of space radiation on the human body”

                Whether or not the article is “generic,” I cited it to prove that NASA itself takes the issue of “space radiation” more seriously than you do. It’s one of the reasons that nobody has put men or women beyond the Van Allen Belts: too dangerous. As are the hazards of micrometeorite bombardment, another issue being studied by NAZA and private sector Space-Racers who hope to be “second” (aka First) on The Moon.

                More in about 40 minutes…

                Like

                • ” I cited it to prove that NASA itself takes the issue of “space radiation” more seriously than you do. ”

                  But then there is this .pdf file from NASA that ‘proves’ that NASA doesn’t take the ‘generic radiation issue’ as seriously as you do:

                  The Deadly Van Allen Belts?

                  Like

                  • Norm, I cited a propaganda source (NAZA) to prove that even they, the founding fathers of the Apollo Myth, at some point, admitted to the radiation problem. If NAZA has reversed its policy regarding any of its propaganda, what of it? One would assume that they’ve decided to go on the offensive. It seemed, a few years back, that there were glimmers that NAZA was loosening the grip on the Myth… maybe a new generation of Higher-Ups (in the know) were agitating for a Sunlight Policy. That trend seems to have reversed itself post-Cass Sunstein… and esp. after the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (in 2012?).

                    Like

                  • But, regarding your input here, Norm, I’ve come to the conclusion that you have a Normative Compulsion that is nearly reactionary, and pushes you beyond the license provided by “evidence” or reason. I stumbled a while back across a comment of yours regarding the video of the Philando Castile shooting… at American Everyman… and I found you arguing at length against the possibility that the shooting was a hoax. Which is fair enough… I can’t tell if it was or not… but what I caught you doing is describing “proof,” in the video, that “debunks” the “hoaxers”… and what you are “describing” can’t actually be seen in the video. You wrote:

                    “Nothing in that video looks fake to me. That man is dying. Do you see the eyes blinking? Does he close his eyes? No on both counts. That is exactly how it goes down. Also, notice the movement of his jaw in the brief shot that we get as he slowly sinks down to his left. That’s quite typical of mammals in their last spasms, for the jaw to jut in that manner.”

                    Neither of those “telling details” can be seen in the video… we don’t see more than a fraction of his face for more than a second and a half… it’s an old propaganda technique (like OJ and the glove that “didn’t fit”): you’re telling people what to see. I don’t think you’re a shill… but I think that your Normative Compulsion does too much of your talking in these “debates”. So, forgive me if I conserve my resources and lay out my case (To be Resolved: The Apollo “Triumphs” Were A Cold War Hoax) without rebutting your comments specifically.

                    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/falcon-heights-shooting-video-was-this-staged-yeah-it-was/#comment-115758

                    Like

                    • “But, regarding your input here, Norm, I’ve come to the conclusion that you have a Normative Compulsion that is nearly reactionary, and pushes you beyond the license provided by “evidence” or reason.”

                      Right. Because I wrote something somewhere else totally unrelated to this discussion that to your mind proves that I’m a wily and crafty disinformation artist. And somehow or other that discussion is part of my contribution here. How utterly disingenuous of me.

                      “So, forgive me if I conserve my resources and lay out my case (To be Resolved: The Apollo “Triumphs” Were A Cold War Hoax) without rebutting your comments specifically.”

                      Oh, you are forgiven, Steve, for conserving whatever resources you may have left and not rebutting anything at all, specifically or otherwise. For it’s quite obvious that you are now percolating on little more than preciously scant fumes.

                      But if I may plead on your behalf, on behalf of what little of your dignity might remain, would it not be better for you to desist from further laying out your case, given the degree to which it has already become self-rebutting and self-discrediting?

                      Like

                • So: ignore the silly music and the channel itself, possibly… I don’t have time to vet all of its content… (there is SO much Disinfo spread about, and genuine info tainted by proximity to nonsense, that it takes serious patience to sift through the junk to mine good info): watching a minute of this should get you wondering a few things. This aggregates a bit of the NASA content I’ve seen that undermines the illusion (was an insider leaving these as a clue?):

                  Like

                    • And if you don’t have much time to read lots of text: a reasonably quick and un-tacky video for illuminating the many problems and errors built into the Apollo-Myth Photo Campaign:

                      Like

                  • (and I fully expect that NAZA will have to deal with this “suspended by wires” footage, by claiming, eventually, that it was a “training exercise”… which will be problematic as an alibi, essentially admitting that there was a secret, and enormous, Moon-simulating set on a sound-stage that was impossible to distinguish from footage they will need to continue to assert is “genuine”)

                    Like

                    • Detail of interest #3 (NAZA could not have anticipated, back in 1969, the crowd-sourced tool of analysis that the Internet can be, nor the widespread civilian use of photo-analysis software; perhaps they didn’t even anticipate an official policy maintaining the Apollo Hoax well into the 21st century… perhaps they assumed that “we” would already be really on The Moon by now…

                      http://www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htm

                      Like

                    • I’ve seen a similar argument for Hiroshimo and Nagasaki – that in fact they were firebombed and the psyop ran – enforced by penalty on free speech. Some take this all the way to the idea that ‘nukes are not real!’. (Well what exactly is ‘real’!). But it may be that they were not actually ready in time – but were needed to set a vital framing to the post WW2 world order. (Which is more likely to be the driving of technology than about domination per se – though useful psychopathic traits can serve purpose no doubt). A controlled study of N & H survivors in the last few years showed only about 6 months to a year shortening of life in those exposed to the radiation compared to a control group of Japanese from much further away, (roughly as I recall). I also note the abundance of healthy wildlife in Chernobyl contrasting to the media hyped horror.
                      What you actually believe is indicated (fed back to you) by your reaction. many receiving an AIDS or cancer diagnosis were effectively killed by the nocebo and ‘treatment’. The mind is powerful – even to the extent of believing itself powerless and dying under its own belief. The ‘powerless mind’ is then not actually the true of mind – but a virtual representation of masking definitions lived as real.
                      To mind only thought is tangible. That’s it!
                      But the individuality is of a whole in all its parts. You cant square this within the physical framework. You can only live your experience through your current (conscious or unconscious beliefs and definitions) – and grow what you truly prefer – as a congruency and coherence of being. Instead of driven by fear, denial and problem framing.

                      What to be-live and why?
                      The loss of power or truth or love is motivation for the search for it and the attempt to get it by inappropriate means – because you cant get what you never really lost from outside yourself. But in energetic relationship the nature of the polarities can be embraced instead of battled. Right against wrong or good v bad is a subjection. But true and false is in the realm of a direct recognition.

                      I hold that to release investment in the subjection of the true under an ‘alien will’ calls for the willingness to question everything we believe in this world. In that sense – the deconstruction of ‘reality’ serves the desire to know the truth. But there is no truth in a world framed by the wish to ‘rule’ it. For what is judgement but the ruling out or rejection and invalidation of what does not fit your image of reality? Is this power? or mind-control by which the mind is ‘captured’ or entrained to its own private sense of isolation and ‘rightness’ – even to the defence of its own negative self judgements against an embracing communication of true acceptance.

                      Like

                    • PS A “down-vote” is not a rebuttal! But wouldn’t life be nice if it were? Laugh. The video you “don’t like” is unambiguously damning of NAZA. I’ve argued with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists (well, not all at once) who were trying to convert me… and I know that attempting a counter-conversion of Believers is well nigh impossible. I make my case… and leave this info… for the genuinely curious and undecided. That’s why I bother to comment at all, on such matters. Believers don’t budge, they double-down. So be it!

                      Like

                    • Whatever, Binra. Your function is to pop up, from the cozy little foxhole of over-elaborated, zero-sum gibberish, from time to time, and take a potshot… and you do it well! The Yin and Yang of pseudo-above-itness! Beautiful… especially for muddying the waters! Laugh.

                      Now please look at the video of the “astronauts” on obvious wires, scampering about. I believe My Own Eyes: to that I plead more-than guilty. But I don’t Believe in Myths, Legends, Gurus, Religions and/or Imperial Propaganda. You may consider disbelief a kind of Belief but you’d be wrong in many cases… wherever your Word Salads lead you.

                      Like

                    • I am not very invested which moonshots are fake or whether they all are – that wasn’t driving my point.
                      If you want to assert that there is only one possible view – and that is yours – then you limit yourself.
                      If I am not joining in your frame of intent you see it as muddying the waters – because you are only looking for what you want to find?
                      As you recently indicated – when someone is in an invested belief – there is no getting through – they just buckle down. You may as well be on the Moon 😉

                      Like

                    • “I am not very invested which moonshots are fake or whether they all are…”

                      Of course you aren’t, because those are Reality-Based Questions. You prefer circular word games. That’s your Brand.

                      “If you want to assert that there is only one possible view – and that is yours – then you limit yourself.”

                      Let’s apply the blowtorch of Logic to the used Kleenex of that comment: are you suggesting that it would be more enlightened of me to hold a view, and its opposite, simultaneously?

                      “As you recently indicated – when someone is in an invested belief – there is no getting through – they just buckle down.”

                      You’re in no position to accuse me of “buckling down” on an untenable Belief because A) you refuse to address my solid evidence and B) the evidence is so solid, only someone with a poor grasp of Logic would accuse an advocate of this evidence of “buckling down” .

                      Look at the video, Binra. Lower yourself to the level of the Real World and make a clear statement regarding the evidence. “Astronauts” on wires on “The Moon”. Respond please or stop wasting my time with sophomore word games. I mean, sure… you’ll keep BS-ing anyway, but at least I tried! Wink.

                      Like

                    • Let’s try to keep this to a discussion of evidence. 100+ comments on this article already, no point in bloating it with stuff that is not just OT, but degenerating into mere personal clashing

                      Like

                    • You react as if I am contesting your asserting, or invalidating your right to assert what you believe, and I have seen those videos and more and have no doubt that some Moon footage is faked. But that such things have set the narrative is not news to me but more why or what for and what drives it. I see narrative control as fundamental to what we take to be consciousness and that level of focus is where I see any real awakening of conscious responsibility instead of unconscious reaction of a masking surface consciousness.
                      I see the archetypes of conflict as being forever reenacted – and yet each generation reacts again as if for the first time – as an unconscious expression of those archetypes – which are not just symbolic – but in a sense active states of masked over or denied self.

                      Masking is a kind of lie – in that you withhold your true or actual state of being and present something to hide it – and cultivate the mask as a way to hide hateful or manipulative intent – such as a disarming smile that has dead eyes. The fact that – some of us – are more aware of the world/reality (as told, inducted, asserted, presented and used as a basis for action or response) is not true, is lies or withholding of true – or masking of manipulative intent in ‘humanitarian’ terms – is our gift coming back with interest. A climactic harvest of recycled garbage – all dressed up in forms that seek to trigger or bait allegiance to its fundamental premise.

                      But there’s another perspective on lies – no matter how cunningly interlocked and entrapping – and that is that they are not true. Recognizing the false is the freedom to awaken in the curiosity for truth. The stamping on the face of the desire for truth is the rage of vengeance – that ‘recognizes’ its hated enemy at last and locks in on its target – as a sense of righteousness that is part of the very thing it loves to hate and attack in others.

                      If you yield up vengeance, you can see the mask instead of living under its dictate. What you own is within your freedom to change. What you disown and give away to others (as if to get rid of it) will haunt you because energetically it is part of you.

                      The world is drowning in lies because it is made of lies. To genuinely stir awake the curiosity for what is true is not philo-sophistry but its philosophy’s original meaning; ‘love of truth’. In that free awareness, you will notice new things and ‘old things’ in new ways. But you wont be able to manipulate this without aborting your true desire and using the forms of insight into a web of subtler deceit.

                      The mind lies to ‘survive’ in the terms of its own unconsciously held definitions. New light has to come in to free the mind of such definitions and that means bringing into the conscious awareness that which it was predicated upon denying. If your ‘conscious’ is in fact a mask over – then more light means ‘reality breakdown’. But amidst the shock, pain and mess of such experience I gently say; ‘what is real?’ – because on your answer, everything depends. This is nothing to do with words and thinking – but is the urgency of the need to pause thinking and attend real need. If you accept a lie as true of you – all else will follow in its kind. But if you withhold allegiance or acceptance – you make a space for communication of a different order.

                      The breakdown of ‘reality’ is either a crash course in self/Self knowledge or an ever more painful delay in a crash course in self/Self knowledge. In your unfolding experience of regaining coherence of perception – will all manner of events, symbols, teachings, relationships align to serve the purpose you accept – by NOT accepting hate as your truth.

                      So as I see it – you are ‘intended’ to see the ‘wires’ put out of view. You are meant to start clocking that everything is NOT what it seemed or seems – and you are offered this freedom as a way to grow more – if you choose. But you are not given permission to break another’s freedom to accept as is their freedom to choose – whether they know or can believe that or not at this time. Give witness to who you truly are and meet a world that shares in that quality. But who will lay down their illusions for true?
                      As I see it we cant -of ourselves- release our own illusions – but we can release others and recognize our own in them and we can NOT act from what is unbelonging in who we are as the receptivity to uncover what is true. There is absolutely no doubting truth. What seems to be doubt of truth is conflicting illusions or truth.
                      If you read in the head you are not listening to anything you have not already killed in concept.

                      So is that a call to guilt? – or a call to release investment in the concept? That’s your call and your timing.

                      Like

                    • @ binra
                      It’s not possible to discuss the authenticity of a supposed real event without agreeing a definition of ‘real’. And while the borders of reality may indeed be flexible and/or murky, this does not change the fact that certain things can be assessed as fundamentally false or true. We either did or did not go to the Moon. I’ve kept this thread open for a discussion of the evidence in that central issue. There are plenty of places for more philosophical musings – and your thoughts are always welcome here as you know. But maybe this thread isn’t the place for a wider discussion on the nature of reality?

                      Like

                    • As far as I can tell, I didn’t go to the moon – except of course vicariously – but your use of the term ‘we’ is intended to mean humankind (or representatives thereof). Perhaps this use of language is an indicator of already being co-opted into narrative positions? That’s part of how mind/language becomes personal invested identity. I raise that for curious consideration – not as a criticism.

                      I indicated that I believe in faked footage of Moon landings but that I hold open that one or more of the missions may have actually occurred. I don’t care to spend a lot of my energy and attention in zooming into exactly which – and believe disinfo budgets are high enough to muddy the water in any of this sort of thing.
                      The main disinfo operation I see is – for want of better words; ‘m*ndfucking’ or undermining and destabilizing the capacity to engage or operate conscious reality testing – so as to be open and available to being hacked, neutered, set-up, used, and unable to ‘threaten’ the narrative reality – (except as owned or controlled opposition).

