Long time readers of this blog know that one of my pet projects is exposing state moles, usually of the limited hangout (LH) variety, and especially those who purport to deal with ‘space,’ i.e., NASA, space travel in general, plus what we might call ‘mainstream’ astronomy/cosmology/physics.
From a couple posts back: this is how I lost my phone; it dropped into Gus’s bowl on the road.
I’ve been trying to wean myself off of this, for variety’s sake, lately by (again) delving into the related matter of the biological/evolutionary history of the human species, but a couple days ago I (again) got waylaid, this time by the alt media outfit that calls itself ‘Forum Borealis.’
This guy, a Norwegian who calls himself ‘Al Borealis’, runs a podcast that often features well-known guest researchers of the ‘scholarly’ type, especially those interested in ‘alternative science’, plus one of my fave subjects, the existence of a ‘Secret Space Program.’
The evidence that Forum Borealis is another alt media state mole is varied and is – given the exchange I’ll paste in below – pretty much inarguable. ‘Al’ made the same mistake a few others of his ilk have done, when he sought to ‘answer’ the first observation I offered in his video’s comments. Although Forum Borealis fanboys will double-think their way around the truth, I’ll add a few others to my observation that a the existence of a Secret Space Program (which all his guests rightly believe in) does not fit logically with acceptance of the Apollo missions as ‘real’ (the position of virtually all his guests).
Another observation that jumps out is their group tolerance of the mainstream Big Bang paradigm and all that goes with it, i.e., expanding space, black holes, dark matter & energy, the sun-as-nuke-furnace, and so forth. And, of course, not a peep about Electric Universe and its many implications (which expose for what they are my little list of mainstream science lies).
Perhaps it’s easier to discuss what Forum and his gang do not talk about, or, indeed, even go near. So as to avoid confusion and outright misdirection, the latter especially via commenters who will seek to dodge important issues, I will keep this really simple, in terms of the subject matter avoidance I am referring to:
Number One: Not only Apollo (mentioned above) but the other, and continuing, space mission frauds we are endlessly subjected to, the latest of which – and I have proved this with my videos almost to the point of overkill – is the oh-so-obvious Spacex fraud.
In fact, my first comment was related to this issue, in that Al’s guest, SSP expert Michael Schratt, brought up an important aspect of how the Spacex fraud could be pulled off, although he was not referring to Spacex when he blurted how advanced hologram technology has gotten, and how some of the UFO sightings could be faked. Indeed, this is an interesting thought, notwithstanding that neither Schratt nor Al ever mentions that holograms could very well be how the latest NASA/SPACEX frauds are executed.
If you go to 55:40 in the podcast, you’ll hear Schratt quote the Air Force 2025 Report: ‘The holograph projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in the desired location… the projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking… when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.’ He goes on, ‘According to this [Air Force] report, they have the ability to produce an image of an aircraft in flight projected from another platform and they can do it [anywhere]…’
‘Unsophisticated adversary’? Sound like us, especially when we’re relaxing on Florida beaches watching the latest Spacex boosters do what you can’t even do with a balanced broom handle?
Anyway, I found this to be a valuable observation from Schratt: keep in mind that LHs must give us interesting truths in order to gain our trust. But as you will see from the pasted comments below, Forum Borealis won’t even discuss this thought when it’s put right in his face.
Number Two: The star visibility issue. (I’ll cover this below, in my inserted (in bold) comment observations:
These two related subjects are to be avoided at all costs in the state-mole alt media. Any reader who is not aware that the Apollo missions of the 1960s-70s were complete frauds (they never went to the moon) is either not really paying attention to the evidence or is part of the problem.
Here’s my exchange at ‘Forum Borealis’:
[This comment is out of chronology but it fits here] Shows like your are valuable but we have to pay close attention. For example, you bring up hologram technology. Spacex’s landing of boosters backwards from space with thousands of eyewitnesses indicates highly advanced hologram technology. How else to explain the ‘impossibilities’ witnessed from Florida beaches? They have gone beyond CGI; now we cannot believe our own senses. If you think I’m nuts, explain my video showing a half million pound Spacex Falcon disintegrating into a wisp in a 4 second explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWWe0a8zuI&t=87s I have several others, starting with Musk’s absurd ‘car in space’ fraud. Do you really believe that was real?
