The Aulis site seems really comprehensive with regards to the kinky fakery moon landing stuff: https://www.aulis.com/
I don't know about Cannon AFB, but Aulis seem to believe it was filmed at Cardington studios in England (under the direction of Stanley Kubrick - who put clues/references in his films). I'm not sure they say all the six missions were filmed there though, so maybe there was some Cannon AFB stuff as well. I'd not heard that one before.
We don't even need to go with the shadows aspect - it's the simple (and probably deliberate, for whistleblowing purposes) continuity errors in the photo/video record which convince me. If they threatened Kubrick, then this would've been his way of thwarting them for future reference.
Anyway - I do find all this stuff fascinating, simply out of curiosity and a continual 'need to know'. I think the moon landings being faked is so important because if widely known it would totally shatter the myth of American exceptionalism, and the entire American public would lose all faith in their government (the rest of the world too for that matter) - and that alone would change the world forever because American foreign policy could no longer exist, meaning no 'forever wars', or NATO aggression, or cold war vs. Russia/China, and so on and so on.
So this is why they have to ridicule the whole lunar conspiracy - for other conspiracy theories they do the really aggressive 'you're a dangerous, right wing, presumably anti-semitic (we usually throw that one in for good measure), spreader of mis/disinformation so we have to shut you down and make the people fear and hate you' - for the moon landing, though, they've taken a completely different psychological approach and gone with the 'if you believe the moon landings were faked then you're a nutter, and no one wants to be seen as a nutter' - so each individual 'self-censors' - they decide not to believe it was faked for that very simple psychological reason - human beings are social animals and thus 'ostracism' - the antagonism of their social group - is indeed their greatest fear. And clearly this psychological approach works. So people dismiss this conspiracy theory out of hand.
I even admit it took me quite some time to come around to the 'it was faked' opinion. In my case it's because I grew up reading science fiction and so quite simply I wanted it to be true, because space exploration excites me so much. So once I did investigate it actually makes me seriously angry for the same reason - NASA have essentially denied humanity the joy and hope of space exploration, because they don't want people looking up at the stars in wonder for a better future, they want them crawling in the gutter, because that enables social control. And that's evil.
The same opinion applies to a lot of other claimed achievements by NASA - the Mars rovers for example, which IMO are not there. Here's a useful link: https://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/
Also notice how they never put digital pinhole cameras on any their spacecraft or planetary probes and send a livestream back to inspire people. I would sit and watch a livestream from, say, Venus, for hours and hours if I could. But they never give us that.
It's an evil crime against humanity. And I utterly despise them for it.
lol on your anti-semitism comment. "So you're saying the moon landing was faked? Omg, that's so anti-semitic! Are you saying Jews can't do someone no human has ever done? That's racist!"
Well I honestly think we just need to laugh at the anti-semitism stuff now. It's become a joke, and in retrospect, we should
I don't know if you're in Canada, but if you are I suggest looking into how the Heritage Front was infiltrated by CSIS and they cooked up a whole broo-ha-ha about neo-Nazis in Canada... Weaponized accusations of anti-semitism worked for a long time, but only total drooling brain-dead dolts are falling for it at this point.
It's still a touchy subject for many, though, which is why we need to joke about it. Humour diffuses tension. It makes tough pills go down easier.
Agreed. I'm actually in France - and it is a seriously oppressive subject here in Europe (it wasn't just weaponised against Corbyn in Britain, it's everywhere) - most of Europe, for example (and I think Canada too now) even has laws against publicly raising questions about certain historical narratives (ww2), so they do enforce it using a lot more than just 'social pressure'. The same thing would eventually apply if they started including other official narratives into legislation - can you imagine going to prison for saying 'I don't think the moon landings happened'? Yes, it is absurd and you are quite right about diffusing it with humour. Nietzsche said a similar thing - 'you can kill it with laughter' - that's a great quote!
From a more positive point of view, though, 'they' have taken the weaponising of AS to a ludicrous level where it is increasingly seen by even regular people as an absurdity - like in Britain when that Epstein thing was going on, Jeremy Corbyn pronounced the name (quite correctly) as Ep-styne, and a bunch of zionists (perhaps to deflect the issue) starting having a go at him over the pronunciation, saying it should 'ep-steen', and accused him of AS accordingly. Utterly absurd.