                      I also believe higher level technology operates than is publicly revealed. Higher level science/information than is allowed – just as global corps operate insider information. What is fit for public consumption is related to the perceived and believed fitness of the public, but those who make such decisions (and have the power to enforce them) may also be consumed by identity investments that make them equally unfitted to guide or lead.

                      I believe that the ego lens over motivation is of being manipulatively lied to, but that true result is an unfolding of true recognition, which includes the deconstruction of the lie under the burden of its own complexity, and that the nature of investment in the lie is so big, it is believed too big to fail. Under such circumstance reality distortion knows no bounds.

                      I see recognizing the false as part of waking in the true – but I don’t see attacking the false as anything but worship of the hated. What is being attacked but the hateful motivations we assign to people or institutions we are not directly in communication with or have relationship with. The nature of the lie works in the dark – exactly as I just said. It assigns hateful motivations without real relationship and then perceives and acts defensively and strategically as if its mind is ‘real’. Well it is a way of experiencing reality and underneath everything that can be added onto it – that is what we – life – is the being of. The experiencing of existence. Human development of subjective imagination models a world that lenses or templates ‘meaning’, and has become as if the determiner and controller of meaning. This fragmentation of awareness of the field of wholeness (life) plays out as ‘divide and rule out’ (intimacy of being) – and does so as the lure of possessing and ruling over (life). This ‘psycho-pathy’ operates invisibly as social transactional substitution for real relationship and communication – such that the fake becomes the framework in which the true is either dissonant, absurd or unintelligible.

                      The world is in a sense a reversal in consciousness in which to seem to be the ‘doer’ – at the ‘avatar’ or personality level. And this is possible because we WANT it and commit to the conditions in which it can seem to be true. The forms that such ‘control’ generates and multiplies are ‘chaotic’ by nature – because a lie can only conflict with the true. But when ‘we’ operate out-from an invested identity assertion, ‘we’ can only attempt to ‘control’ or suppress the symptoms of our conflictness – each from our particular shard of a fractured identity.

                      There are many facets to the ‘space’ exploration that are not covered here. How they are read is according to the lens of our perceiving. We discover or are uncovered in what we do not expect. It pulls the rug out from our invested identity. We may protect our invested identity against ‘information’ that is too disturbing’ – but are nonetheless in a process of re-integrative adjustment.

                      The dead end of politics is its personalisation (identity politicism 😉
                      Clearly we live the life we experience through the personality structure. It does have a function. But it is not the agency of power or control that ‘we’ hold fantasy of and defend as our self.

                      Like

                    • Binra writes: ” (Well what exactly is ‘real’!)

                      That is the heart of your problem: you’ve been raised (probably deliberately so, by TFIC) on pseudo-mystical claptrap. When you bite and eat an apple, the biting is real, the apple is real, the digestive process is real. When you steal a bicycle (with the intent to steal) the theft and the bicycle are real. What is less “real” are fuzzy verbal concepts you can twist without a corresponding deformation of time/space/ physical matter… your ideas are unreal as you want them to be. That’s a special function of language: the power of the Lie.

                      Glory in your capacity to Lie/Fantasize but don’t mistake that for the ability to interpret the Real world. You get RBF (Reality Based Feedback) as quickly as your senses can process it all. You have the right to disregard this information, but I’m under no obligation to take that problem seriously.

                      Like

                    • St Aug
                      Your perception of ‘my problem’ remains with you by your own election. It is obviously ‘real’ to you. But I understand you feel frustrated.
                      If all you are interested in is validating that (some or all) moon landings are faked – then just ignore my input. I don’t need to prove that to anyone.
                      When you get ‘wired up’ you don’t come across as your natural self,

                      Your experience is real for you – of course. But if you say the ‘reality’ is outside you – you make an experience of unreality – and then blame it on ‘Them’! (outside force of intent.)
                      We are collectively engaged in positing ‘reality’ outside ourselves, generating a reversal of consciousness under a sense of denial and subjection – by the act of assigning or associating in blame.
                      The need to blame is the need to escape its ’cause’ and its penalty.
                      But once blame is projected and disowned, the power to choose differently will seem lost.
                      Your apple has all the reality you give it – but what is truly given – is not just an apple, but the wholeness of truth – as the unique appreciation of intimacy that embraces the apple and you. A joyless mind cannot understand gratitude for being – being too intent on getting, protecting or dealing apples. Can you have your model and eat it’s fruit? Yes, if you release the insistence that reality is a problem in its expansion of your mind modelling.

                      Word salad!
                      Raw and freshly grown.
                      B

                      Like

                  • While Matt is obviously way more knowledgeable than I about the moon landings, I will just add my 2 cents in terms of approaching an argument. Until my awakening about 9/11 and staged terror in general in 2014 after watching the JFK to 9/11 film, I believed the moon landings were real and I accused my identical twin and a friend of both being “conspiracy theorists” because they believed that they were faked along with 9/11 and various other things. After my awakening I started to doubt the moon landings too. I read “Wagging the Moondoggie” and found it pretty compelling but I never quite went to “the other side” on this argument. My sister would go on about the the fact that we didn’t go again after 1972 and I’d respond that that is not a compelling argument (in fact, it recently occurred to me it’s a logical fallacy of the argumentum ad speculum type – “if we’d gone, we would have gone again”). Of course, if only she’d googled she would have found various explanations for this seemingly dubious fact but she is incredibly wedded to her own ideas.

                    When I look at footage, it simply does not look fake and I truly believe that virtually, on its own, the conversation of the astronauts proves we went. I simply cannot see how that could be faked. As one commenter somewhere else said, “I work with professional actors, and the number of times they take just to get a 30 second commercial right is ridiculous”.

                    When you want to prove your case I think it’s extremely important to look at the evidence from the other side. When I first researched 9/11, I switched constantly between the truther and debunker sites. When I finally realised that the buildings, especially WTC-7, came down by controlled demolition, I was like, “OMG! Why on earth was I worried about melting point of steel, it’s completely irrelevant.”

                    Which brings me to another point. “Science” can be used in misleading ways. What I like to do, as much as possible, is rely on “common sense” evidence to prove my case and leave complicated science (which I don’t understand) out of it. Obviously, sometimes we need science but where we can rely on common sense evidence why not use it? This is what I’ve done to expose the staging of terror in my Occam’s Razor exercises: http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

                    Only recently, I discovered the Moon Machines series and other videos and began to really appreciate what a marvel it was that we went there. My sister refuses to watch them because she “knows” we didn’t go so why would she look? Of course, if you only look at the all the seeming evidence that proves we didn’t land on the moon, it is very easy to believe we didn’t go.

                    But if you watch Moon Machines and similar videos you will see the authenticity of the people speaking about their involvement in the Apollo Project, you will see the history of development of the “machines”, the prototyping. the explanations of how engineering problems were overcome, etc. These things simply do not fit “faked landings”. While the “official stories” of many terror events fall over immediately when you subject them to scrutiny, the moon landings do not. There is a lot of evidence that simply does not fit “faked landings”. You need to look at it.

                    Like

                    • FG: “When I look at footage, it simply does not look fake and I truly believe that virtually, on its own, the conversation of the astronauts proves we went. I simply cannot see how that could be faked.”

                      You “can’t believe” that conversations can be faked? Well, that’s certainly a remarkable statement. You look at the footage of “astronauts” scampering around on obvious wires, and you attempt to rebut that evidence with a very long comment that does not, at any point, address the obvious wires. This merely proves my point that Believers cannot be budged with facts/logic… they merely double-down.

                      “There is a lot of evidence that simply does not fit “faked landings”. You need to look at it.”

                      FG, I’d sooner argue the “virgin birth” with you than try any further to crack the carapace of your Magical Belief System.

                      Like

                  • And how “self-discrediting” would you judge this video (of “astronauts” scampering about on wires) to be, Norm? Thanks for worrying about my dignity, chum, but I’m not worried about it, clearly… I have no problem facing off against a massive wall of jeering Herdthink. I did it against Bush/ BHO/ Hillary Supporters for years without batting an eyelash. A few down-votes from pseudo-Lefty Conservatives is not much to weather in comparison.

                    So: back to that vid. Explain…?

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • StAug, When you look at any disputed event, ALL the evidence needs to be accounted for.

                      You say that you find my statement that I believe that (the hours of) conversation between astronauts (not to mention between them and ground control) could not be faked is “remarkable”. Perhaps you think that an unscripted conversation can sound exactly like a scripted conversation. Or perhaps you think the astronauts were simply good at extemporizing in a studio. What is your explanation for the natural sound of their conversations or perhaps you don’t think they sound natural. I’d be really very interested to see if you and a like-minded friend could produce even a 30 min similar moon-landing based dialogue that did not sound scripted or, if you don’t think their conversation sounds natural, I’d be interested to know what you find sounds scripted about it.

                      What I like to do is put aside any evidence that tends to be disputed back and forth – for example, could the astronauts have passed through the Van Allen belts without significant doses of radiation and “wires or not” – and focus on the undisputed evidence.

                      Significant pieces of evidence are all the interviews with people who (allegedly at least) worked on the various “moon machines” I’ve alluded to in previous comments. What do you make of these interviews? Do you think all these people are lying? If so, do you think they seem to be lying for whatever reasons or do you simply say they MUST be lying because there’s evidence of wires in video and you know that we couldn’t have got through the Van Allen belts, etc. How do you account for these interviews?

                      In the video on the lunar rover we see prototypes of a non fold-up rover and then when the engineers are told they only have a piece-of-pie-shaped recess in the lunar module to fit their rover (love that story) we see the new foldup design modification. We are also told that GM got the contract because even though the other contractor bidding (Grundin – or some such) seemed to have a better wheel design their prototype could not deploy as well. How do you account for all the prototypes and all the little details in this story?

                      In the lunar module video we are told that there was a guy not strictly involved who believed that the only way to get man to the moon was to have a lunar orbital rendezvous (LOR) situation Apparently, no one listened to this guy and he ended up going above everyone’s head and writing to the top person to insist that LOR was the only way to get man on the moon. How do you account for this guy (apologies to moon experts for referring to brilliant engineers as nameless guys but I’m obviously not that well-versed on the subject and simply don’t know people’s names and am pressed for time looking them up).

                      At what point do you think it was decided to fake going to the moon and who decided it? Did the engineers involved in overcoming all the engineering problems know that we were never going to make it but just kept working away problem-solving or … in fact, never solved any problems and it’s just all totally faked? Did Berlei get the contract to design the spacesuit because they were experienced in rubber garments or is that a little power-elite joke? Did they count the stitches on the spacesuits and make sure they were exact or was that – and every other detail – all made up?

                      You do need to account for all the documented evidence for showing that we did go to the moon in one way or another. What do you have to say?

                      Like

                    • “You do need to account for all the documented evidence for showing that we did go to the moon in one way or another.”

                      No, you don’t, FG. That’s where Logic steps in. If a cluster of irrefutable data points indicate that safe trips to and from the Moon was impossible with 1969 tech (and that “tech” has since disappeared from the face of the Earth). All the other “proof” is invalidated and is obviously to be admired as well-crafted trickery. If I discover a guy has been legless since birth, I no longer need to read his “amazing tales” of winning dozens of marathons, even if he has “documentation”.

                      FG, your consciousness is divided. As I’ve already said, on the one hand, you assume, by default, that pretty much every big story you read about mass death is a hoax, right? The Grenfell Tower Fire wasn’t more than a few hours old when you declared with utter confidence that it was a “Psyop” for fomenting unrest between the classes (if I’m remembering your point, then, correctly). I waited a few days to draw any kind of conclusion and I still don’t know, although it seems to me that people died in that fire and some tried to cash in, later, by claiming they were there when they weren’t… the latter doesn’t disprove the former. Anyway: and yet : we get to the case of one of US Gov’s then-most lavishly funded projects (second only to its War Company, although, technically, NAZA is a branch of that)… with nearly-limitless resources (including Hollywood, Intelligence operatives and corrupt “patriotic” heads of Industry/ the corporate sector)… and they spin an obviously farfetched Cold War tale about beating The Russkies to The Moon in 1969… and you buy it without question. You buy all the propaganda and cite it religiously and skip right over ENORMOUS holes in the “logic” of the narrative in order to accept it. But any one of those logic-holes is enough to make any rational, unbrainwashed person question the Truth of that fairy tale.

                      The lack of a blast crater under the “lunar lander”… in close proximity to the “Moon boot” prints in the soft, loose “lunar soil”… would give pause to any one with a clear mind, for example. It is not possible. Period.

                      You accepted the copy-and-paste Artiste “Matt” as “knowledgeable” about “Moon landings”… because you’ve never heard about Google, I guess. How can you be that gullible? To be honest, I only skimmed his kilometer-long comments, initially… until he pissed me off by insulting me, and I quickly discovered that the idiot was copy-and-pasting directly from Apollo Hoax Propaganda Sources. I mean: paragraph after paragraph, which he tried to pass off as his own smoothly-constructed opinion.

                      I want people to emerge from the dim, dank, cold and sticky cocoons of their Propaganda Trances. In order for that to happen, people will have to question their personal investments in the comforts of such propaganda. To be honest, I’ve found that quite a few Westerners take too much pride in the “accomplishment” described by NAZA’s fairy tale to give it up easily. It makes even the “Lefties” feel kind of special. Which explains the special hostility that “Apollo Hoaxer Debunkers” often exhibit towards people who clear-mindedly point out the blatant inconsistencies in the preposterous tale of Murrkka’s Miraculous Space Race Triumph over the Russkies (and the World). I’ve also noticed that these “Hoaxtard Debunkers”… like Matt… are quite often Liars, claiming to be professional scientists, or to be related to “people who work/ or worked at NAZA”. It’s almost an exotic variation on Walter Mitty Syndrome.

                      Here’s a moderately amusing vid for you; @9:48 it’s even funnier, but watch the whole thing if you have time:

                      Like

                    • “Did they count the stitches on the spacesuits and make sure they were exact or was that – and every other detail – all made up?”

                      i’ve already addressed this. Thousands of people worked on the Apollo Project and they did real (compartmentalized) jobs with real (compartmentalized) goals. Only the very top of the pyramid knew that the ultimate goal was Cold War Theater. You think the CIA/ Military/NAZA is incapable of pulling that off? Think again.

                      Like

                    • StAug, Got msg about your termination of involvement in this thread but I’ll respond anyway.