Forum Borealis14 minutes ago (edited)
Haven’t looked into this specific Musk project, but when I find time I will glance at your links. Thanks. As you will see, he never gets back to us on this.
[This is my first comment] These various SSP guys believe we’ve been zipping around the solar system (with anti-grav) since the 50s yet still believe in the chemical rocket programs (like Apollo). How does that make sense? Do I have to explain my thinking? I believe many of these ‘researchers’ are state moles. See my blog at blog/banditobooks.com.
Addendum: I’m so sorry that what follows is so boring. But pay attention anyway and you will learn about how alt media moles think.
Because the Apollo programs were hijacked after JFK’s assination and turned into a dog and pony show for the american public – and more importantly: for the sovjets and other governments. Researchers have claimed this for decades – it’s refered to as the paralell space program. Check our shows with Richard Hoagland for details about it. As you’ll see, this is misdirection/drivel. Ask yourself What is he saying here. What does ‘dog and pony show’ actually mean?
Yeah, everyone who disagrees with your approach are agents. In fact, everyone in the world are in on it, except you. He wrote this so immediately (within minutes of my post) that it’s likely he already was familiar with my blog, which is interesting. How else would he come up with ‘everyone in the world,’ which is only a slight exaggeration of my position, based on the long-time history of my blog.
What do you mean by ‘dog and pony show’? I have heard you claim (in this show, for example) that ‘apollo deniers’ just need more facts to smarten up. What does this mean? How about you explain your views on the chemical rocket programs, whether they are real or not. Do you believe (for example) that Spacex is landing boosters backwards from space? This is impossible via the laws of physics. Do you realize that?
Take a look at my spacex videos and debunk them: You can start with this recent one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDF23wcMVo&t=20s Then go to my playlist and view the other Spacex vids that prove fraud. Tell me how I am wrong. And why don’t you expose these frauds? If you want to get serious about truth, you have to get specific: telling me I think everyone is this or that is straw man.
By the way, you bring up Hoagland? Are you serious? He claims (for ex) that Apollo had magic film that ‘could not take a bad picture.’ Direct words. He is the most obvious state disinfo agent I’ve ever come across. Why not ask him why there are no stars in the Apollo photos — since they had ‘magic film.’ Why can’t they ‘bring out’ the stars in the background with Photo Shop technology? The star visibility issue is the big one — either all their imagery is false or ‘space’ is not what we’ve been told — and you never bring it up.
Notice that he does not answer this question (or any of my queries or points). What follows is all misdirection. Think about it: Why can’t they use photo shop to bring out the stars in Apollo photos? And since the astronauts had film that ‘could not take a bad photo’ (Hoagland’s words), why not in them? The star visibility lie is THE BIG LIE, in terms of implications. That this is never spoken about by Forum Borealis or any of his guests is the reddest of red flags that they are dirty. Or stupid. Are they stupid?
Forum Borealis16 minutes ago (edited)
Last reply, because we don’t have time to discuss with every nitpicker in our threads, we wouldn’t be able to do shows: Q: What do you mean by ‘dog and pony show’? A: A public display, a sharade to on the one hand continue JFKs orders and on the other stick to fossile fuels without revealing the classified hi-tech (it’s in the middle of the cold war, what else to expect? – even now they don’t reveal the contemporary levels reached within even unexotic & mainstream weaponry). Like I said, you will get it all explained in the Hoagland show we did, called NASA Revealed. Does this answer the question at all? Is this not pure misdirection? If so, what does this say about ‘Forum Borealis’?
Yeah, that’s me knee paddling my logboard in… a lake…
Q: “This is impossible via the laws of physics. Do you realize that?” A: Ah, so sorry, didn’t know you were the creator of the universe and had full calll on the laws of nature. Obviously everything is uncovered, gravity isn’t a mystery, and if something doesn’t fit the current model of understanding, then it must be dismissed – despite science NEVER having reached a full understanding at any point in history and is ever evolving. So let’s ignore basic logic and dismiss out of hand whatever threatens the current official understanding, even if there’s phenomenons that clearly shows this understanding to be limited. dogma and theory is more important than the actual landscape those maps try to describe. What utter crapola! I was talking about Newtonian physics, as anyone can tell. The above is pure nonsense. I don’t feel like I have to explain why.