Thanks for the resource links. It looks like you're way more into this than I am. That Aulis site is quite extensive. Can you tell us whether they are questioning whether there have been authentic unmanned landings on the moon or just questioning the manned missions?
Ah - yeah, I don't think they question the unmanned missions - in fact, one theory (which I think Dave McGowan points out in his hilarious Waggle the Moondoggie series: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/ ), is that many of the unmanned lunar explorer missions were in part to get a whole load of photos they could use to fake the manned missions (to make them believable, that is). So it's not so much that unmanned spaceflight isn't possible, it's manned spaceflight beyond low orbit (partly because of radiation).
It was, actually, reading DM's series which got all my doubts going - he's a really accessible writer and kind of demonstrated some of the absurdities involved in the idea of people walking around on the moon in what must've been magic suits - given there's no atmosphere, there's no heat diffusion - this means there'd be something like a several hundred degree temperature difference between sun and shade, so the magic suits would have to protect against that differential somehow. The photographic film too for that matter. It's really quite funny when you think about it.
Anyway, yeah - you're right - Aulis has a very, very extensive list of articles and I think they'd be better off providing a kind of 'introductory list' like 'start with these 3' or something, instead of just the 'A-Z'. It's difficult to advise where to start - I just sort of selected things randomly to be honest based on the titles. The Kubrick one is quite good, although it's long and it gets a bit esoteric in places. I am quite into the arts of filmmaking though so for me it was quite fascinating, but I can imagine for others it would be a bit much.
I think for anyone wanting to get a really good insight into the main arguments, DM's Moondoggie is probably my recommendation for where to start.
"There are indications that this lie does indeed have a shelf life. According to a July 17, 2009 post on CNN.com, “It’s been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.”
The goal of any dissident writer is to crack open the doors of perception enough to let a little light in – so that hopefully the seeds of a political reawakening will be planted. There are many doors that can be pried open to achieve that goal, but this one seems particularly vulnerable."
A++ comment. Very well said. From the fakery to the psychology, I could not agree more.
In fact, I also was just recommending aulis.com to someone still buying in to lunar landing hokum. It's a great resource, but yeah, even without their breakdowns the entire sham is just ridiculous once you start to look into it seriously. As a fellow sci-fi, I went through a similar process as you. Here is hoping more and more people wake up to the lies and we can get humanity working together to actually accomplish amazing things!
Maybe the West needs to technologically "curry-up" and catchup. Ironically, most of the dough being thrown into outer space are for spy satellites surveilling humans on Earth. 🔎
Notice he spares us the sardonic wit until the very end. Perhaps he realizes that it adds nothing to the debate, but simply makes the person arguing their position look like a polemicist, of which we have plenty already.
Facts aside (whatever they may be) what purpose does a debate like this serve? What else could be happening that we're not supposed to focus on, given that the hallmark of a good psyop is misdirection, bearing in mind it doesn't have to be false, it only has to misdirect.
I have a better term for "Conspiracy Theorists." I call them "Selective Skeptics." They're only skeptical about certain things, but challenge their core beliefs and instead of a debate you get called a troll, or "controlled opposition" which I anticipate will be the response to this post.
To which I would reply...
How may people reading this article have actual training in the scientific method, not to mention intelligence and counterintelligence methods? Not many I would guess. For example, start with the premise that the government lies to us (which can be proven). Does that mean that everything the government tells you is a lie? That's the default assumption of the Selective Skeptic, but it's also a logical fallacy. See if you can figure out which one, and yes there will be a test.
2) It shows the government has lied to the public in the past, which might serve to convince some people that they've been under a spell cast by media propaganda for a long time.
Statecraft is ultimately about making extortion seem like a good deal, meaning that controlling the perceptions of the masses is all-important.
As for assumption that people without training in the scientific method are less intelligent, I think this is just intellectual chauvinism. Most scientists fell for the COVID scam. That's just a fact. They were the ones whose expertise should have alerted them to the fraud, but it turns out that their faith in the received opinion of their peers was greater than the professional skepticism they were trained to have.