                      Just to clarify, I don’t immediately assume a terror event is staged but I certainly suspect it to be one, however, as I keep saying I always judge by the evidence: in the case of Grenfell there was no evidence whatsoever of injury, bodybag evidence of deaths, and witnesses talking in such a way as to suggest they are examples of the power elite doing their thing by telling us they’re hoaxing us through sloppiness of execution and/or sheer ridiculousness. When there is no clear evidence of the event being real in combination with witness “funny business” I don’t I believe it. Do you think that’s unreasonable?

                      I wish you’d refrain from referring to people who think we went to the moon as being victims of propaganda. Whether we did or not people have many different reasons for believing we went to the moon.

                      The blast crater has been addressed by the Golly Gee girl on Vintage Space. Like you, I’m very suspicious of alleged debunking, however, what she said sounded reasonable to me but as my understanding in many areas is limited I cannot necessarily judge whether the debunking is valid or not.

                      What I do think I can judge though is authenticity and I feel without a shadow of a doubt that the astronaut conversations are authentic. You made no comment on your opinion about these conversations. I also think that those interviewed in the moon machine videos are authentic too and I don’t think compartmentalisation can completely answer my questions. Each group will have to work with the others to some degree. The astronauts of course would have to be in on it.

                      So my starting point is the authenticity of the astronaut conversations. All the alleged evidence for not going seems to have reasonable explanations. The fact that alleged wires are seen in a very limited number of videos makes it a priori extremely weak. Why don’t we see them in all the videos? I haven’t seen them in any videos that I’ve looked at.

                      I am going to do a 10 point Occam’s Razor exercise on the moon landings as I’ve also done for Collapse of WTC7, Sandy Hook and Manchester Bombing none of which anyone has attempted to debunk, nor has anyone come up with an equivalent exercise favouring the other side. I wonder how I’ll go with the moon.

                      Like

                    • 1) “What I do think I can judge though is authenticity and I feel without a shadow of a doubt that the astronaut conversations are authentic. You made no comment on your opinion about these conversations”

                      Flaxgirl: you’ve heard of acting, right?

                      2) Occam’s Razor fails when the phenomena under examination are man-made, clearly because any human, or team thereof, can willfully produce effects as peculiar, unlikely, or unnecessarily complicated as they choose. Occam’s tool is more properly applied to mysteries that aren’t intentional, in other words. People too often misapply it, with random results.

                      Like

                    • FG: “The fact that alleged wires are seen in a very limited number of videos makes it a priori extremely weak. ”

                      No, Fg, your logic is weak. One only has to detect the presence of a “lunar gravity” simulation hoax once, in videos made available by NAZA, to doubt the entire enterprise. Anything more than once is a bonus. What are they teaching kids these days? Answer: they aren’t.

                      Like

                    • PS (Admin: I’ve left two typos a couple of comments up-thread; can you guys fix it? Twice I wrote “(comparmentalized)”… missing the first “t”. It would be luvly if…)

                      Like

                • I will address all your points in this post, including those from your other posts”

                  ““ten feet” vs “six feet”: that’s just a quibble, isn’t it? Six will more than do. The occasional six foot vertical hop would certainly have sold the illusion (that they were actually on the Moon) better than running the film a bit slow (or fast, sometimes), which is what they did”

                  Charlie Duke and John Young had a jumping competition on Apollo 16. They both got about 4 feet above the ground.

                  Lunar gravity is about 1/6 that of the gravity on Earth. That implies that a person could jump 6 times higher on the moon than they could on Earth. But, we must remember that the Apollo astronauts were wearing 200 lb EVA suits. Imagine putting on a 200 lb suit and jumping up in the air. Working backwards from the Charlie and John – their 4′ would be equivalent to 8″ on Earth. That’s pretty good.

                  We also have to keep in mind that the Astronauts didn’t want to push themselves and damage their suit. In one of John’s jumps, he did land off balance and fell on his back.

                  “that an peter-panning them from wires here and there.”

                  Firstly, out of all the hours of footage of astronauts walking around on the moon, not a single wire is ever seen. Besides a single wire will allow the astronaut to rotate while off the ground, this never happens. A two-wire support would be needed as it does on stage acts. This double the chances of it being seen, but neither is ever recorded. Sometimes a flare of light is seen above an astronaut at the top of the frame. This is just a lens flare from the sun shining on the antenna mounted on the backpack.

                  “Filming a monitor and broadcasting that degraded image (instead of broadcasting a relayed signal) also added to the “other worldly” feeling (btw: NAZA claimed that the video monitor was filmed owing to incompatible technical differences between NAZA and civilian equipment).”

                  The portion of the broadcast spectrum traditionally used for video was sending vital ship data to Earth, and there was no room left for the standard black-and-white video format of the era: 525 scan lines of data at 30 frames per second, transmitted at 4.5 MHz. So Lebar helped devise a smaller “oddball format” – 320 scan lines at 10 fps, transmitted at a meager 500 kHz. Tracking stations back on Earth would take this so-called slow-scan footage, convert it for TV broadcast, and beam it to Mission Control, which would send it out for the world to see.

                  “there’s even footage of an “astronaut” (or “astronaught”?) losing his footing, stumbling forward and making a forward-and-upwards recovery only possible if he were hung from wires.”

                  I recall seeing that video. It’s obvious that the left arm of the fallen astronaut is supported by the right arm of the standing astronaut. This is clearly visible in the video:

                  “It disproves your assertion that no nation since the Apollo Propaganda Op was foolish enough to spend money trying to get to the Moon “second”. Imagine the prestige. And it really will be a breakthrough when some team finally makes it.”

                  That was not my assertion. What I said was a response to your pondering as to why no one else has gone. I replied by saying it’s extremely expensive and would not bring much benefit, hence, countries that can do it, are taking their time. Whether Japan, China, or India are going to the moon is irrelevant, as the fact that they waited so long is not because the technology has never existed, but due to the expenses required.

                  “Grissom’s son goes to great lengths to prove that his father was assassinated for failing to play ball with NAZA. It appears there was a deliberate short-circuit set up to trigger a fire.”

                  I doubt this claim very much and frankly, it’s a very weak point. If we can debunk all the claims by moon landing hoaxers, then this point becomes meaningless. There really isn’t any evidence to support this either. Nor can I really debunk it without seeing evidence of a “deliberate short-circuit.”

                  “Whether or not the article is “generic,” I cited it to prove that NASA itself takes the issue of “space radiation” more seriously than you do. It’s one of the reasons that nobody has put men or women beyond the Van Allen Belts: too dangerous.”

                  I mentioned this in my previous post: it is entirely possible for astronauts to pass through the VA radiation belt. I listed detailed radiation levels and such. Please re-read that section of my post.

                  Regarding the article, again, it’s just an article warning about the effects of space radiation. Nowhere does it prove that the radiation is too high for some astronauts in a space ship to survive for a few hours, which they did. It’s just an article talking about how radiation affects the human body. If you’ve read it, it’s clear that there’s not a single sentence there that proves there’s too much radiation in the VA belts. Of course NASA takes the issue seriously, they have to, but as I mentioned in my automobile example, automobile manufacturers have to re-test their cars and this doesn’t mean the automobile is a hoax.

                  “Detail of interest:”

                  I’ve read that article and it looks like another case of homegrown photogrammetry. The author invents an unvetted process he assures us will recover the exact trajectory from the video record and the purports that errors between the results of his method and the one he deduces from the published ideal must be due to fakery — not errors in his method or ordinary errors in flight control.

                  Here’s a much more accurate and correct analysis:

                  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sz4pBGlCJn8J:www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

                  Please read the section called “Conspiracy Claims”, where the author mathematically debunks various common claims about the ascent.

                  “More details of interest: the “sun” as studio light and “space” as structured background (CTRL + F… “Apollo 11 composition a11.1103147_mf12” … to skip to these portion” of the document)”

                  That section mentioned photoshop… except photoshop didn’t exist in the 60s, nor did advanced image editing programs. Thus, any “editing patterns” the author claims are from photoshop retouching are impossible to have come from photoshop and are simple artifacts.

                  The author also does not understand why the black sky has more artifacts than the moon floor: because the background is black, artifacts (that are white) will appear more clearly due to the greater contrast, while these same white artifacts on the bright moon floor will blend in and be less visible.

                  I think I have addressed all of your points. On the basis of our discussion, I hope it is clear now that the moon landing was very real and those who think it’s a hoax tend to fall prey to unscientific thought.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • You haven’t rebutted the video evidence of wires at all; you’re using Norm’s trick of describing something that isn’t seen in the video: it is quite clear in the video, which compiles several instances of wire-supported motion (by the “astronauts”) that one “astronaut” supporting another is not what we see in the compilation. Your other responses are simple gainsays: I provide evidence and all you do us say “nope” and pad that with verbiage.

                    I’m not sure if you, FG and Norm are all suffering from the same kind of cognitive disconnects, but it’s touching to find three thorough Believers in US GOV Cold War Propaganda rattling around a site that attracts so many Official 9/11/ Magic Bullet/Boston Bomber (et al) Skeptics.

                    I’ll just wait for someone to address the issue of those obvious wires. The video is shorter than ten minutes long, no? Should be easy to watch all of it.

                    Like

                    • Before I continue, I should ask: since you are mentioning the wire theory and some other things, does this mean you agree with me on the other issues I addressed? There were many, many things I debunked, but you have given no indication as to whether or not I convinced you on those topics. Ultimately, the whole point of this debate is to convince the other person, if they are willing to be convinced. I will thus assume that the only things you don’t agree with me are those that you continue to mention.

                      “You haven’t rebutted the video evidence of wires at all; you’re using Norm’s trick of describing something that isn’t seen in the video”

                      This is where we currently stand then, with your other claims having been analyzed and debunked. First of all, I see no “wires” in the video whatsoever. Ironically, I think it is you who is “describing something that isn’t seen in the video”. It’s a blurry video, with infinite room for interpretation where a wire could and could not be. So how do I debunk this? By explaining all the movement of the astronauts?

                      “Your other responses are simple gainsays: I provide evidence and all you do us say “nope” and pad that with verbiage.”

                      I gave many detailed explanations on the dynamics of jumping, broadcast technology, fatal radiation doses, particle movement – the dust being kicked up on the rover, how the rover fit into the module, CPU computation power, how the camera following the module’s ascent was controlled, the noise level in the module, the durability of the photographic film sent up, heat transfer dynamics, probability theory of two objects in space hitting each other, etc. I backed up my arguments with extensive explanations, and you respond by calling it “verbiage”.

                      “And if you don’t have much time to read lots of text: a reasonably quick and un-tacky video for illuminating the many problems and errors built into the Apollo-Myth Photo Campaign”

                      This is David Groves. He examined the photo of Aldrin emerging from the lander and said he can pinpoint when a “spotlight” was used. Using the focal length of the camera’s lens and an actual boot, he allegedly calculated, using ray-tracing, that the spotlight is between 24 and 36 centimetres (9.4 and 14.2 in) to the right of the camera. This matches with the sunlit part of Armstrong’s spacesuit. Debunked.

                      Dr. Groves’ analysis purports to be carried out to a precision of a ten-thousandth of a degree of arc. This implies he is able to locate the “hot spot” on Aldrin’s heel — not in the photo, but on the heel itself — with a precision of 0.002 inch (0.05 mm), or less than the diameter of a human hair. That’s astounding! The enlargement above shows the hot spot itself is much larger than the purported degree of accuracy. Further, the top of the hot spot is visibly displaced to the left compared to the bottom. And the print from which this scan was taken is likely “pushed” in development, possibly causing the hot spot to bleed into the surrounding emulsion.

                      Dr. Groves’ arbitrary assumptions coupled with his absurd purports of precision are clearly aimed at impressing a naive audience with apparent rigor while masquerading just how far off his computations can actually be.

                      I’ve addressed most of your core points. I think it’s clear that you don’t have much knowledge in the physical sciences, as you earlier claimed. There are many common misconceptions that are displayed by moon landing hoaxers, and this has been evidence in our discussion.

                      I ask again: have I convinced you of any of my points? I want to know if you are capable of saying “Huh. It seems I was mistaken about x thing”. But you haven’t really stated what you think about most of my points.

                      I’ve said enough. This will be my last post on the matter. If this doesn’t convince you, then nothing will.

                      Like

                    • “Ultimately, the whole point of this debate is to convince the other person, if they are willing to be convinced.”

                      Matt: nope. I don’t “debate” in order to convince my “opponent”, I see it as an opportunity to go into a fair amount of detail for readers open to these details. I have never, in c. 20 years of commenting and comment-reading, seen either side of a debate “enlightened” by the other. But I have learned amazing things from reading such debates, over the years. I think it’s a good way of circumventing the proliferating Disinfo Sites in order to pass the info on.

                      Also, why would anyone who has come to a conclusion on a given topic, after over a decade of thought/research on it, be willing to be convinced otherwise? When I was enlightened (c. 2006) re: the Apollo Myth, it was in the context of me having no real info on the matter at the time. Anyone who can present me with slam-dunk epiphany material, despite me having done a ton of reading to the contrary, is always welcome to try, of course!

                      No hard feelings, man, and thanks for the chat!

                      SA

                      Like

                    • “I think it’s clear that you don’t have much knowledge in the physical sciences, as you earlier claimed. There are many common misconceptions that are displayed by moon landing hoaxers, and this has been evidence in our discussion.”

                      Ah, this kind of rhetoric is beneath you, I think.

                      Like

                    • “Ah, this kind of rhetoric is beneath you, I think.”

                      I meant no disrespect, although I can see that my comment did seem rude. I’m sorry if it came off that way.

                      “No hard feelings, man, and thanks for the chat!”

                      Same here. It was a good discussion, and I learned some new information myself. See you around.

                      Like

                    • Ha… sorry. Not done with you. After THIS I’m done.

                      So, I’m going to go BACK and address a couple of points… and something else, “Matt,” because you really are such a fraud. And you know why I write that, yes? We’ll get to it about midway through my comment (I’ll have to get right to the “points” of yours that irritate me the most… don’t have nearly enough time to do all of it). But first…

                      You write: “Nonsense: These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth’s magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days.”

                      This comment of yours is either disingenuous or idiotic. Through and beyond the van Allen belts, the cosmic radiation is continuous: “The health threat from cosmic rays is the danger posed by galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particles to astronauts on interplanetary missions or any missions that venture through the Van-Allen Belts or outside the Earth’s magnetosphere.[1][2] They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft,[3][4][5] but space radiation health risks also occur for missions in low Earth orbit such as the International Space Station (ISS).” This is a Wiki entry that we can be quite sure NAZA would be tinkering with if it were displeased by it.