Q: Take a look at my spacex videos and debunk them: You cans start with this recent one. Then go to my playlist and view the other Spacex vids that prove fraud. Tell me how I am wrong. And why don’t you expose these frauds? If you want to get serious about truth, you have to get specific: telling me I think everyone is this or that is straw man.
A: Sure. Just let’s agree first upon how much you will pay me for the time and effort. Can you transfer via paypal? How long should the dissertation you are comissioning be. Any specific criterias for it’s contents? Notice how much time he’s ‘wasting’ with these replies! Talk about misdirection! It’s now been three days and he has not dealt with any of my videos showing that Spacex is a fraud. Why? He can’t. Current space frauds are off limits to the state alt media.
Q: By the way, you bring up Hoagland? Are you serious? He claims (for ex) that Apollo had magic film that ‘could not take a bad picture.’ Direct words. He is the most obvious state disinfo agent I’ve ever come across.
A: Way to go resorting to ad-hominem and straw-man. How quickly your factual argumentation crumbled. Please, at least pretend to have a fact-based case. The reference to Hoagland is merely due to the fact that he spends several chapters in Dark Mission to PROVE (you know, evidence) the paralell space program. Talk about straw man: I never said there was no Secret Space Program. Totally the opposite! So you are free to dislike the man, it’s not about him. Btw, he is not the only one who has done this, let alone the inceptor of the idea – but at least he gives a nice, extensive, fact-based outline of it. So when you don’t understand this crcuial element of a paralell program, and ask about it – I am given you a specific tool to educate yourself with it. This will make evident whether you are genuinely interested in understanding the SSP lead, or if you have some other agenda. Not bothering to update yourself, shows the latter, in which case any further discussion with you is in vain. Again, nothing he says is relevant to anything I said.
Addendum: Just to put on record what I think about the moon: I believe man has been there, but via anti-gravity technology that has been around since the 1950s. The Apollo ‘missions’ were not related to these missions. In this sense they are completely fraudulent. The same is likely true of most if not all chemical rocket missions.
None of this is ever said or hinted at by the ‘Secret Space Program researchers,’ even though a few of them (like Jay Weidner) say it without saying it, such is their misdirection. Weidner is probably the best example of this. The main point is they avoid talking about it. This way they don’t get ‘caught’ in obvious double-think.
Q: Why not ask him why there are no stars in the Apollo photos — since they had ‘magic film.’ Why can’t they ‘bring out’ the stars in the background with Photo Shop technology?
A: Magic film? He explain fully what the problem with Apollo footage is. And he is backed up by people delivering (like Ken Johnston, who we will have on). NASA has destroyed most of the original footage, like we say in this show because it cannot be as easily faked as modern digitals photography. Fortunately much has been salvaged, and Hoagland is one of many who has released this footage. I was talking about the Hasselblad camera film! So this ‘answer’ is also irrelevant. Nothing he says is relevant to anything I say! This is also important in that he completely avoids the ‘star visibility’ issue, which should be the number one subject with any of his Secret Space Program guests! Yet they never mention a word about it. If you don’t know what I mean here, see my viral video on the subject.
Q: Same thing happens with all the SSP pundits. A: If so, all the more kudos to them. You don’t seem to master the art of a constructive, truth-seeking dialogue. Feel free to prove me wrong. Blah blah.
This was a while ago.
Q: I attended the 2015 conference A: The one in San Mateo? I hope you are aware there’s 2 different SSP currents out there: The original one which consists of researchers, scientists, and other relevant folks, who is conducting an adult exploration of this issue, based upon factual grounds. And the the second which is a copy cat commercial con-job (pushed by Wilcock and Gaia TV) – and who base their allegations upon half truths (the truth part is material lifted from the former group), subjective fantasy and/or lies from their messianic cult leaders who delivers nothing but a spectacle that makes the whole issue a bad joke that no rational person will buy into (which indeed may be their agenda), save some lost new-agers looking for a belief-system to sustain their neurosis with. More misdirection. I attended the conference in Texas, as he had to know. So this is still more crapola. See my answer below.
Q: … and when they realized the issues I was going to bring up (similar to my above comments) they cancelled the Q&A. A: LOL! Are you a paranoid schizofrenic or a megalomaniac? You seriously think they cancelled the Q&A BECAUSE you had some challenging questions in store for them?