Furthermore, the jig is up for scientific reductionism. Even the laws of physics are up for debate now. Take the speed of light for instance. When physicists observed photons travelling faster than the speed of light, they weren't happy to have made a discovery. They were distraught that observable reality invalidated their models. That's silly. It's the sunk costs fallacy. Why do experiments if you refuse to believe the results?
If you ask me, studying physics without studying metaphysics is ridiculous. How can you know anything about any measurement without knowing something about the instrument doing the measuring?
Now that we know that the observer cannot be separated from what is observed, the era of "scientific objectivity" is objectively over.
The scientific method aimed to make thinking foolproof, but that has turned out to be a fool's errand.
Science is about measurement, and the scientific method is good for certain purposes. But it's no substitute for philosophy. Furthermore, not everything can be measured, not all variables can be accounted for, and not all conditions can be repeated.
The sword cannot cut itself, the ruler cannot measure itself, the eye cannot see itself, and the mind cannot know itself.
I do believe that knowledge can be obtained through a combination of philosophical inquiry and meditative techniques, but materialist science reached a dead end a century ago.
"The scientific method aimed to make thinking foolproof, but that has turned out to be a fool's errand."
I don't even know how to respond to that. Whatever gave you that idea? No scientist I ever spoke to assumed they possessed the complete truth. Scientists have hypotheses that they try to falsify. If they can't, and repeated experiments prove up the hypothesis, it stands as a Theory until further evidence emerges that can falsify it. Nothing is ever carved in stone. That's Ideology's domain. Claims to knowledge of the absolute truth are NOT part of the scientific method, despite what frauds like Anthony Fauci might claim.
As for philosophy, which one? It's not a unified discipline with a set of self-correcting methods, it's just a grab bag of what some people thought were good ideas with no objective means of proving them. Try arguing with Christian whether God exists or not. Good luck with that. A scientist will tell you he doesn't know because the hypothesis can't be tested in a manner we can all objectively agree on. Not very satisfying for people who can't live with uncertainty and demand easy answers, but it is what it is.
"I do believe that knowledge can be obtained through a combination of philosophical inquiry and meditative techniques, but materialist science reached a dead end a century ago."
If you can't see the obvious advances made in the last 100 years of scientific research and application then what can I possibly say to convince you? That you'd be dead in 1924 from any number of diseases treatable today? That all you'd have to listen to is the radio because television was still 30 years in the future? That if you wanted to visit France you'd have to take a steamship because there was no trans-Atlantic aviation? How about the internet we're having this discussion on? Did philosophy create that?
What I hear you saying is that science doesn't have all the answers, but no credible scientist would ever make that claim. However, they might ask you to show them a belief system that does. That's what I'm asking. Show me a belief system that has produced anything comparable to the achievements of the scientific method. Not the scientists themselves, who are as corruptible as anyone else, but the methodology.
When you have a problem with your car you don't start dismantling it willy-nilly. You eliminate the variables, starting with the most obvious. Won't start? Check the battery. Battery OK? Test the ignition circuit. Circuit OK? Test the starter motor connection, and so on. That's the scientific method, and whether we're aware of it or not, we practice it on a daily basis. It's just invisible to most people. A Hidden Ground, as McLuhan called it.
Final point: there are people who would like you to reject science as a means of acquiring knowledge. They don't like it when you think for yourself using time-tested principles. They'd rather have you believe what they want you to believe because it serves their interests, not yours, and when you categorically dismiss the only methodology capable of exposing their lies, you simply play into their hands.
"As for assumption that people without training in the scientific method are less intelligent,..."
I don't think I said that. I asked how many people have had the training, not how intelligent they are. There's plenty of intelligent people that haven't had the training just as there are scientists who cribbed their way through college and barely passed. I'm not talking about that. I'm taking about the methodology which has to be taught. There's plenty of intelligent people who can fly an aircraft for example, but it's a skill that has to be taught. We aren't born knowing how to fly airplanes.
"I think this is just intellectual chauvinism. Most scientists fell for the COVID scam. That's just a fact. They were the ones whose expertise should have alerted them to the fraud, but it turns out that their faith in the received opinion of their peers was greater than the professional skepticism they were trained to have."