                      I do not make the point anywhere that the “van Allen Belts” render space travel “impossible” (as that other master of pointless amateur local hand-waving propaganda, the aptly-named “Norm”, would have it)… but they are an issue that will have to be addressed, prior to an actual trip to The Moon, along with cosmic radiation in general… as indicated by the above-cited material.

                      You write: “The actual amount of radiation received by the Apollo astronauts during their passage through the van Allen belts is estimated to be about 2 rems (or 20 milli-Sieverts). In comparison, a modern chest X-ray will deliver about 10-20 millirems
                      to the subject, radiation doses from background radiation…”

                      Your premise (that Apollo “astronauts” went anywhere more than 400 miles off the planet Earth in order to have off-Earth “exposure” measured) is to be “confirmed” or not by the debate, not featured by it. My argument is that such statistics are a fiction; your argument is that they are true: that difference is what the debate is about .

                      You write: “Again, taking the Voyageur example, why didn’t it collide with a large pebble in all these decades? Basic probability.”

                      Again: disingenuous or idiotic? Are you comparing the probability of meteorite/meteroid impact with an object in interplanetary space… to an object’s vulnerability to such impacts on the surface of a target at the bottom of a gravity well? “The moon experiences a heavier bombardment by small meteoroids than models had predicted, according to new observations from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft. The result implies that lunar surface features thought to be young because they have relatively few impact craters may be even younger than previous estimates.” (NASA.gov)

                      You write: “The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and poses were planned in advance as part of the mission.”

                      Unless the “astronauts” spent the entire mission taking c. ten shots a minute, the number of (impossibly) well-lit, in-focus, professionally-staged photos are well out of the range of the statistically feasible. Yes, obviously: NAZA was not dumb and therefore including the “bloopers” in their “evidence”… but, still. Too many of the “lucky” shots look like the work of the guys who did the cover-shots for Life, back then… and perhaps one was there “on the Moon” to help.

                      You write: ” the first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface. There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them.”

                      I write: hey, you Faker! The next time you copy-and-paste three or four paragraphs verbatim from “Space Answers” (https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/) maybe you should consider crediting the source instead of trying to appear like the elite progeny of a dynasty of Venezuelan engineers, eh? Jesus. I can’t believe I took you seriously enough to call you an idiot! Laugh.

                      I was tipped-off by the weird formatting of some of “your” comments, you Fraud.
                      Don’t worry, I’m not going to waste any time going through your “learned” comments for the other obvious copy-and-paste jobs, but I want to deal with two more issues before I go:

                      You write: “Obviously there’s no air and thus no sound outside the craft, and on Earth, almost all of a rocket’s noise comes from shearing action between the exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere. With that taken out of the equation, rockets are much more peaceful.”

                      Yes, because sound vibrations aren’t conducted even more efficiently through dense metals in direct contact, at close range, to an ear of some kind. They were seated literal inches above a rocket engine (and, btw: I thought you were going to nail me on the “80k” pounds of thrust comment… the fact that you didn’t dive right on that one puzzled me… but now I know why).

                      Re: The Ed Fendall story: clearly, more of that “The Right Stuff” bullshit. So incredibly unlikely that only a child (or adults thinking like children) could fall for it. Gee, I guess Jesus (who’s on Murrka’s Side!) helped Ole Ed get that blind shot!

                      You write: “Regarding the dust, it actually proves that the footage was taken on the moon and not the Earth, due to the unique way in which the dust was kicked up. Here’s a photo of the dust trail”

                      It does no such thing. It proves only that NAZA had control over the “dust” (composed of what? treated/ soaked with what?), the soundstage conditions, some possible mechanism associated with or near the tires… and so forth. It’s called the Magic of Film, “Matt”. It only proves anything if we accept your premise that it was filmed on the Moon. But, again: that premise is to be “confirmed” (or not) by the debate, not featured by it.

                      Now, some bio: the first part of my Life, I was a geeky addict to the Romance of Science. I started very young (9-10), reading through my Uncle’s U of Chicago textbooks, understanding bits here and there, buying my own books eventually (half of the Asimov non-fiction shelf: crushed to later learn he probably didn’t write all of them! laugh)… I still think very fondly on George Gamow’s One, Two, Three Infinity. I could name lots of those guys (my “heroes”) on sight: Bohr, Fermi, Rutherford, Thompson, Lise Meitner, etc. I took advanced science courses in school, scored very highly on all my tests, ended up as the youngest (and most geeky/ active/ hand-raising) student in my Advanced Physics class… everyone assumed I would keep going that way until I got a job in research or academe (people thought rarely of “fame” then).

                      We moved to Vegas and I had my telescopes (nothing expensive: I bought them with my pocket money) and nothing much else but a fairly big library for a kid: half Sci, other half Sci Fi. I used to do asinine things like carry around packets of U-238 (ordered through the mail)! I hit a wall, though, because some things did not make sense, to me, the more I thought on them; I couldn’t take it on faith that various “universal constants” weren’t just local. The part of Newton’s First Law of Motion that implies an unbound variable, as part of its rhetorical equation, drove me nuts: why? Where is the unbound variable in the simple equation for “Work”? I would ask: why, unless otherwise acted on, will an object remain in motion forever? Teachers started thinking I was weird/ going through late-ish puberty, probably. Fellow students probably rolled their eyes! As I grew older and long after I lost my Science Passion I came to the conclusion that Newton had drafted his laws with an eye to a certain 17th century notion of “Beauty”… in other words, he was a Christian. UGH. I lost my own sense of beauty in the Romance of Science and drifted into the Arts instead. I realized I was always an “Artist” inside… the Science obsession had been a misstep. But I still remember quite a bit of it and very fondly… another life.

                      And nobody with a Science Background of any kind can watch those “astronauts”-on-a-wire vids, and not see lots of otherwise-impossible “non-Newtonian motion (of macro-systems)”. Occam tells us that they’re either in a strong magnetic field (and wearing ferromagnetic jockstraps) or suspended by wires. And, yes, you can even see the occasional glint of a wire in the studio lights.

                      Good night.

                      Like

                    • You have exposed yourself. It took a while, but you finally descended into cheap insults, just as I expected you to. This was predictable.

                      Your post is full of ad hominems (calling me a “fraud”, “idiot”, etc.) and illogical reasoning.

                      But before I continue, it’s important to address this claim:

                      “hey, you Faker! The next time you copy-and-paste three or four paragraphs verbatim from “Space Answers” maybe you should consider crediting the source instead of trying to appear like the elite progeny of a dynasty of Venezuelan engineers, eh? Jesus. I can’t believe I took you seriously enough to call you an idiot! Laugh. I was tipped-off by the weird formatting of some of “your” comments, you Fraud.
                      Don’t worry, I’m not going to waste any time going through your “learned” comments for the other obvious copy-and-paste jobs, but I want to deal with two more issues before I go”

                      First of all, many of my points are taken from websites, and yes, with copy-pasting. I thought this would be obvious? It’s no secret. I myself am not a Physicist and do not have the arrogance to claim that I possess a great deal of knowledge in the “physical sciences” because of some childhood interest in science, common to many young people. And this has no bearing on the information itself. If you state something false, then just because I proved it false by copy-pasting a paragraph from another source does not magically make you any less wrong. And when I said my family was involved in the space program, I explicitly said it was my extended family, perhaps so far removed that they are not even blood relatives. Thus, it is wrong to claim I portrayed myself as the “elite progeny of a dynasty of Venezuelan engineers.” Nor is it right to call me a “fraud” when I never claimed I was a physicist myself. In one of my posts, I mentioned I have a background in computer engineering.

                      “Through and beyond the van Allen belts, the cosmic radiation is continuous: “The health threat from cosmic rays is the danger posed by galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particles to astronauts on interplanetary missions or any missions that venture through the Van-Allen Belts or outside the Earth’s magnetosphere.[1][2] They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft,[3][4][5] but space radiation health risks also occur for missions in low Earth orbit such as the International Space Station (ISS).” This is a Wiki entry that we can be quite sure NAZA would be tinkering with if it were displeased by it.”

                      This is so easy to debunk that I feel like it’s a trap. Not only did you once again give me a generic statement about the effects of the radiation belts, but this time, you didn’t even bother reading the sources. You see those little numbers? They are references. Now let’s look references 3, 4, and 5, which are used to support the basic point in the above statement. Do you see where those three references link to? All three link to articles about Mars, NOT the Moon. Here are the titles for the articles referenced:

                      “The Strange, Deadly Effects Mars Would Have on Your Body”

                      [Second link is broken]

                      “Too much radiation for astronauts to make it to Mars”

                      Now, go back and read your own quoted paragraph. This line: “They are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft.” It mentions interplanetary travel, not travel to the moon. The first line in your quoted paragraph, about the van Allen belts, is just a generic statement about the health effects of radiation.

                      “I do not make the point anywhere that the “van Allen Belts” render space travel “impossible” (as that other master of pointless amateur local hand-waving propaganda, the aptly-named “Norm”, would have it)… but they are an issue that will have to be addressed, prior to an actual trip to The Moon, along with cosmic radiation in general… as indicated by the above-cited material.”

                      Another example of your rude and amateur behaviour towards those who disagree with you. There is no need to talk about Mr. Pilon like that. And this issue has already been addressed. The astronauts simply didn’t spend enough time to be subject to lethal doses radiation. Nor have you given any evidence to prove this, other than generic statements about the health effects of space radiation on humans, which you present in an out-of-context manner and are unable to understand the meaning of.

                      “Your premise (that Apollo “astronauts” went anywhere more than 400 miles off the planet Earth in order to have off-Earth “exposure” measured) is to be “confirmed” or not by the debate, not featured by it. My argument is that such statistics are a fiction; your argument is that they are true: that difference is what the debate is about .”

                      I can not believe what I am reading. Do you not know that the radiation levels of the van Allen belts can be measured without humans going there? Shocker, I know. The Van Allen belts were the very first discovery of the space age, measured with the launch of a US satellite, Explorer 1, in 1958. NASA has even sent probes there, to measure radiation. This does not require a human to physically fly to the VA belts and measure the radiation!

                      “Are you comparing the probability of meteorite/meteroid impact with an object in interplanetary space… to an object’s vulnerability to such impacts on the surface of a target at the bottom of a gravity well? “The moon experiences a heavier bombardment by small meteoroids than models had predicted, according to new observations from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft. The result implies that lunar surface features thought to be young because they have relatively few impact craters may be even younger than previous estimates.” (NASA.gov)”

                      I already linked a photo of the space shuttle being hit by a speck of paint from an old satellite. The damage was very small and not at all enough to cause total destruction. And as I previously explained, the probability to two small objects in space, like a space shuttle and rock, is very low. Obviously, the moon is much bigger, but you also forget something else: the moon has some gravity exerted upon objects. Thus, some of those lunar craters happened because debris was attracted to the Moon’s surface. Obviously, the space shuttle does not have much of a gravitational force, so you can’t compare it to the Moon.

                      “Unless the “astronauts” spent the entire mission taking c. ten shots a minute, the number of (impossibly) well-lit, in-focus, professionally-staged photos are well out of the range of the statistically feasible. Yes, obviously: NAZA was not dumb and therefore including the “bloopers” in their “evidence”… but, still. Too many of the “lucky” shots look like the work of the guys who did the cover-shots for Life, back then… and perhaps one was there “on the Moon” to help.”

                      Unless you know the basics of photography, including exposure and such, you have no reference. What were the photos supposed to look like, according to you? How do you know the photos are “professionally lit”, etc.? Over 5000 photos were taken on the moon, so many should have turned out well, according to you?

                      As for them being so well-lit, have you forgotten about the bright Sun? They never visited the “dark side” of the moon, so there was plenty of light. Remember, these photos are taken from film. When scanning old analog photo/video, the result can be much, much sharper than what the old printed versions could muster. This is because the film contained more detail that could be resolved in most printed versions or monitors. An equivalent digital camera to these old cameras would have to capture hundreds of megapixels of data (most phones only have 8 or 12) to resolve an equal level of detail. So when the film is scanned many years later, it can be seen for all its glory, in extremely sharp detail.

                      As an example: some of the earliest color photograph come from Russia, created by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii as part of his work to document the Russian Empire from 1909 to 1915. Here is one such photo, taken a century (!) ago:

                      Pretty clear for a 100-year old photo, right? Looks as good as any TIME Magazine photo.

                      The two cameras featured a mostly-automated process, thanks largely in part to the electronic motor. The astronauts needed only to set the distance, aperture, and shutter speed. Once the shutter was pressed, the frame was exposed, the film was wound to the next frame, and the shutter was reset. This is how, across several missions, over 5000 photos were taken.

                      “Yes, because sound vibrations aren’t conducted even more efficiently through dense metals in direct contact, at close range, to an ear of some kind. They were seated literal inches above a rocket engine (and, btw: I thought you were going to nail me on the “80k” pounds of thrust comment… the fact that you didn’t dive right on that one puzzled me… but now I know why).”

                      None is audible on launches to the International Space Station either. Is that a hoax too? Nor do you hear engine noise when an airline pilot speaks over the loudspeaker, even though it’s plainly audible in the passenger compartment. The blast noise goes mostly out and back. The proximity of the microphone to the speaker’s mouth means that voice will drown out whatever engine noise there is. I already explained this.

                      “It does no such thing. It proves only that NAZA had control over the “dust” (composed of what? treated/ soaked with what?), the soundstage conditions, some possible mechanism associated with or near the tires… and so forth.”

                      This is different than your previous assertion. This is what you said earlier:

                      “Why is the footage of dust being kicked up b the “lunar rover” … suspiciously similar to what you’d expect to see of dust being kicked up in Earth gravity, in Earth atmosphere?”

                      I already debunked this, so you move on to using circular reasoning: even if the moon landings are real, then you can just say NASA had control over everything, hence, it’s all fake, even if it looks right.

                      “Now, some bio: the first part of my Life…”

                      This has nothing to do with proving any of your claims, nor does it mean you have taken any undergraduate-level physics courses as I, which is the bare minimum level of knowledge required. You make very elementary mistakes in interpreting fairly simple statements. Or perhaps it’s stubbornness.

                      Admin, please keep an eye on this one. He seems to have realized he can not win this debate, hence the resorting to rude insults.

                      This was fun, however. Especially the psychological aspect of all this.