How did they know? Did they read your mind with mind control tech beforehand? Say, are you a materialist pseudo-sceptical debunker, a blue chicken cult member, or a flat-earther? Since he’s familiar with my blog, he knows that this is all bullshit. As I say below, I tipped them beforehand to my questions. Now he’s outright lying. I’m pretty sure I can smell your paradigm is attached to one of these 3 fails. If I’m wrong, I will be very happy on your behalf.
Q: Will you answer it? A: Sorry, no – I have no time. I indulged you with this answer and that’s it. You can have the last word. I don’t think you are really interested in understanding the serious SSP field anyway, I think your agenda is to push some hypothesis that for one reason or the other is challanged by the SSP facts, hence you need to attack the latter. I hope I am wrong, but that’s what I sense from your inputs. So I can’t waste more time tango with you, I might as well tango with regular trolls. That said, we practice free speech and feel free to spew your ideas all over this thread, so long as you don’t break any laws. Disagreements are not dangerous, they are healthy and usually necessary. He sure spent a lot of time writing (nonsense) for a guy who isn’t going to answer! Actually, his ‘sorry, I don’t have the time,’ is hilarious.
To answer the only non-nonsense of your ‘reply’: As you could have figured out, I was at the Austin, TX conference and made the mistake of asking most of the attendees my questions on the last day lunch break, before the Q&A. I should have realized what was coming when it became clear that EVERYONE accepted the Apollo fraud, which — as I say above — makes no sense, given that they believe we beat gravity back in the 1950s. What I think I’ll do is use your above ramblings in my open letter to you. It’s too precious to let it fade in this comment section. I hope you realize what a fool you’ve made of yourself in trying to answer my serious concerns.
#
Okay. Enough. If reading this guy’s drivel bored you, I apologize, but in order to show without doubt that someone is dirty, you sometimes have to hang in there and see where they are really coming from.
Next post will show you the inarguable evidence that our ancestors were genetically manipulated.
Allan
I welcome Forum Borealis to answer this post in any way he wishes. I’ll not censor anything. He might also check out these posts regarding other of his guests:
Anyone who seriously champions the idea that the Apollo manned missions to the moon were faked must come to rational grips with the following:
1) NASA landed spacecraft on the moon six (6) times, and twelve (12) humans set foot on its surface between 1969-1972. The six Apollo moon landings involved over twenty astronauts and over 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians.
Not one of the individuals involved in the Apollo mission has cried ‘hoax’ or ‘conspiracy’ over the 50 year span of time since humans first set foot on the lunar surface. It is irrational to believe that such an elaborate conspiracy could have been pulled off without anyone who was involved blowing the whistle; the statistical odds of that occurring are near zero.
2) Our top international competitor during the Cold War ‘space race’ was the Soviet Union. If the U.S. landings on the moon were a hoax, why didn’t the technologically advanced Soviets, who closely monitored the U.S. lunar missions, challenge the reality of the NASA Apollo moon landings?
If the Apollo missions to the moon were indeed faked, and the Soviet Union became aware of the fakery, the story would have been a propaganda coup for the Soviets, one that would have enabled them to assert their superiority over the United States. That did not happen because the United States actually did land men on the moon, and the Soviets knew it.
3) The astronauts who voyaged to the moon six times brought back physical evidence in the form of rocks from the lunar surface. The rocks have been studied by independent scientists worldwide and determined to be different than any found on earth, and extraterrestrial in origin.
Multiple articles have been published by geologists in peer-reviewed journals on the composition of the lunar rocks, and not one of them has disputed the fact that they are extraterrestrial in origin.
How is it possible that 381 kg (over 800 pounds) of lunar rocks now exist on earth if humans never went to the moon and transported them here?
4) Since 2009 the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO) orbiting the moon has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites, photos that have captured equipment left on the moon, tracks left on it that were created by astronauts, and flags erected on the lunar surface. How is that possible if humans never set foot on the moon?
5) 3rd party evidence* – Objective evidence of the moon landings have been provided by parties not affiliated with NASA or the U.S. government. These parties include Japan (Selene Moon Orbiter photos), India (images of Apollo 15 landing site and tracks of the lunar rover), independent observatories (detection of retroreflectors, mirrors placed on the moon for earth-based laser tracking), and amateur astronomers who tracked aspects of the Apollo missions. These 3rd parties have provided further evidence that the Apollo moon missions were real and not faked.