I would argue that many scientists folded because of the threat to their careers. Look at this hit piece for example:
Julie Ponesse stood up to the tyranny and was demonized in the press and lost a 20 year career as a result. Do you think that went unnoticed by her peers? Intimidation aside, most scientists are specialists who defer to other specialists in areas they're unfamiliar with. It's a common feature of our complex world. You take your car to the shop, and he sends you to the transmission guy. You turn up at your doctor's office with a rash and she sends you to the dermatologist.
But let's assume what you said is true:
" but it turns out that their faith in the received opinion of their peers was greater than the professional skepticism they were trained to have."
Is that a condemnation of science as a methodology, or of people as weak and easily corrupted, which is my argument? Sure they ought to have known better, and many did indeed speak up. Some of them are right here on substack. That the majority didn't is a sign of what? Human weakness, or a flawed methodology?
Let me drag Jesus into this for a moment because he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Are you going to tell me that you could have stood up to the kind of threats and intimidation brought to bear on the medical and scientific community? You can't possibly know that until the moment arrives and you have as much to lose as they did.
I'm not excusing it. We all have to answer for our actions, I'm just saying I understand it. So do our opponents. They know humans are weak and applied pressure when immediate obedience wasn't forthcoming. Nothing new there.
"Does that mean that everything the government tells you is a lie? "
The government is like all good liars. They give grains of truth upfront then lead you to conclusions that are filled with lies. Still, not everything they say is a complete lie or else no one would ever believe them. However it's all based on a foundation of core lies with an overarching narrative that is definitely a lie.
There's good reason to be skeptical about everything centralized powers say considering the areas where they have provably lied already tells you that there's nothing they won't do to maintain and expand their power e.g. starting wars on false pretenses.
The best propaganda is not refutable with facts, so it is in the best long-term interests of states to keep their lies to a minimum. Does the state tell the truth sometimes? Sure. I'll give you that. But everything the state does is always of furtherance of a giant lie: that it governs on behalf of the people.
In reality, the state is institutionalized plunder designed to enrich the ruling class.
I agree with your premise, but I'd point out that governments are composed of people, so it's not the institution of government that's necessarily corrupt but the people who form the government, which is just a subset of people in general. I contend that people are corrupt, or at least corruptible in the sense that they're easily misled and lack a foundation in critical thinking.
"There's good reason to be skeptical about everything..." I'd just leave it at that. Everything includes the things we think we know are true. That's the hard part. The things we *think* we know. But how do we know? Haven't we all believed things in the past that turned out to be false? So how do we know when we've arrived at the truth? How do we know that it's not just another false belief system replacing a prior false belief system?
You reminded me of some lyrics from the immortal Crass's anti-Marxist anthem Bloody Revolutions: "You speak of liberation and when the People rule / Well ain't it people rule right now? What difference would there be?"
And this is indeed the rub. There's no getting away from some people having power, and power does indeed corrupt. Healthy societies have levelling mechanisms to prevent people from getting too drunk on power, but there's no way to avoid some people having more power than others. Humans will have leaders. There is no getting around the leader/follower dynamic... most people are followers. I say 70-85%, my mom says 90-95%. I imagine there's scientific literature on this... but I haven't looked into it.
That said, that leadership does not need to be coercive, and the authority of leaders in egalitarian societies is based on charisma and their ability to create consensus.
Consensus is something that most people don't understand. Consensus doesn't exist until it is created through some kind of political process.
I'm curious - have you studied hyper-egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies? I'm reading The Forest People by Colin Turnbull right now, which is an ethnography Central African pygmies, and the problem of corruption hasn't come up. Indeed, the problem of government hasn't come up. If the ethnography is to be believed (and I see no reason to disbelieve him), their egalitarianism is so deeply embedded in their culture that it never even occurs to anyone to attempt to seize power.
It's quite tricky to separate human nature from culture, but we have zero definitive proof of any state before Sumer. This might change in the future, as we learn more about new archaeological discoveries such as Gobekli Tepi, but for now there's no definitive proof of an institutionalized bureaucracy with tax collection and a standing army, which I consider essential features of any state. That means that for the vast majority (95%+) of our existence as anatomically modern humans, we have lived in stateless societies.
Have you heard The Alphabet Versus the Goddess by any chance? Literacy is definitely correlated with statecraft, which makes sense once you realize that literacy became with a class of scribes whose primary responsibilities were overseeing tax collection & the provisioning of armies. So written history is not sufficient to get a grasp on human nature, because that leaves out non-literate societies. I would refer you also to Against the Grain by James C. Scott (which packs a mind-bogglingly punch for such an easy read).