                      Like

                    • @ Matt

                      I have looked at the comment in question. You give no indiction at all that you are citing anyone else’s words. If you paste material from another source without quotation marks, blockquotes or citations/links you will appear to be trying to pass it off as your own words. Most people manage to indicate when they are quoting other material. In future maybe you could follow their example.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Oh yeah, I almost forgot:

                      “And nobody with a Science Background of any kind can watch those “astronauts”-on-a-wire vids, and not see lots of otherwise-impossible “non-Newtonian motion (of macro-systems)”. Occam tells us that they’re either in a strong magnetic field (and wearing ferromagnetic jockstraps) or suspended by wires. And, yes, you can even see the occasional glint of a wire in the studio lights.”

                      You have no science background. You’re an “artist”. There are no wires, nor do they “glint”, not were there any “studio light”. Occam’s Razor tells us that the U.S. went to the moon in the 1960s, using a manned space vehicle, rather than pulling off one of the greatest mass deceptions in human history.

                      My parting words:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

                      https://gizmodo.com/5837658/new-detailed-images-show-lunar-landing-sites-at-higher-resolution/

                      Like

                  • PS “That section mentioned photoshop… except photoshop didn’t exist in the 60s, nor did advanced image editing programs. Thus, any “editing patterns” the author claims are from photoshop retouching are impossible to have come from photoshop and are simple artifacts.”

                    Um, no. The part you refer to refers to NASA retouching some of the public material long after the fact . The main argument is based on detection of photo-compositing… which certainly existed pre-Photoshop (think Sgt. Pepper’s cover)… although who are you to say when exactly US GOV had Photoshop tech?

                    Like

                    • To the few of us who are un-brainwashed, or don’t have an obvious pro-GOV-propaganda agenda to support: I was ten when the Apollo Myth convinced me that US GOV had scored a major Cold War victory by putting “men on The Moon”. Being ten, and a massive science and sci fi fan (my favorite authors were Asimov and Gamow; Enrico Fermi was one of my heroes), I was easy to fool. I didn’t have a close look at any of the Apollo material until c. 2006 or so… when I was astonished to see how flimsy/ absurd/ blatantly false it was. My Belief evaporated.

                      Now, when I take a good look at the following picture (provided by NASA, linked below), all I can do is chuckle. What’s not so funny is how many supposed Lefties, who supposedly distrust Uncle Sam on most everything, trust “him” deeply regarding the Apollo Cold War Triumph myth… just as many supposed Lefties (a la Chomsky) buy the 9/11 Bin Laden, and the JFK Magic Bullet, myths. Inconsistent to say the least.

                      Weakening the Right Wing grip on Perceived Reality will be impossible if we can’t address Perceived Reality at its core, which is generated by the most effective Mass-Brainwashing Propaganda Field in human history. We all live in it. Most of us, to some degree, are duped by it. Until we kick our way out of this Illusion Bubble, the status quo has nothing to fear.

                      Now, I fully believe there was a massive Apollo Space Project (after successful attempts to achieve manned, low-Earth orbit) and that thousands worked, in good faith, at their compartmentalized jobs. I believe that most of the equipment that was manufactured was hypothetically functional (though not guaranteed to work as promised, had it been put to the test). But I strongly believe, based on extensive evidence that I’ve looked at (some of which I present in these threads) that the actual flight to the Moon and back, as presented to the world, was not possible with the tech of the era. It never happened.

                      The “achievement” is often presented as a miracle. I say: be suspicious of miracles. Unlike Religious Believers, demand extraordinary proof . There usually is none, though lots of hand-waving, and pious declamations, and angry denunciations of your skepticism, will abound.

                      I believe that JFK’s announcement that the US would make it to the Moon (before the decade’s end) was a bit of Cold War bravado they couldn’t back up in deed. What to do? To continue careful research and development beyond 1969, with no Moon landing, would have meant a severe loss of Imperial Face for the US. But to recklessly attempt a real manned Moon landing, at the time, entailed a very high probability of lethal failure and an even worse loss of face. Faking a Moon landing in 1969 was the only option; this decision would have been made at the highest levels, well after the genuine commencement of the initial effort… the legitimate aspects of the project were used to bolster the illusions that kicked in as 1969 approached. Who knows when the project shifted from Real to Theater? We may never know… or maybe this info will become “declassified” when the last Cold Warriors are dead (sadly, all that’s heated up again, so don’t hold your breath)…

                      Gus Grissom began to notice the Apollo Project’s profound distance from achieving the Lunar Goal before decade’s end and he became vocal… and paid for this with his life. Thomas Baron, who investigated Grissom’s claims, after Grissom’s execution-by-fire, and compiled a 500-page report, was hit by a train (along with his family) soon after. In order to understand Grissom and Baron’s (and the other “astronauts’ ” deaths), it probably helps to realize that the Disneyfied image of SS-Sturmbannführer Wernher von Braun (designer of the V2) was utterly false; von Braun enjoyed the benefits of slave labor at Peenemünde and there is credible testimony that “piles of corpses” (slave laborers) were fully visible to him as he oversaw the rocket-building operations there. From there to NAZA. Grissom had no idea who/what he was up against.

                      Now have a good look at this image (note absence of blast-crater in the soft, loose lunar soil; Moon boots seem to make more of an impression on the surface than a “rocket engine” does) and ask yourself how anyone could buy this prop as a robust, climate-controlled, pre-tested, high-tech space vehicle…. the upper module of which supposedly blasted off the Moon and performed ultra-precise course-correction, and docking, maneuvers with a “command module” in “lunar orbit”:

                      Like

            • We’ve had a rethink about this, you are both citing sources and conducting a reasonable debate, not a slanging match, there is a tangential connection to the subject of the article – so feel free to continue for the present.

              Liked by 2 people

            • MoriartysLeftSock says

              FWIW there’s a detailed analysis of the radiation issue here. In fact that channel is devoted to what it calls Moonfakery

              I’d be lying if I said there were not gaps in the publicly available information about how and when the radiation issues – not simply from the Van Allen belts – were dealt with.

              Liked by 1 person

              • The entire narrative is riddled with huge gaps which are patched with Magic (and magical thinking)… like all of the Big Lies we are fed/ raised with. But I find the video compilation of the obvious “astronauts supported by wires” to be the most effectively concise method for highlighting the Religious Thinking involved in Believing Uncle Sam’s story: how do people react when they see the “astronauts” flopping about on these wires, supposedly on the Moon? The blatantly evasive Denialism is the most psychologically interesting. It’s cut-and-dried information: these people are performing stunts that are impossible without wire support; if “we” went to the Moon, why fake lunar gravity using wires (on an obviously, therefore, non-lunar surface)?

                Like

                • Steve,

                  Setting aside for the moment that you ‘caught’ me apparently committing the old propaganda trick of “describing proof,” of telling people what they should be seeing in a video — in that instance, a video completely unrelated to the ‘generic space radiation’ issue , and certainly to that of the Van Allen Belts, which was the topic of conversation), kinda like “telling” people that in the video compilation at hand it’s obvious the astronauts are being supported by wires, that if you can’t see it, you are engaging in blatant “Denialism” — can you address the ‘fact’ that even if men never went to the moon, the argument about the Van Alen Belts being an incontrovertible obstacles to any attempts to go the moon is, let us say, slightly overstated?

                  What would be interesting, perhaps even compelling, would be if, by falling back on your “extensive background in the physical sciences,” you could demonstrate to us errors of either calculation or presumption in the document by NASA to which I earlier linked, you know, the one that flat out contradicts your claim that even NASA itself sees ‘space radiation’ in the same light that you do.

                  Try to resist replying with a farrago of meaningless (if entertaining) buzzwords and misdirections and ad hominems and to focus more directly on the question that has been put to you.

                  Prove to us that the Van Alen Belts really were the obstacle to moon travel that you contend they were. Merely asserting that they were is somehow or other not quite convincing enough for the psychologically interesting Denialist crowd.

                  Like

                  • I note that in the 2013 movie Oblivion, radiation was the terror device of boundaries compartmentalisation. I also notes in this thread that Chernobyl is full of abundant unmated wildlife. You can see the same kind of device used to set and limit the mind in a broad spectrum of parameters. But not from within its parameters. Attempting to point to these things is translated as ‘word said’ or ‘philosophy’! But the terror devices and the world they give is as real as you accept it to be.

                    I have no doubt that there is fakery or psyop in the NASA programming – so it isn’t that I have no interest – so much as I have no interest in personal arguments as to which witch is real.

                    Narrative control or identity assertion is a diversion from what is real here.

                    As what was believed real, deconstructs, the desire for truth stirs. Or perhaps it is stamped out and covered over with a mind-jamming signal – such that communication is effectively shut down? We do have choice as to what we accept true and give attention and value to.

                    (This not addressed to you Norman – but to the theme of faked narrative manipulation via the technology of the day. Though there is another conversation in its being done in ways that reveals itself fake to the willingness to question and look again without already buying it’s payload).

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Interesting – yes – but it still argues all or nothing. Why not both… AND…? I’ve voiced my reservations about hyping radiation exposure elsewhere on this page. I also believe there are significant liabilities/countermeasures to the results of exposures – but less for ingestion. The Military didn’t/doesnt hesitate to ‘experiment on it soldiery with regard to any and every type of toxic exposure (Atom Bomb)/vaccination (GWS). Basically where there is power accorded, assigned or trusted without true accountability – there is abuse. Protective Laws drive , black funded funding for black ops. What is ‘protected’ thus becomes a public narrative ‘reality (democracy) given token sacrifice and maintained as a management tool.

                    I noticed this line in your linked article:
                    “doubts that …HIV, causes AIDS, because he is (probably sincerely, I guess) in doubt about whom to trust; although there seems to be no serious scientific controversy about the issue. Millions of lives could be at stake as a result”.

                    Recognize the signature of the lie that operates this sentence. There is more politics in ‘medicine’ than in the sideshow – if politics is the nature of taking power by deceit to render powerless.

                    Without breaking into a thousand pieces of controversy. HIV is now recognized – if not publicized as not = to AIDS. The whole AIDS/HIV things is much more tragic a psyop in my opinion than Mooning about. The consensual ‘scientist’ is indeed based in who to trust as a result of not really questioning their own predicate reality beliefs of power, privilege and protection.
                    As one example around trusting what passes as science ;Last night I watched Peter Wilmshurst – former editor of the British Medical Journal for abut 25mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLZ0sHOu8dE
                    You may think this might be an exception to the rule – but look at Peter Gotzsche, or Doctoring Data (Kendrick) – innumerable others. Corruption masks behind ‘trusted’ reputations – of KOL’s (key opinion leaders) and there is an amusing example of one such in the video linked that I wont spoil.
                    Investing one’s identity in there NOT being fake moon footage is as foolish as investing in All of it being faked. I do not find identity in asserted beliefs – but I do recognize and find renewal in a shared sense of worth. If someone’s beliefs qualifies or disqualifies them from worth – then relationships are subordinated to a narrative dictate. In a nut’ hell that’s how communication is filtered, distorted and made into a weapon – as a lure to identity theft.

                    Like

                    • Binra,

                      After reading what you have written, I do have a question: do you believe anything of what it is that you write?

                      Are you asserting anything?

                      And if you are asserting something, isn’t that a form of investing yourself in a belief or a conviction, in finding your identity in the beliefs you are asserting, such as that you “do not find identity in asserted beliefs,” and in particular, precisely in “that” belief in contradistinction to its theoretical, if not actual, antithesis, namely, that you “do find identity in asserted beliefs?” And if not, if you are asserting nothing, then why do you bother wrestling so hard with the question of worth or value and the thing you call “identity theft?”

                      Like

                    • Binra,

                      You write,

                      “Interesting – yes – but it still argues all or nothing. Why not both… AND…?”

                      Well, either you transit through the VARB under certain specifiable physical conditions or you can’t. You can’t both be able and not be able to survive the radiation in a given spaceship at a given velocity and angle of attack. Or do you think you can literally be alive and dead at the same time, and I placed the emphasis on “literally,” as in no longer your present corporeal form, in case you are a theist and want to quibble over the meaning of being “alive” and “dead.” I mean it in its earthly, corporeal, or biological sense. If you come back with an argument for the plausibility of being able to be “alive” and “dead,” I’m sorry, but you will have resolved to terminate communication between us, since you will have decided not to agree on the meaning of the terms which make our printed communication between ourselves possible.

                      So no: not “both . . . and . . .!” because our earthly condition rules out being “both” alive “and” dead at the same time.

                      Like

                    • I am not intimately aware of the Van Allen Belt. I have made a few references to the use of radiation as a bogeyman/terror device in the Mooning about threads. (search page : radiation)
                      I have also indicated I believe higher level technology operates under wraps and that a ‘reality’ for public consumption – of various levels of ‘permissions’ and versions operates the ‘matrix’ of a split minded experience of existence.
                      If you want to base all of your view on whether one can or can not survive passing through the Van Allen belt – you may – but I haven’t sought to prove or disprove claims about the Moon landings so much as watched. read, listened and felt into the nature of what is being shown and said. The difference between NASA and the NSA is a…
                      Psyops are nothing new – but the technology extends its reach. They can mix lies with truth and frame the truth as a liar. They can also set up massive programs of funding for fake agenda that serves also a basis to keep us in the dark while watching their movie.
                      The globalist agenda has been driving technology through wars overt, clandestine, proxy and thuggery masked as trade or aid – while sucking out the true worth and wealth – and giving out fake narrative identities like candy to kids or guns to gangsters. Perhaps more than anything else the ones who have the ability to orchestrate such a false set of need-driven development – want to escape this Planet – which they manifestly hate – along with us.
                      That idea can be expanded – but then so can our recognition of our selves, our Planet and our existence.
                      Hate is a signature of a caged identity. It is also the energetic that manifests the cage. Perhaps that which has no love of living wants freedom from its pain and violating intrusions – as a result of being bound up with the desire to embrace life.
                      I have a clear sense that no one ‘goes home’ with hatred in their heart- because hatred is division and home is a wholeness of being. But I also have a sense that uncovering this hatred in our own heart is opening the Choice to truly live or persist in hating life for not vindicating our wish it be different than it is.
                      Although everything changes – it may be obvious that at another level, nothing changes.
                      What we give out is what we get back – and needing the reflection to change first, is a demand that keeps us waiting, and growing denser and heavier and darker (losing consciousness) in fear-defined division.
                      What the psyop is used for – whether a fake space program or a disinfo feed to the belief in a fake space program – is observable in its effects. And then there is a higher use of ‘manipulative agenda’ that serves purpose the ‘bad guys’ could never imagine. Its where you tune into.