In my humble opinion, there is compelling evidence that humans landed on the moon beginning in the late 1960s. As I see it, those who refuse to accept such evidence are akin to those who believe that the earth is flat and/or was created 5-10,000 years ago, irrational belief systems that fly in the face of scientific reason and empirical facts.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
The pics offer a nice respite from our daily lives and agree Borealis deflected all questions with nonsensical answers. Thank you Allan.
Thanks for the photos Allan. Good one of your phone…
Where to next?
All I can say, Allan, is that you get what you deserve.
Every charge you lay at the Dis-info Agents you rail against can easy be applied to you! You’ve used the same tactics you complain about against me, when I’ve tried to helpfully re-direct your blog to more useful aims.
You certainly don’t have the most advanced understanding of How The World Really Works.
Have fun knocking your head against your RV wall. Peace will come to you in due time.
“Peace will come to you in due time” – you mean spirited Insulting AHole… Have Sex and Travel!!
I get what I deserve, huh? You’re a nasty, ugly piece of work, aren’t you? Plus you have nothing of value to contribute here, do you? Why not just go away?
You illustrate the point I am making very clearly with your AD Hominem attack on me.
The brilliance of your genius keeps shining through!
If you’re not open to being criticized or complimented for your work, why don’t YOU JUST GO AWAY?
Otherwise, brave the battlefields of an OPEN FORUM like man, instead of a beaten little brat.
Your ‘can’t land a rocket backwards’ and ‘can’t land a broom’ is getting repetitive in a NLP kind of way. It took me less than 5 minutes practice to land a broom. You still haven’t debunked the other companies that are producing videos showing they are landing rockets backwards.Perhaps you misunderstand whatever law of physics you are referring to.
Also just because you can see stars when the earth is blocking the sun doesn’t mean you can see stars in space when the earth is not blocking the sun.Reality can and does defy common sense much of the time.
I am not sure one can see stars in space but pretty darn sure rockets can land backwards despite the NLP.
You can land a broom to a spot on the ground? You are lying. Prove me wrong. Send a video of you lowering a broom onto a coin on the ground from a standing position. Do you hear? I am accusing you of lying. Be nice to shut me up, wouldn’t it? So do it. Liar!
Silence from drud. I’ll add this to it: Send the video with a majority of people here agreeing that you lowered the broom to the spot and I’ll send you $100. If you don’t come up with the video, we will all know (for sure) that you are lying.
“It took me less than 5 minutes practice to land a broom” — you Lying F..king Hound!!
My dearest Bandito, It”s always a nice mental exercise to read yer blogs and the seeming “responses” of the argumentative “truth seekers” out there.
I myself do not have the mental accuity to wrap my mind around some of your topics as I fear it won’t stretch far enough and a crack or tear might appear and unhinge me more than already is. Personally, I feel anyone who thinks we’re the only “intelligent” race of beings on this vast infinite experience has their head stuck up a dark and smelly place. Keep on rockin Bandito, and plz remember your suppliments!
Grins back at ya.
I have a challenge for you…found on Youtube a video of some dude filming the stars while in a high altitude commercial flight at night or found a video of a amateur rocket flying to high altitude during night or more difficult found a video of ISS astronuts filming stars while they are in the shadow of the earth…my research show me its impossible to found any high altitude flight with any sight of star wich is very suspicious because myself, in a mid size city, full of light pollution during night without clouds I can see dozen and dozen of stars…bottom line it seem star only exist in telescop or on the ground level
Please re-phrase. I don’t understand your question or challenge, whatever it is.
Seems like he’s challenging you to find any photographic evidence of stars visible from any high altitude flight or, better yet, from the ISS.
Makes me wonder what it would take for an amateur to send a camera high enough to find out for ourselves…
This whole issue makes me wonder if space isn’t somehow weirdly analogous to water on earth. I can clearly see stars reflected in a body of water but when I dive in they dissappear. Probably not but something strange is definitely afoot.