Furthermore, in pre-monetary economies, people presumably stored wealth socially (hence the deep human fixation with status). Money fundamentally changed us. It would be an exaggeration to say that money is the root of all evil... but money is historically highly correlated with brutality. Money is not an inherent part of human nature... indeed it is a relatively recent invention, and seems to have changed everything. It's funny that the term "social credit" is now associated with totalitarianism because social credit is the original form of wealth.
"Have you heard The Alphabet Versus the Goddess by any chance?"
Nope, but semantics is a major interest of mine, so I just downloaded it and will start reading. BTW, if you're looking for books, this is a great place to find them:
Hard to imagine what seizing power in a stone age culture would look like. Herd all the women into a hut and block the entrance menacingly? That would last about 5 minutes.
Early writing was a method of accounting by some accounts <g>. You took your grain to the central silo and received a clay tablet recording the weight or volume. The idea was to have the grain in a secure location, and should famine occur, it could be rationed. The tablets were probably used as circulating money, so basically a bank.
I disagree with the root of all evil thesis. Anything can be used as money - cowrie shells, tobacco, ammunition. All situation dependent. The idea is to have something portable of accepted value so you don't have to barter, which is inconvenient. Taking a cow to the market every day to trade for a plow gets tedious when nobody has plows on offer, or they do but have no use for a cow. Evil enters the picture when you start loan sharking, which is why Jesus went after the money changers. A debt that can't be repaid is the lender's problem, not the borrowers, unless fraud is involved. Jesus was an early conservative monetary theorist.
Gold and silver emerge as a natural consequence of the development of metallurgy and assume the money role as they're both relatively scarce and can't easily be counterfeited. As cultures advance, the division of labour requires some form of money since barter becomes too complicated. Gold and silver met that need.
I was a stock trader for 20 years, starting with tech in the late 90's then switching to junior miners once gold started to move, so this is familiar territory for me. I was always amused by some of the stories people told about gold. One of the more interesting ones was that gold drove a major inflation in Europe from the 15th to 17th century. Bet you never heard about that.
We can in full agreement there - usury is much more of a problem than money is. But I think that it is important to realize that if we're going to talk about human nature, money needs to be taken into account, as it distorts social relations and inevitably becomes a fetish object. This is true whether money is measured in cowrie shells, gold, quetzal feathers, or crypto-currencies. People being worshipping the abstraction instead of realizing that money is meant to keep track of who owes who what... money derives its value from social credit.
Arguably, math is the root of all evil. Math takes social relations and concretizes them into talismanic objects that can be traded, stolen, and demanded as tribute. But at the end of the day all forms of money are tradeable IOUs. They derive from social obligation, namely the obligation of the individual to the tribe.
No one is debt-free on this plane of existence. If you ask me, Original Sin is better conceived of as Original Debt. Men MUST toil, women MUST bear children... or society could not continue. None of us reach adulthood without an incalculable debt our parents... And in traditional societies this debt must be repaid by caring for our parents when they are old.
Social obligation is what gives its value to money.
Money was a technological innovation because it allows debt obligations to be quantified and traded to strangers.
In regards to corrupt people or a corrupt system - Lots of people subscribe to the bad apples idea, that if you can just vote out the bad apples then the system would right itself.
However the system has been setup in such a way it's on rails. There's no way you can go into the system and change its trajectory in any substantial manner even if you're the most honest and best critical thinker the world has ever known.
If you're a politician the second you get into office you're asked to sign off on things that you don't agree with in order to get some minor things done that you do agree with, which usually amounts to some tweak of a wedge issue that you can show as an accomplishment in your reelection campaign. A large portion of your time though is spent fundraising and making speeches. Politicians are simply cogs in a system.
If you do try to change the system and dare impede on the profits of a major corporation be prepared to get sued for a very long time. Just look at how the legislation is created. Corporate lawyers write bills word for word in many cases.
Also more broadly speaking, I'll point to the book Chalice and the Blade, that describes the difference in social relations between cooperative and dominator societies like ours. You can see the same patterns that run through several millennia in western society, and it's clear that this way of being was intentionally created to produce the results it is now.