                      Like

                    • Binra,

                      You write,

                      “There is more politics in ‘medicine’ than in the sideshow – if politics is the nature of taking power by deceit to render powerless.”

                      Indeed, and on the issue of HIV or AIDS, we are entirely agreed. If you go to my blog and do a search with the tag, AIDS, then you will find material that corroborates your stance and with which I fully concur.

                      So I guess that Wheaton, being but a mere human, is as susceptible to group think as anyone else.

                      It is impossible for any one person not to be to some degree at the mercy of erroneous beliefs since belief or awareness is first and foremost a social product. That is why one should always adopt an attitude of tentativeness toward anything that one happens to believe. You cannot but commit yourself to beliefs, but you can temper your commitment with the meta-knowledge that what you regard as “fact” today may upon the basis of a new set of insights become a “fiction” tomorrow. So, okay, in that sense, I agree: although you can’t but invest yourself to some degree in your convictions, you should never be so invested as to refuse to consider other possibilities, so as not to be able to change your mind when new information warrants that you should. Granted!

                      Like

                    • You are quite right in that we operate ‘working probabilities’ that are not absolute FACT so much as our current discernment of what resonates true in relation to what or who we recognize and accept for ourself – and ACT FROM or ‘be-live’ the perspective they bring us. The integration or dissonance of what we be-live and who we are is not an objective fact but an inner honesty.

                      One way to say this is that {everything} has brackets around it – so that the meanings are not locked down, fixed and ‘known’ but rather felt integral to the whole or the context and I am not outside or neutrally objective to that context. Subjecting life to such definitions brings ‘death’ – firstly as a state of alienation from your being – that then operates narrative control and the struggle for power.

                      That we are being lied to, that we lie to ourselves, or want to protect our (sense of) self from fear, pain and loss by the strategies that we imbibed pre-verbally or ‘accepted’ by using them in moments of need, is all part of the ‘masking’ and forgetting that co-fuses an alloy of love and fear. Not the manipulative transactional mask of the wish to love or the mean to love – but a core innocence of being that could not come whole into a world where terror, guilt and rage can overwhelm our capacity to feel and fragment the mind. Separation trauma is a catch-all term for what the mind is made to separate or split off from, and swear to forget. How do we NOT know what we know, but fear to revisit and refuse to accept? Its all in the mind, but is experienced as felt and locked down meanings that map out what we filter out, and invoke devices for setting up filters and blocks.

                      There may indeed be situations that did or did not occur – but their framing will communicate a contextual reinforcement to unquestionably accepted belief. None of which is ‘wrong’ because the basis of our capacity to have the experience is the ability to operate as if that is the only reality now.

                      I have a sense of a true history of which we are largely unconscious, not least because we (in truth) make the past in the present and set the future to its continuity. Orwell did not invent what mind already does. But Orwell did not point to the releasing of the past in the present to allow the unfolding of a presence in which past and future align the expansion of a greater recognition. He left you with a boot in your face.

                      I also have an appreciation of ‘history’ as a tool or device by which to set a linear unfolding experience within an infinitely open field. So I accept my life as a willingness of uncovering and growing that is in many ways an unlearning or releasing of beliefs. Not to ‘better’ beliefs but to a quality of knowing that is an alignment of beingin a similar way to making music. It comes through us in the bringing forth as a shared experience – with no need to ‘shovel the glimpse into the ditch of what each one means’. When communication at this level occurs, we step out in a different perception but not as a result of imposing upon another.

                      The manipulation of the mind (that is the mind filtering) operates through symbols and archetypes. This is because the mind is predicated upon a primary layer of symbols and archetypes – and aspects of our being can and do ‘communicate’ to us in other modes than rational analysis. The communication of a Planetary being is reflected in the ‘blue planet’ seen from outside or above. Symbols can and do ‘shift’ consciousness.
                      There is more going on than is served by arguing as if the other must be wrong. One kind of psyop is simply the setting of such ‘mindtraps’ as the maintaining of a state of conflict. I see the deceiver as being always one step ahead of anything we can think, because it frames our every thought – and in that sense is not a ‘them’ or an ‘it’ so much as a device that is serving purpose – like a black op under plausible deniability.

                      The terms ‘social’ engineering’ is perhaps outdated and inadequate, because its granular effects are more of a mind-control than any kind of communication within consciousness – such as we accept and believe to be.

                      I am currently open to that humans have been to the Moon, and I am no less open to that faking reality has been one of the primary dark arts of power since there was a fake power needing protection from exposure. So whether some of the missions were not as they were presented to be, or whether the insertion of plausibly believable signs of faking is itself a psyop – take your pick! What I am more interested in is why or what for?

                      The purpose of our lives can be stolen or subverted by every kind of inducement or lure. Perhaps if you take the bait you are willing to take the trip…

                      I do not trust any media presentation as such – and of science still less. The corporate capture and subversion of science is the basis for the technocratic subjection of the living to a living death. What I have discovered in ‘medical science’ and see active in other scientific endeavours as the dogmatic adherence to the model, under which deviation is smeared, ‘debunked’ or forced to be recanted – bought out and buried – and etc – is that everything is NOT as it is presumed to be – and that discernment has to operate from the heart because the mind is inherently complicit in the suppression of the true feeling being. The mind operates ‘alienation’ and the world it posits and asserts as demanding allegiance is the out-picturing of our conflicted state.

                      Insofar as releasing Earth from Loneliness goes – I’m already on board. But mind can generate a jamming signal to block anything it is not the willingness of acceptance. It operates as ‘reality’.

                      PS: This was part written a while ago and picked up later from a different place. None of it demands attention – but I have given it mine from a sense of willingness to look at the framing of mind – rather than enact its directives.

                      Liked by 1 person

                • While I have been waiting for the reply that I know is coming, Steve, I thought I’d root around a bit more for information on the ‘impassable and deadly’ VARB.

                  I don’t know if you noticed, but there is in fact a paucity of information on the subject, I mean from reasonable sources, such as engineers and PhDs.

                  I did, however, come across this page, cobbled together by one Jay Windley, who claims to be a bona fide engineer, and who, among other things, worked in the field of aerospace, and that others who might be wondering about the relevance of the VARB to the moon landings might want to read: radiation and the van allen belts

                  Don’t neglect to read the “radiation primer” to which Windley refers you if you are unfamiliar with the various categories of known types of radiation.

                  Like

        • ” The sheer enormousness of the achievement of making a roundtrip journey to the moon with living payloads was far beyond 1969 technology, and it’s still beyond 2017 technology, as NASA has admitted.”

          Do you have a reference as to where NASA has admitted that making a round trip to the moon with living payloads remains now as then beyond what is technologically feasible?

          Like

        • Steve,

          You write:

          “I do not make the point anywhere that the “van Allen Belts” render space travel “impossible” (as that other master of pointless amateur local hand-waving propaganda, the aptly-named “Norm”, would have it)… ”

          But you also write:

          “The sheer enormousness of the achievement of making a roundtrip journey to the moon with living payloads was far beyond 1969 technology, and it’s still beyond 2017 technology, as NASA has admitted. Most people don’t understand the extreme hazard, for living things, of passing , unshielded, through the Van Allen Belts, and then being bathed in cosmic radiation on the surface of the Moon: adequate shielding would be too heavy. ”

          Now I don’t know, Steve, but the second quote kinda, sorta reads as though you very much did write that given the level of technological achievement in 1969, and even today, in 2017, the Van Allen Belts were and still are a show-stopper.

          Unless, of course, the second sentence was never intended to expand upon and qualify the first.

          But if that is so, it’s yet difficult not to read your second sentence as very much asserting that the Van Allen Belts were an insurmountable obstacle.

          How else are we to make sense of this intensifying qualification: “adequate shielding” would be too heavy?

          That is to say, that in your opinion, there could not have been “adequate shielding” on the Apollo missions to adequately protect the astronauts — from what?

          Oh, that’s right, the radiation of the VARB.

          And furthermore, if the astronauts could have survived the VARB, you seem to be saying, they would have been finished off on the surface of the Moon.

          Or am I willfully misrepresenting what you intended to say, Steve?

          That’s a rhetorical question, Steve. No need to answer. We all know that you “do not make the point anywhere that the “van Allen Belts” render[ed] space travel “impossible”.” No way. No how. Not anywhere.

          That’s what I admire about you, Steve, your consistency and logical coherence.

          Like

  9. rtj1211 says

    Amazingly, 20th century history put quite a few dodgy people in power. The question is whether alternatives were worse or not.

    Let us look at Ian Smith, the last leader of Rhodesia before the Uk brokered majority black rule in what is now Zimbabwe. He was a moderate racist, rather like southern whites in the USA 100 years ago. But he was not going around murdering millions, he was not destabilising Southern Africa and he was certainly not as bad as those in South Afrca. I will let others judge whether Robert Mugabe was an improvement: my naive hope as a teenager that Nkomo would take over was not realised…..

    Then there was the Shah of Iran: a puppet tool of the UK-Us axis, with Britain more to the fore due to the AIOC drilling there. He was hardly great. Whether Ayatollah Khomeini was worse depends if you were an oilman, an Iranian or a fervent Muslim, I suppose….

    There were all kinds of murderous bloodthirsty dictators across South America, but it was Allende in Chile who was bumped off. Never cross Henry Kissinger. EVER….

    The thing about Kennedy is that he was duly elected and, if it was rigged in 1960, a Court of Law or Capitol Hill were the places to exact revenge if the US was worthy of world leadership. If he merely took policy decisions you disagree with, you can only bump him off if you have contempt for democracy. And I can tell all American readers that every US election cycle on UK television from 1976-2000 was peppered with fulminating US pols telling their rallies that ‘America is the greatest democracy in the world…….’ – the ‘until we bump you off to show who is boss’ remaining unspoken of course.

    The point of democracy is that you kick out Presidents through the ballot box or after 8 years of service. Unless they are like Hitler and wish to dismantle Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court etc to become a dictator. Now for that, maybe the UK would contribute to bumping off a US President. We would not contribute to bumping off a peacenik, someone promoting peace across the globe, someone abiding by international law. Someone expecting to face the voters again in 12 months……

    America has various cabals who think they are above the law: various oilmen; various banking dynasties; George Soros; even the immature billionaire class.

    Incentivising them through threatening their wealth if they do not respect the rule of law is the only way to handle cabals.

    But going to negotiations with a battalion of shooters might put out a message that two can play at that game……

    I wonder how brave Wolfowitz et al are when an AK47 is pointing straight at their skulls?

    Like

    • I read recently of an FBI whistleblower who vetted background of prospective aspirants to judicial office. Over time he realised that those with ‘dirt on them’ were constantly picked.
      Sorry not to have a name or a link – but its basic premise is to select people who can be ‘counted on’ to comply when it matters.
      Corruption is the system and a true humanity gets in the way of its function – when it steps outside its ‘reality zone’.
      The lie and the father of the lie – or the wish that truth be something else, given priority (reality) over the true – and at cost of true.
      So you don’t just have a ‘healthcare’ system that predicates you sick and manages from the womb or before – you have the suppression and loss of the the cultural expression of healing.
      And ditto in every branch of a broad spectrum dominance.
      The masking in true becomes the usurping of true.

      Like

  10. Tell those the victims of chemical herbicides in Vietnam (Operation Ranch Hand) that the SOAB responsible for their agonising deformities is a good guy (https://flashpointssite.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/behind-the-liberal-facade-the-bloody-crimes-of-john-f-kennedy/). “Oh you’re distracting from the fact that the CIA killed him, and therefore a gatekeeper”. Why don’t we focus on CIA-backed atrocities in Chile, Indonesia etc where hundreds of thousands more, albeit foreigners, were killed by the CIA? America first…

    “And it was the reason he was killed that should be our focus”. What establishment forces did he oppose? All he did was have a spat with the CIA over Cuba and sought to revert its to its original intelligence-gathering function rather than covert function, for tactical rather than moral/anti-imperialist reasons. How is this “some sort of heroism”?

    Catte speaks for the liberal privileged who benefit from the US capitalist two-party system. They want to prevent people from mobilising against that system by promoting illusions that we don’t need revolution, just another FDR.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Colin Watts says

      LOL, not sure you read this article before replying. If you had you’d see that you’re doing exactly what it says we have been suckered into doing, getting hung up on side issues and non-issues. The article does not claim JFK was a good man, it’s reminding us that the fact powerful people killed him and then framed a patsy is the most important thing. If we want to strike a blow for the masses we should use this event as a way of drawing people’s attention to who really has the power and why our democracies are a sham.

      Like

      • I did read it. Such articles are themselves “doing exactly what it says”. I never said that the article said he was a good man. The quotations I gave were from the article.

        My point is that his assassination is absolutely irrelevant compared to the thousands the CIA has killed elsewhere. As for drawing people’s attention, Americans in general are fine with CIA/militarist atrocities. People wilfully ignored Obama’s drone victims, for example.

        Liked by 1 person

        • If quantity is your ‘relevance’ then you have your result at the first pass.
          We do not know the misery that may not have occurred if the assassination had not occurred.
          There are archetypes within consciousness that ‘inform’ or frame our experience and response. I also see that these themes replay over and over.
          I don’t personally subscribe to deciding relative meanings from atrocity.
          Relevance is entirely decided by context. Whether or not JFK was a manipulated hope, does not diminish that he personified a spirit of the times that died with him – along with other events (MLK) that pulled the plug on a sense of a living movement.

          The ‘power complex’ is always killing the movement of life. That’s what it is and does. If Life broke out, war would find nowhere to insinuate itself.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Colin Watts says

      What establishment forces did he oppose?

      Seriously? The fact he had the back of his head blown out in full view of the world and that the perps were able to escape judgement is enough. Even if he was only one privileged man pissing off other privileged men he was also their victim, and an elected official offed contemptuously by unaccountable sources of power. Anyone worried about these same unaccountable forces today has an interest in drawing a new generation’s attention to what happened in Dealey Plaza. Burying it under a pile of irrelevant stuff about JFK’s morals or ethics or competence serves the interests of the unaccountable people who still run everything.

      Like

      • His shake-up of the CIA is a sufficient incentive for their assassinating him, but there’s no evidence that he was against the wider establishment. Again, tell the deformed Vietnamese that his crimes are irrelevant (forgive my presumptiveness – if terrorism was an issue in America, Obama and Hilary would be far more unpopular than Trump).