Haha!! … do you mean all these meteors are popping out of a huge water pool?? 😀
Hi Allan,
I’ve been reading your posts for a couple of years, and I really appreciate your research, and enjoy reading what you have to say. In this light, I would add that I concur with most if not all of your insights…it’s always good to know you’re not alone.
Pertaining to your recent post & current topic, I would like to ask, if you could clarify one statement you made:
“Addendum: Just to put on record what I think about the moon: I believe man has been there, but via anti-gravity technology…”
I was wondering what specifically leads you to believe this?
I have seen three unidentified flying objects in my life, one of which definitely defied the laws of physics as we know them, but I have never made the leap of logic that their existence is proof man has gone to the moon…can you elaborate on your belief?
Again, thank you for all your efforts!
I’m not sure about the status of the Secret Space Program, only that it exists and has existed for a long time. The reasons I think they conquered gravity (back in the 50s) are many and add up. Much of the info you get from the SSP people is pretty much true; they are often limited hangouts and have to provide truths.
The many thousands of sightings of ‘UFO’s are often ours, I’m quite sure, and have obviously beaten gravity. Also, there was a lot of activity and writings (even mainstream) in the 50s about anti-grav, then it all went dead silent, which to me meant they got it right. You beat gravity, you can go anywhere (radiation is a problem but…).
I agree about the SSP/ Farrell & the other LH’s. It took me a while to wade through their half truths and lies.
I see your point; if they beat gravity in the 50’s, they probably figured out the radiation problem at some point. I would likely draw the same conclusion…but only if I saw any actual evidence of them having been to the moon.
Perhaps the NASA programs were a smoke screen for the advanced technology…a way of funneling money etc? Sure, but still I see no evidence.
All of the Apollo evidence they provided was a complete joke, so I assume you believe they finally achieved this feat after that era?
Otherwise they would have been a little more convincing with the so-called photographic evidence, maybe brought back some real moon rocks, or left something behind that we could actually see.
I am still skeptical, due to lack of evidence.
Is there anything else, that leads you to believe this claim?
I left this in the next comments and it fits here so I’ll repeat:
You make some good points, stuff I have worried over as well. For example, if they can come and go (in space) at will, why not plant ‘evidence’ on the moon that the Apollo missions were real. Should be easy to do yet they haven’t, as far as I know.
And if the SSP alt media are largely moles, it’s possible that they are a part of this. And the many ‘sightings’ (like the Phoenix lights) could very well be hologram technology, as was briefly mentioned in the Forum Borealis podcast. (Remember that LHs must give some good info to instill trust.)
So yes, all this should be kept in mind when we mull over the alternatives of what is real and what is not.
If you produced a hypersonic thrust-vectoring jet drone, capable of racing in and taking out all the high priority targets immediately, as well as out maneuvering any known earth aircraft, it would be able to do seemingly impossible maneuvers quite easily. It would kind of be like what was reported.
Hypersonic scramjet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
Imagine a scramjet with a gimbal allowing it to thrust vector inside a stealth drone. It would turn on a dime and go at least 20x the speed of a fighter jet.
I certainly believe they got to the moon years ago using Anti-Gravity technology as well. They have been flaunting it in our faces for years , with that mysterious huge Black Triangle with the lights in it for instance. Bill Cooper saw an Anti-Gravity machine come up slowly and silently out of the ocean , back in 1963.
My concern is that the triangles and other possible man-made crafts (the Phoenix Lights, Hudson Wave, etc.) are other examples of holograms, beta testing of them and so forth. Just a possibility. The slow and subtle official disclosure of UFOs — the tic tac incident and others, even via the NY Times — might portend some sort of op in the offing. The UFO issue is a very interesting one, possibly the big one. We’ll see. But meanwhile, don’t believe anything is real just because a lot of people see it. New times we’re living in.
Good points Allan. But man there has been so much WEIRD stuff seen and reported in every way shape and form. I am going to study the finer points on how they make/project these holograms…I mean they travel for miles & miles!…
He’s recently had Wallace Thornhill on his show, show title “Electric Universe”.
What show are you referring to? Thornhill is a very important man, as you probably know.
It is interesting that 400 thousand citizens across the country worked on these supposed fraudulent space projects with salaries and families who lived/live in our neighborhoods, have children in school, live regular lives among us for YEARS ( I live near the Space Center) yet none of them has ever disclosed that they were being paid big bucks to not work on (many) space projects.
