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?”
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Any further discussion of the Moon landings or other off topic questions is more than welcome on our Open Forum thread
https://off-guardian.org/2017/11/30/open-thread/
@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
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
Shucks. Does that mean we are all done on the moon landings?
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… Read more »
Excellent.
[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… Read more »
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…
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 …
Ah, but Buddha was an Agent for King Bimbisara, mate ! Laugh
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!
I can get behind that rumination, BB!
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,
“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 …
If any of us want to respond to anything you say BigB you can be confident we will do it under our regular identities.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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.
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,
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 …
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… Read more »
Assassinating a democratically elected president destroys democracy. It cancels the votes of the majority of Americans who voted for him!
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.
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.
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…..
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.
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
So sorry to see you missed the point, again.
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.
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
Very good Apollo Exposé from the guy who showed us just how ridiculous the “Boston Bombing” narrative was, the late great Dave McGowan:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
@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.
“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
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
Moon debates are always fun, but a bit off topic here, no? 🙂
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.
@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?
For what? To justify a Nazi-led rocketry programme perhaps???
“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…
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!
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.
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… Read more »
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.
@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.
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.
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)…
“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… Read more »
As I’v already said, this isn’t the place for a discussion about the moon landings.
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.
“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).
They were engineers, so they were high up enough to understand what was and wasn’t possible from a technical standpoint.
Matt’s extended family is of Venezuelan origins in case people are curious to know.
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.
That my friend, is the best comment you’ve ever made, IMHO.
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.
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!
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… Read more »
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…
Oh, good, a professional Nasa-Hoax-Debunker-Shill. Snore. Save it for YouTube, chum. Do you do the 9/11 Popular Mechanics Drill, too ?
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
” 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?
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?).
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
“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?
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?):
Detail of interest:
http://www.aulis.com/apollo17_ascent.htm
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)
http://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm
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:
(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”)
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
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… Read more »
Look at the “astronauts” on wires vid, please, and respond directly, if possible.
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!
It takes one to know one. When two matching poles meet – they dont!
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.
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 😉
“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.
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
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… Read more »
@ 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?
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… Read more »
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.
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
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,… Read more »
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.
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…?
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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.
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… Read more »
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.
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.
It might be a good idea to move the Moon discussion over to our new Open Thread. The debate is getting swamped and hard to follow here.
https://off-guardian.org/2017/11/30/open-thread/
Admin: I’m done, but perhaps others will want to rage on! Laugh
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…)
done 🙂
Reply to your two latest comments below here:
https://off-guardian.org/2017/11/30/open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-92991
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… Read more »
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.
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”.… Read more »
“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
“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.
“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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@ 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.
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/
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?
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… Read more »
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.
I sincerely appreciate this decision.
As long as the commenters here at Off-Guardian.org are keeping Matt busy on the moon landings, we at Kremlin Stooge are very grateful for your efforts. Keep ’em going!
🙂
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.
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)?
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.
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).
I thought this post by “Denialist” William A. Wheaton, (Staff Scientist, IPAC, Infrared Processing Center) rather interesting:
Re: Is it impossible to travel to the moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?
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… Read more »
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?”
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.
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… Read more »
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!
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… Read more »
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.
” 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?
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… Read more »
Very good piece Catte. Thanks.
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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… Read more »
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.
“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.
Ouch! Pericles
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???”
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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)
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.
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.
Binra is wasting everybodies time and effectively deflecting the argument. It’s a distraction technique. What a bore!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.
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
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.
Kennedy’s conspiracy speech was about the Soviet Union
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.
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
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.
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.
Or an American spy with a brief to go undercover posing as a Soviet sympathiser and pro Castro activist? Expendable of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.