        As for how the highlighting thereof “serves the interests of the unaccountable”, we can discuss how ignoring the current crimes of the MIC serves to prevent its overthrow.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Colin Watts says

          It’s possible to both ask questions about JFK and oppose the current crimes of the MIC, in fact in my experience OffGuardian does both.

          The point is JFK’s assassination is one of those moments when the deep state exposes itself from overreaching. It’s a great way of focusing people who otherwise would not pay attention or care. It doesn’t make sense for us to do the establishment’s work for them and muddy the waters. As you say JFK was killed because he pissed off the CIA, so if we can make people understand that it would help to educate them about how the political system really works. Many many people still don’t get it. JFK’s assassination is a great way of educating them, which is why the establishment media are going overboard trying to make people believe JFK isn’t worth thinking about because he was just another corrupt politician. They want to make us forget he was killed for stepping out of line, because that is immensely important and a potential catalyst for changing the attitudes of the masses.

          Like

          • WeatherEye; Colin Watts: at last, sober analysis. Deconstructing the Camelot myth takes nothing away from the Deep State crimes or exposure: and does nothing to promote their furtherance. All it does is strip away an extra-dimensional overlay – which is in itself an abstraction. Who or what JFK would have become reminds me of Eliot:

            “What might have been is an abstraction
            Remaining a perpetual possibility
            Only in a world of speculation.”

            Only those who subscribe to Camelot seem to be uncommonly certain as to who JFK was going to be. How?

            Liked by 1 person

            • “Only those who subscribe to Camelot seem to be uncommonly certain as to who JFK was going to be. How?”

              That is how the movie works. It provides an archetypal symbol that triggers the entranced to provide the ‘narrative identity and continuity’ from their own thought and feeling.

              Hope springs eternal, but that does not mean it cannot be falsely directed.

              In ‘Lies my teacher told me” James W Louwen made the point that the issues and conflicts of the human heart and mind, that a distorted, sanitised or fake history hides or denies, are no less active within the issues of today. Issues in which we knowingly or otherwise, participate. But generally – as a result of a distorted historical narrative – are unfolding without our knowledge and through our compliance in the terms of a choice or contract we are not aware of making or agreeing to. As in a phishing ruse for identity theft.

              The subjectively dissociating mind is the nature of our modelling of self and world in image and concept, and the resultant driven mental and technical development of abilities. It runs on ‘as if’ or modelling of idea as if true as the capacity to fully and tangibly experience such idea.

              The projection or transference of our own mind into others is amply demonstrated and amplified, when someone we actually do not know, dies, and we grieve the loss of the world and identity of it, that we made upon them. The ability to phish and manipulate identity theft is an extension of something we are already doing to ourselves. That which identifies you perfectly is true presence lived, reflected, appreciated and shared. The grasping at the form of this is a sense of lack, personified as a sense of possession under fear of loss – and thus calling for defence and therefore attacking first as the best defence – but in such a way as to seem the aggrieved or unfairly treated victim.

              The way our minds work takes different forms of an underlying pattern, which – when recognized – is seen as the way our minds work against our true fulfilment. Habits are unrecognized patterns and once brought into the light of awareness, become choices of an awakened responsibility. The habit of seeking to validate or vindicate an invested identification by the overcoming or undermining of what seem to be the obstacles to its rightful inheritance is the successful blocking of our true awareness of being.

              Can we truly ‘know’ another – regardless what we presume to know ‘about them’? The denial or evasion of self-knowledge wants this ‘denial’ placed upon the ‘other’ so as to persist in the sense of justified ‘righteousness’ that does not seem hateful. But the reflection we meet – no matter how mind-filtered or socially coded – is of an experience of dissonance, lack, and a need for control that demands sacrifice.

              Finding a true alignment of heart and mind is an awakening in self-responsibility – one willingness at a time – but also amplified in ways we do not expect, because we believe minds are private and limited – for that belief is the defence against knowing who you are – upon which to project a fragmented personae.

              For in similar wise to what you point out, everyone amazingly already ‘knows’ the intentions of others. Of course they do – they put them there!

              But we generally are not aware that we are reacting to others as we hold our version of them to be, and are ‘phished’ by our own spin. Taking back power is more aptly using the power we never could give away. As I close this – it resonates with the latter parts of James Corbett’s “Data is the New Oil” on Corbett Report.

              Authority resides in choices of ideas accepted and bought into by reacting as if they are true. A false authority is tyrannous by nature, but that does not make it true. The overriding of the rights of others (and one’s own true appreciation of being) is rooted in a fear of denial that is itself denied ownership and hope of change – by its projected accusation onto the other. No one can force another to look within. But they can withdraw allegiance and support form false witness without – in solidarity with a true sense of worth that can be extended because it is received in place of the self-damning narrative that runs a joyless sense of living in seeking gratification in substitution for real relationships by engaging in fantasy associations of ‘as if’ – and fighting over it.

              Bad men and good men are a narrative control device. The personality structure is a masking over a core innocence of being – and not a ‘relative innocence of guilt’. But – it take’s one to know one. Now if that is true – as I hold it is – does that damn us or free us? It can clearly be used for either – but not both at the same time. I do not have to like someone to recognize my own projected and imposed meanings and consequent expectations – met or betrayed. But in owning what is mine – I have the release of who I thought others were, into a freedom to learn anew – from an aligning honesty of being. Not a ‘goodness’ or power to overcome ‘badness’ but in unified rather than conflicted purpose.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Kennedy intended to pull US troops out of Vietnam. No POTUS is ever going to pass any purity test, I think it’s fair to say that the world probably would have been a different place today had he not been assassinated.

          Like

          • “Kennedy _intended… … … “. But as binra says above “everyone amazingly already ‘knows’ the intentions of others [ie, of projected heroes & heroines]. Of course they do – they put them there!”

            When Alcibiades died after making that classic speech (how Athens was the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, and how well their Egyptian Intervention was going) people began to write later that Athens would have had a happier future — if only Alcibiades had lived to finish what he started.

            Like

            • Big B says

              Binra; Vexarb: I proposed the same line of thinking on the other forum (though less eloquently than Binra.) It seems to have touched a nerve and provoked a defensive reaction to suggest that Camelot is pure projection.

              “From the Buddha: if we seek immortality and the transcendence of death – the highest state of being is ‘no-self’ (anatma). How do we build a cult on that???”

              Like

              • Perhaps my point was partly that ‘Camelot’ is not a pure projection – of entirely invented imagination – but a projection of need. Whether manipulatively set up and triggered or whether arising from our ‘unconscious’.
                But the core symbol is not only in The Arthurian legend – but is embedded in our psyche.

                If we only address our rational layer, we miss the underlying psychic-emotional patterning. We may even believe we are rational beings while everyone else is emotionally deranged.

                There are those who recognise that we are not in fact rationally motivated – but only rationally self-justified – and so they focus on symbol-triggering to operate others minds for them. All in a good cause… or simply using minds that their owners do not keep vigilance on – perhaps because their attention is directed elsewhere.

                The world we take to be reality itself is not accessed or participated in without acquiring the underlying structural definitions of its ‘rules’. We don’t definitively KNOW what anything is, we only believe or accept as true by acting from it. Our model may seem to have a degree of congruence within itself, but is never one with what it seems to define and is always changing – but our investment in it renders it extremely averse to change that associates with threat of loss. And so when there is a need for change, because the established model is painfully oppressive, the agencies of such change personify and symbolize the need that has not yet awoken in the heart. There is a significant seed change but the nature of suppression of such change breaks the heart of its reflection in the world. This can become a form of nostalgia for the golden age that nearly came back, or it can grow the seed-change of a more direct heart awareness, in which the an ongoing responsibility for discernment as to the true nature of the segregative movement of being as contrasting with the reintegrative movement of being enables conscious choice. The fragmentation of (our) mind is reflected in our world. It’s literally insane – but insane thinking is a choice that awakened sanity (honesty of being), can recognise as meaningless.

                Our human psychic-emotional development is predicated on broadly shared definitions that become invisible because most everyone operates from them. Questioning the reality of our own experience is not casually undertaken, and is usually as a result of the breaking of that reality – where no power can put together again what had seemed and been lived as unquestionably true in its living. Surface realities in which we become so fixated, are at least in part a defence against depth, or to put it differently, against loss of personal identity in control.

                In this sense we then seek to resolve or act out our underlying issues ‘out there’, upon a world onto which we project our own meanings and invest in them as part of our own sense of self and world. Except we all use different symbols and the same symbols differently. Babel doesn’t just apply to written/spoken language.

                When people feel personally attacked, there may be a way to address the underlying issues in a way that acknowledges them as they currently are – without having to share their choices. The whole good/bad person thing misses the point – but of course if someone becomes sanctified, others feel a need to rebalance the account. We also judge others (or ourself) after the fact – where the fact was in its cultural context that is not true now. Moral outrage is the shout of the inner fear seeking to avoid exposure, and sets the climate in which the powerless can seem to exercise power without standing in their own authority.

                I persistently fail to write a brief rejoinder. But the aliveness of the subject is relevant to bridging from such powerlessness to stand in our natural authority – which is never over another.
                I know a young man who followed mainstream media US politics whose face was so pained when I revealed something of the criminal activity of his favourite President. Did I need to say that? In retrospect, no, but living is learning to be more able to feel the need of the situation and less presumptuous as to ‘telling the truth’ without honouring what is truly here.

                I believe that opening to the awareness of negative agenda (which is far more systemic than bad persons) needs to be matched by the embrace and alignment in health or wholeness of being. Also that opening to more joy or expansive being will show up the dissonances that otherwise seemed tolerable, and they need to be addressed and not mapped out and defended against in a false ‘spirituality’.

                I am no man’s judge, and I see that at personality level we are all a mixture of strengths and liabilities. Perhaps our liabilities are where our strength resides, and our strengths hide our true weakness?

                Like

          • History can be read as a record of choices taken – or choices denied – though that also is a choice. There is no way of knowing what else would have occurred if something in past had taken a different turn. Judging after the fact is a layer of meanings that are built upon wanting this to be different than it is. And engaging in such meanings perpetuates this disengagement with actual relations and conditions.
            Our part in the unfolding of events is thus generally running under many layered ‘meanings’ of dissociation and in that sense a trade off with maintaining support for such identity within the reality-sense of a world gone wrong.
            There is a way of looking at the world and others for what they lack – the glass half empty. And there is the freedom to look at the world for what is truly appreciated – without framing it in a sense of lack. This half full – can serve alignment in the quality and nature of fullness. Even a step in this direction opens perspectives denied by persistence in ‘problem’.
            That the JFK symbolises a pivotal moment in history is not about whether he conformed to anyone else’s code of conduct but a choice NOT to engage in global nuclear conflagration that ‘actioned through’ key agencies including JFK. That did not mean there was a willingness to move further in the policy directions JFK sought to initiate, does not mean the world was not ‘changed’ in its course and given open feedback of the nature of the mind that runs in ‘secret’ beneath the surface narratives.
            And so I live in a world that chose not to self-destruct in that way and suffers to be revealed or exposed in its own deceits, as part of some willingness for reintegration in life instead of subjection and captivity under a mess of entangled deceits that seem to dictate choices within narrative dissociations of compulsive identification.
            I always write to point to where our own responsibility awakens and so am unintelligible to the insistence the world is real – in the terms of narrative identity.
            The development to ‘identity ‘politics’ reveals the manipulative intent of identity assertion, and release from such polarising division points to that true identity is in fact a quality of recognition received and extended both.
            In this sense it follows that your experience of the reality of the world is what you choose to give it and receive.
            ‘As you sow, so shall you reap’ is PAYG ‘karma’ and not a threat or a promise of future outcomes – though our future is the unfolding of our present acceptance – unless conditioned to automatically operate such ‘acceptance’ without conscious discernment.
            The ‘what’ of meanings and events is relevant to its practical application – ie: How does this serve you?
            To know our purpose is to align in purpose. But to be assigned purpose under false narrative is to be kept in the dark.
            While every kind of diversion to fear and division is baited and triggered, we are living right on the cusp of the Time of Choice. You may be led to believe you have none, or are powerless and weak or up against insurmountable odds, or captive to deeper fear that cannot be escaped and etc. But the willingness to choose NOT to give allegiance to what truly does not belong in who you now accept and align in being, is the invitation to Life not of your making – and that is a quality of recognition that automatically extends in ways your mind cannot get a handle on – and doesn’t need to. Live your conscious acceptance and grow it anyway and in any way that works for you. The ‘mind’ is not your friend until it aligns in service of a truly felt relationship.
            If ‘Everything is backwards’, then turn it around – and not ‘tomorrow’ or even ‘in a minute’.

            Like

          • The record shows he was a major hawk on Vietnam, indeed he BEGAN intervention in Vietnam with Operation Ranch Hand which sprayed millions with Agent Orange now generations are deformed. He wanted out of Vietnam, but only after victory, which is illegit since the US intervention was illegit.
            Why do you think the world would be better had JFK lived? If you’re going to say that, you must be specific.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. Big B says

    Well, now I’m pissed off. First, Catte, you made the claim that there is no editorial policy on JFK??? Well, that’s BS: the editorial policy of this site is now officially Camelotism. Second, you completely misrepresent my comments on Kit’s article. I took three of Kit’s examples to show how the myth of Camelot is at odds with history. At no point did I introduce the more salacious aspects of JFK’s “flawed” character or represent him as “selfish”. So what is this about? Why are you promulgating a myth on the back of misrepresenting my comments: which by and large focused on the historical perspective? And why not address that perspective?

    Was JFK “pushing for de-segregation and civil rights” – or pushing back against and attempting to contain the Civil Rights Movement? Was he the hero of the hour in the Cuban Missile crisis – or the cause and (very nearly) the destroyer of humanity? Was he ‘Teshuva’: turning toward peace in Vietnam – or having trained the South Vietnamese army: was he going to withdraw his advisers, and let the South Vietnamese fight a proxy war? Was he going to end Operation Ranch Hand – that is still linked with deformed Vietnamese children to this day? What about the secret war in Cuba? Was he going to end capitalism, the Cold War, ban nuclear weapons? Or was he lying (proto-Obama-like) when he talked about test bans – trying to freeze the missile gap in America’s favour, and carry on development “underground”?

    “The larger point of our article was that the discrediting of JFK as an emblem of the hope for a better world is of itself a political act, and one that most greatly benefits the same forces that may have killed him.”