Well, Mary, I guess you never heard of compartmentalization. You also must believe in the Apollo official story. Right? Same logic. Here’s a radio interview I did about that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3di6odvdNZk&t=615s
Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? 100s of thousands of workers and none knew what it really was.
The implications of this subject – depending on the depth of the deceit — are nothing short of staggering. The biggest lie ever.
Lots of money to pay all those moles who never talked and the compartmentalized people who worked on a fraud
Yes Mary , they will print any amount of money they want to – literally out of thin air (mostly online), to perpetuate their highway robbery of the taxed sheeple.
https://ascienceenthusiast.com/50-years-ago-celebrating-over-400k-people-who-helped-nasa-fake-the-moon-landing/
Do you have nothing to say about the Manhattan Project and how 100s of thousands of workers had no idea of what they were really doing? Convenient to just ignore that, right? And there are many more examples. I realize that no evidence will have an effect on your view (like the many points I make in my radio interview)… this is human nature, unfortunately.
Nope, I have nothing to say about the Manhattan project. I am sure that many workers were clueless about the goal since it was a national secret (whether it is right or wrong I don’t know.) BUT that has nothing to do with the evidence you present to Apollo being a fraud/haux in that your evidence is not empirically correct and the evidence to support it is/was supported by a host of workers/scientists who DID know the goal
“Do you have nothing to say about the Manhattan Project…? A. Weisbecker
Allan, do you have nothing to say about 1-5 (see above and below)? Please respond to the issues raised re: moon landings.
Anyone who seriously champions the idea that the Apollo manned missions to the moon were faked, including “truth seeker” Allan Weisbecker, must come to rational grips with the following:
1) NASA landed spacecraft on the moon six (6) times, and twelve (12) humans set foot on its surface between 1969-1972. The six Apollo moon landings involved over twenty astronauts and over 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians.
Not one of the individuals involved in the Apollo mission has cried ‘hoax’ or ‘conspiracy’ over the 50 year span of time since humans first set foot on the lunar surface. It is irrational to believe that such an elaborate conspiracy could have been pulled off without anyone who was involved blowing the whistle; the statistical odds of that occurring are near zero.
2) Our top international competitor during the Cold War ‘space race’ was the Soviet Union. If the U.S. landings on the moon were a hoax, why didn’t the technologically advanced Soviets, who closely monitored the U.S. lunar missions, challenge the reality of the NASA Apollo moon landings?
If the Apollo missions to the moon were indeed faked, and the Soviet Union became aware of the fakery, the story would have been a propaganda coup for the Soviets, one that would have enabled them to assert their superiority over the United States. That did not happen because the United States actually did land men on the moon, and the Soviets knew it.
3) The astronauts who voyaged to the moon six times brought back physical evidence in the form of rocks from the lunar surface. The rocks have been studied by independent scientists worldwide and determined to be different than any found on earth, and extraterrestrial in origin.
Multiple articles have been published by geologists in peer-reviewed journals on the composition of the lunar rocks, and not one of them has disputed the fact that they are extraterrestrial in origin.
How is it possible that 381 kg (over 800 pounds) of lunar rocks now exist on earth if humans never went to the moon and transported them here?
4) Beginning in 2009 the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO) orbiting the moon has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites, photos that have captured equipment left on the moon, tracks left on it that were created by astronauts, and flags erected on the lunar surface. How is that possible if humans never set foot on the moon?
5) 3rd party evidence* – Objective evidence of the moon landings have been provided by parties not affiliated with NASA or the U.S. government. These parties include Japan (Selene Moon Orbiter photos), India (images of Apollo 15 landing site and tracks of the lunar rover), independent observatories (detection of retroreflectors, mirrors placed on the moon for earth-based laser tracking), and amateur astronomers who tracked aspects of the Apollo missions. These 3rd parties have provided further evidence that the Apollo moon missions were real and not faked.
In my humble opinion, there is compelling evidence that humans landed on the moon beginning in the late 1960s. As I see it, those who refuse to accept such evidence are akin to those who believe that the earth is flat and/or was created 5-10,000 years ago, irrational belief systems that fly in the face of scientific reason and empirical facts.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
And did you ever study the story of the manufacturing of the first Atomic Bomb?? – Compartmentalization Big Time…no one knew what the next guy was doing or making.
…..Have a quick look at those 3 Sadsacks (and nervous & shifty eyed) – in front of teleprompters! – at the “1969 post moon landing news conference”. It looked like their Dogs had died….even little kids knew something was terribly wrong. They were sooo obviously lying.
I think I encountered plants like this too, they are lurking under Space science channel videos on YouTube. In real life I encountered people like that too, it’s so bizarre, I even consider the concept of a spell, what makes people to behave like that.
For the genetic manipulation post:
Why do we need to cut nails and hair, growing infinite?
There are plenty of genetic diseases, more than in animals.
Why does our teeth don’t fit in our mouths? Wisdom teeth
Apes can breath and swallow the same time.
Has anyone read “Humans Are Not from Earth”; just the fact we sunburn and that we cannot digest any of the food on this planet efficiently speaks volumes.
Also, does anyone find it as interesting as I that Carl Sagan gave us the Baloney Detection Kit; Warning signs that suggest deception. I would venture to say that 90% of the “belief systems” in the US would not withstand the weasel test. Without exception, lamestreammedia false this test on all fronts.
Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”).
Spin more than one hypothesis – don’t simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
Occam’s razor – if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are:
Conduct control experiments – especially “double blind” experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors – separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from “authority”.
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavorable” decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god’s will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”).
Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question (“what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle – considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term – a subset of excluded middle (“why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?”).
Slippery slope – a subset of excluded middle – unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words – for example, use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”
(excerpted from The Planetary Society Australian Volunteer Coordinators Prepared by Michael Paine )”
http://www.carlsagan.com/index_ideascontent.htm
It is more likely that mammals are not from Earth, i.e. that mammalian intelligent life arrived around 66 million years ago (consider The Moon as the hemispherical front shield of the mammalian ark) and wiped out the dinosaurs (reptiles) while adjusting the atmosphere for the mammalian respiratory system.
Unfortunately for the mammalian settlers, it was too late when they discovered The Earth had a 12,000 year ‘glaciation cycle’ reset.
The clue is that there is very little evidence that mammals descended from reptiles – no fossil record of any transitory phase.
Good points, possibly. In any case, neo-Darwinism is number two on the Big Lie List, just behind the big bang/etc. nonsense. More on this stuff to come.
What proof do you have of this swill? Any of it?
Your points re genetic engineering are important. The big one, though, is the chromosome number difference between us and apes. Reasonably speaking, it could only have happened via engineering. Sitchin may have been basically right. Since he died, the ancient gold mines in S. Africa have been unearthed, which goes along with his theory. A real mind bender.
Oh jeeze lueeze, every living thing has a chromosome count and almost all are a different number than those of humans. (FYI chromosomes are nothing but a string of chemicals that are called genes which are also different in almost all living things. You know DNA) And the “stitching” would have had to either been to every ape or to an ape more than a millennium ago when there was no ‘stitching” (unless it came from one of those space people in a fraud situations) And as for Baloney Maroney above me, not all humans sunburn and all food comes from here on earth, not someplace else (and digestable…)
I read all this once in a while to be entertained by lunacy although the open letters are so rambling and off the subject with eccentric irrelevant side bars, too peculiar and illogical to follow
I don’t understand a word you say about DNA. That we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the great apes have 24 means there was a fusing at some point in the distant past, a one-off mutation. How this became fixed in our genome is not explicable via ‘the standard model’ of evolution. Look into it, please, before replying.
Shills such as Mary Louise Phelan are deployed to ‘sanitise’ blogs/comments, to ensure that there is no lasting accord that Moon landings were faked, etc. and to generally divert and waste time of blogger and commenters.
By all means explain how the India launch was fake, but don’t waste time on shills who’ll challenge all ‘alternative’ perspective. They have automated Google searches for ‘Apollo’ and ‘fake’ and ‘hoax’ and simply materialize out of nowhere like blue-bottles.
Manfred, I agree in principle with your comment, but Mary L’s prose doesn’t feel like computer-ese to me. Maybe they’ve tweaked the A.I., but still….
Yeah, but good point…
So at some point a telomere was faulty, and allowed said fusion.
What telomeres are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
Chimpanzee chromosomes vs human, chromosome fusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project