    I also gave the antithesis to this argument: the promulgation of Camelot also benefits the forces that killed him. His myth is tainted with strains of American exceptionalism; manifest destiny; inherently racist white privilege capitalism; the demonisation of Communism and Russophobia? If you big up JFK as the hero of the Cuban Missile Crisis; you obscure history, diminish Krushchev, and vilify (Soviet) Russia. If you big up JFK as the crusader for civil rights – you diminish the efforts of millions of people over hundreds years that led to that point. By creating the ‘Great Men’ – you diminish and disempower the masses and subvert the historical dialectic… to whose benefit???

    “And JFK’s death – even if not his life – mean he will always embody those dangerously subversive ideas.”

    This sentence doesn’t even make sense. How can one live for one set of values: yet in death come to epitomise the antithetical set of values? Isn’t that the very definition of a sanctification and transubstantiation???

    And you err into the realm of abstraction as soon as you claim to have any more insight than anyone else as to WHY JFK died. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW. The “Deep State” didn’t give up its secrets, did they? It’s all speculative. So how is your speculation any the more authoritative than mine or anyone elses???

    Finally, the process of heroification is also dialectical – for every hero; there is an anti-hero… the natural corollary of heroification process is to produce its opposite: the production of demagoguery, ultra-nationalism, embodied in the Führerprinzip. To whose benefit is that???

    Liked by 2 people

    • BigB [to Catte] “At no point did I introduce the more salacious aspects of JFK’s “flawed” character or represent him as “selfish”. So what is this about? ”

      It is called “devising and setting up a straw man in order to beat the stuffing out of him” (bevin’s post, Kennedy book review Nov 20)

      Like

      • The process of heroification is mass psychology mind control tool of totalitarian imperialism. You take a movement; isolate a leader; you can either build them up or take them down (or both ); and in extremis – kill them to neuter the movement. If I had time, I could show that is exactly how TPTB (initially including JFK ) dealt with MLK.

        Like

        • To make ‘special’ is to separate and to separate from life is to kill.
          I don’t need a totalitarian nightmare to see this operating the mind of a humanity asleep. But of course, the belief that to separate is to ‘save’ from destruction or annihilation – is why separateness is defended even to the death rather than yield ‘specialness.
          I observe this in my own thinking so as to release it. I cant do this for anyone else. But I share in purpose.
          I was going to refer to jesus – but anything that could shine a light tends to be associated with either a specialness of idolatry or a dead idea.
          Other people make choices – knowingly or not and it seems to me that becoming more conscious of our choices – and what the true nature of choice is – serves better than to try to rescue others from their own teaching/learning experience. Everyone defends their self as they currently accept it to be.

          Like

          • Binra is wasting everybodies time and effectively deflecting the argument. It’s a distraction technique. What a bore!

            Like

            • Because you say so? Because you chose to waste time and presume others choose as you do?
              The only effect I can see is that people make their own choices as to whether and how to engage with anything I write. If you find relevance or irrelevance is that my effect or yours? Own your power and you will not need to try to get it at other’s expense.
              You give your power away but I don’t want it. I disregard the ‘special’ role you cast me in, for your freedom and mine.
              Separateness in self-specialness defends against communication.
              If we watch our mind we wont have to wait long to see this pattern – and then be curious about it.
              You can observe your thoughts as they rise to your awareness. If you do, you will become aware of a cause and effect relationship between your bored experience and the nature of your thinking. You don’t have to change your world – or me – to instead experience wonder. It is simply a matter of where you choose to give your attention.
              Something moved you to bother to denigrate my input – perhaps you know what that is. I only know you have touched in with me through a movement of feeling within you.

              I write or sketch out in prose to illuminate underlying psychic-emotional issues that the mind in the world effectively distracts from. That’s it’s job as narrative or identity control – but not it’s true function.
              I sense that our core conflict issues are effectively re-enacted over and over through the generations in loveless and broken relations that will not be healed because the cause is not out there in the ‘bad guys’, or at the symptom level – but at the cause level. A mind fixated in the world is effectively distracted from cause – so as to seem (in its thinking) to be its own cause, in wish to stand in judgement over as a personal sense of power in its own right. To such thinking, there is no ’cause level’.

              Just watch the mind and see what it ‘does’ or rather, what you use it for.But only if you want to. It’s really with you what you elect to attend or give energy and attention to. But be aware the world is the argument that it is not your power or freedom to create the meanings all things have for you. It purports to have built-in meanings that you are trapped in or subjected to – having no mind of your own, but only what your bore of a brother subjects you to!

              You will see whatever you want to see – regardless what anyone says or does. Such is the power of the mind – but running in thoughts of which it is unaware – and so knows not what it does.

              Like

    • I appreciate your input – and yet you don’t have to assign expectations to OG or Catte and then be pissed off because they are not met. The mythic is (in science-speak) synonymous with ‘false or untrue – and in that sense science (uncovering of true) is usurped by anti-mythic mythology. Narrative identity is a masking or coding of experience to fit or support self in image, symbol and concept. Because we made it (our own) UPON others and our world, we don’t see it – but we do ‘see’ – the ‘lies of others’ – that in this context are all the way in which another fails to meet our rules, terms and conditions and thus merits withdrawal, withholding, of communication.
      And so communication is lost to the use of the ‘forms’ of communication used for propaganda in intent to disrupt, undermine, invalidate, reframe and control or be seen to set… the narrative outcome. Either as the ‘winner’ or as the framing of the other as ‘loser’.

      The framing of consensual narrative reality in collective terms is generally assigned to ‘others’ who are associated with agency of cultural inspiration or expansion – and the agency of subverting or marketising and weaponising such change for private agenda – aka ‘control’ – whatever its mythic sense of destiny or justification.
      The idea prevalent today is of ‘secret manipulators’ – of power from the shadows, whose hiddenness may be due to the manipulations of narrative mind rather than their acts being altogether hidden.

      The idea of power over is in your terms ‘dialectical’ because for the ‘hit’ of such assumption is the consequence of subjection under the terms set and contracted by the willingness to give it out and believe it. So when it comes back it is as real as you are – in your power-powerlessness narrative.

      Participating in the unfolding of reality experience is an inner responsibility for an outer result – but I use that terms as synonymous with freedom – and not as the guilting and invalidations of blame and demanded penalty.
      The action-reaction of conditioned or habituated (narrative) identity is of the nature of a machine by which we have the life it gives us – under the cost it demands.

      Now the issue comes up for me as to whether our world (can I use this term as distinct from our mind?) is held and run under evil or loveless agenda (whoever that may be associated with or assigned to) – whether all serves purpose within a unified and unifying meaning that is inherently denied and blocked by the intent/attempt to assert and impose ‘meaning’ upon life – whatever it actually is.

      So I see the symbolic archetypes of human personality structure – that are no less the patterns of a core separation trauma from which – or as which we re-enact as our strategic adaptation within fragmented and incoherent ‘reality’ experience that is masked over and in that sense protected or hidden – by narrative control or ‘thinking’ as an intent to disrupt, undermine, invalidate, reframe and control the narrative outcome. Either as the ‘winner’ or as the framing of the otherness as ‘invalidated’.

      Once a symbolic representation has ‘taken’ root in the currency of narrative belief – it has all the life it is given – a life that is not in ‘history’ but which operates outside time and space as a template or lens through which narrative reality is relived. Idols are living qualities assigned to external forms. Their worth-ship supports the inflation of a vicarious subjective experience, but at cost of assigning power to an idol that must ‘fall’ – because its life is your set of terms and conditions. Life seems to betray, abandon and reject us because we fixate in form as if to define and control reality – and such forms operate as a currency of fixed ‘meanings’ to which we sacrifice the true of living presence for a ‘lead role in a cage’. (And believe freedom is slavery and vice versa).

      The use of symbols is reversible. Like a breadcrumb trail that points ‘home’. But not while employed for image-ical manipulation of segregative intent – which ‘gets’ its life at expense of (true awareness of) other and recognition of wholeness, in belief IT has been denied and deprived and is thus lacking and lack-driven to seek symbols of completion and fulfilment – but never a true intimacy of being. or it would be exposed and undone.
      And so the hope of life is called on, but only to be used or subverted to serve the fear and secret worth-ship of an evil will. For look at what the JFK event is used to consolidate and reinforce. Look at how the ‘good’ is used to persist in the focus in the evil – and what is worth but the giving of energy and attention to what is held and accepted meaningful? But I am free to say ‘thanks – but no thanks!’ to what I no longer recognise and resonate with as true, and so open receptivity to a more aligned perception. Why should a more aligned perception arise to a receptive willingness? Because we have not and cannot leave the wholeness of being – except under the wish and belief to do so, given priority and commitment.

      That wish is kept ‘alive’ under narrative justifications calling on ‘deep’ or hidden triggers of conditioned reaction.
      The polarized experience of split off and conflicting struggle is perceived outside as a result of being en-tranced.
      What if ALL the parts of the dream are cast from your own imagination? Including the one that thinks they think alone – and judges all the others – and posits the judgements of the others? While that kind of opening can seem mind-breaking – if it is in the willingness to release and be released of an insanity, it opens the way to a quality of responsibility that the ‘world’ denies – and may persecute or seek to kill you for witnessing – because that is its ‘protection’.

      I did not imply that you should not be pissed off, or that there was something wrong with you or Catte for having a result in ‘pissed off’. Feedback is valid – but its underlying narrative does not have to be validated.

      Like

  12. wardropper says

    “I suggest it’s more important to focus on that than to be lulled into saying, along with Chomsky, “well, JFK was a bad man, so who cares who killed him?”

    Did Chomsky really say that…?
    His (understandably) reticent position on 911 has so far been the only thing which has bitterly disappointed me about him. Looks like I might have to add this thing too… Pity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • He didn’t use those precise words, but it sums up his attitude. He routinely dismisses all suggestions of state involvement in either of these crimes

      Liked by 2 people

    • Harry Stotle says

      Personally I find Chomsky’s 9/11 analysis to be toe-curlingly uninformed – in other words he holds strong opinions without any apparent insight into the mountain of contradictory empirical evidence.

      His rambling comments about science are particularly inane, so that the only counter-argument he offers is that an operation on the scale of 9/11 would have been too big to be kept secret (a claim debunked by Ray Griffin).

      Put simply if wasn’t for his formidable reputation Chomsky assessment of 9/11 is on par with those who hold strong religious convictions based on personal belief rather than objective evidence – he is on record as saying even if it were true (mass murder of US citizens by the deep state) ‘who cares’ (from 07:00). Noam attaches the same lack of importance to the JFK assassination (from 07:16).

      As to the question of JFKs reputation I will continue to follow the debate amongst others who are more knowledgeable than I am about his track record although I do think this speech tells us he might have been quite a complex individual.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Harry Stotle says

          Yes, thanks for pointing that out – JFK was still smarting after being out-manouvered by Castro during the bays of pigs (the speech was less than 2 weeks after the Cuban invasion).

          Kennedy probably saw Cuba as another Iran, or another Guatemala – countries vulnerable to CIA black ops.

          As I say I am no JFK expert but in this instance I am more persuaded by BB (and others) rather than the off-G contributors.
          Anyway, its a fascinating period and I have learned a bit more from some of these recent threads.

          Like

  13. Eric McCoo says

    We can see in this article that there was a very clear agenda to blame the Soviets for the JFK assassination and set off the biggest corporate bonanza in history: the cold war.

    “JFK assassination files: Oswald meets KGB officer at Soviet embassy in Mexico City Published 9:41 a.m. ET Nov. 4, 2017

    Among the newly released documents is one dated Nov. 23, 1963, one day after the assassination in Dallas, that reports on an intercepted phone call made by Oswald in Mexico City to the Soviet embassy on Oct. 1, 1963.

    The call indicates Oswald visited the embassy on Sept. 28 and spoke with the embassy consul, Valeriy Kostikov, who the report identified as a member of the Soviet KGB assassination department working under cover at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City.

    While noting it is “not usual” for a KGB agent on a sensitive mission to have such overt contact with a Soviet embassy, the CIA report said Soviet intelligence procedures show that “very important agents can be met in official installations using as cover for their presence there some sort of open business.”

    usa today

    Like

    • According to Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard two “Oswald” phone calls to the Embassy in Mexico City were recorded by the CIA. When Hoover heard them he phoned President Johnson to warn him the voice wasn’t that of Oswald. It meant O had “help” and raised the question of why the CIA were so keen to say it was. The cat was nearly out of the bag but was easy to resolve; shut down information and destroy the tapes. Done.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Eric McCoo says

        Thanks. Didn’t know that.

        Oswald was a member of an organisation by the name of ‘fair play for Cuba’. The message couldn’t be clearer or more dramatic. A Soviet spy with links to Cuba assassinated the President of the United States in the middle of an ongoing diplomatic /military stand off.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Or an American spy with a brief to go undercover posing as a Soviet sympathiser and pro Castro activist? Expendable of course.

          Like

          • Eric McCoo says

            Indeed. There seems to be evidence for a connection to the CIA. That is my view, but he looked like a Soviet spy to the rest of the world.

            Also, just a thought. Like many other men shot in front of a TV camera, he might have been acting.

            Like

  14. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    Well done Catte for pointing those with eyes to see, in the right direction.
    If JFK was a bad man, then what were the conspirators who aligned themselves against the people and ensured his assassination? The “good guys”? The kind of “whatabout” crap railing against him serves only to distract from what really happened and why it ever happened and furthermore, why was it covered up and whose interests did his assassination really serve? Certainly not those of the people, it served his enemies within. Dissent against the false narrative regurgitated by the corrupt state regarding his death is the real enemy these “whatabouters” fear and must be silenced and that is achieved by propaganda aimed at “nudging” us to look in the wrong direction.

    Like

  15. Kennedy was talking of a Russian “truce”in the Cold War, supporting Algerian Nationalists and others fighting colonialism in Africa, of ending US interference in S America, – Oh and not allowing Israel to develop a nuclear weapon.

    Like

    • There was more of course; saying he’d smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and sacking Allen Dulles who had run the organisation since 1949; withdrawing support for training Cuban excites to invade Cuba; refusing to invade the island himself; proposing changes to tax reliefs on oil production; wanting to end the tyranny of the Federal Bank; Civil Rights law; withdrawing from Vietnam; bringing down the Mafia; nuclear disarmament agreements with Russia and an end to the Cold War which alarmed the military industrial complex. But perhaps the involvement of Mossad operating out of Toronto and other Zionists in Texas ranging from Sam Bloom to Jack Ruby and his work for the Jewish Mafia King Meyer Lansky were most important? Israel wanted the Bomb and Kennedy wanted to stop them getting it.

      Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s