It's not a bug, it's a feature for controlling and manipulating the masses.
The Aulis site seems really comprehensive with regards to the kinky fakery moon landing stuff: https://www.aulis.com/
I don't know about Cannon AFB, but Aulis seem to believe it was filmed at Cardington studios in England (under the direction of Stanley Kubrick - who put clues/references in his films). I'm not sure they say all the six missions were filmed there though, so maybe there was some Cannon AFB stuff as well. I'd not heard that one before.
We don't even need to go with the shadows aspect - it's the simple (and probably deliberate, for whistleblowing purposes) continuity errors in the photo/video record which convince me. If they threatened Kubrick, then this would've been his way of thwarting them for future reference.
Anyway - I do find all this stuff fascinating, simply out of curiosity and a continual 'need to know'. I think the moon landings being faked is so important because if widely known it would totally shatter the myth of American exceptionalism, and the entire American public would lose all faith in their government (the rest of the world too for that matter) - and that alone would change the world forever because American foreign policy could no longer exist, meaning no 'forever wars', or NATO aggression, or cold war vs. Russia/China, and so on and so on.
So this is why they have to ridicule the whole lunar conspiracy - for other conspiracy theories they do the really aggressive 'you're a dangerous, right wing, presumably anti-semitic (we usually throw that one in for good measure), spreader of mis/disinformation so we have to shut you down and make the people fear and hate you' - for the moon landing, though, they've taken a completely different psychological approach and gone with the 'if you believe the moon landings were faked then you're a nutter, and no one wants to be seen as a nutter' - so each individual 'self-censors' - they decide not to believe it was faked for that very simple psychological reason - human beings are social animals and thus 'ostracism' - the antagonism of their social group - is indeed their greatest fear. And clearly this psychological approach works. So people dismiss this conspiracy theory out of hand.
I even admit it took me quite some time to come around to the 'it was faked' opinion. In my case it's because I grew up reading science fiction and so quite simply I wanted it to be true, because space exploration excites me so much. So once I did investigate it actually makes me seriously angry for the same reason - NASA have essentially denied humanity the joy and hope of space exploration, because they don't want people looking up at the stars in wonder for a better future, they want them crawling in the gutter, because that enables social control. And that's evil.
The same opinion applies to a lot of other claimed achievements by NASA - the Mars rovers for example, which IMO are not there. Here's a useful link: https://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/
Also notice how they never put digital pinhole cameras on any their spacecraft or planetary probes and send a livestream back to inspire people. I would sit and watch a livestream from, say, Venus, for hours and hours if I could. But they never give us that.
It's an evil crime against humanity. And I utterly despise them for it.
lol on your anti-semitism comment. "So you're saying the moon landing was faked? Omg, that's so anti-semitic! Are you saying Jews can't do someone no human has ever done? That's racist!"
Yep! You can't win eh!
Well I honestly think we just need to laugh at the anti-semitism stuff now. It's become a joke, and in retrospect, we should
I don't know if you're in Canada, but if you are I suggest looking into how the Heritage Front was infiltrated by CSIS and they cooked up a whole broo-ha-ha about neo-Nazis in Canada... Weaponized accusations of anti-semitism worked for a long time, but only total drooling brain-dead dolts are falling for it at this point.
It's still a touchy subject for many, though, which is why we need to joke about it. Humour diffuses tension. It makes tough pills go down easier.
Agreed. I'm actually in France - and it is a seriously oppressive subject here in Europe (it wasn't just weaponised against Corbyn in Britain, it's everywhere) - most of Europe, for example (and I think Canada too now) even has laws against publicly raising questions about certain historical narratives (ww2), so they do enforce it using a lot more than just 'social pressure'. The same thing would eventually apply if they started including other official narratives into legislation - can you imagine going to prison for saying 'I don't think the moon landings happened'? Yes, it is absurd and you are quite right about diffusing it with humour. Nietzsche said a similar thing - 'you can kill it with laughter' - that's a great quote!
From a more positive point of view, though, 'they' have taken the weaponising of AS to a ludicrous level where it is increasingly seen by even regular people as an absurdity - like in Britain when that Epstein thing was going on, Jeremy Corbyn pronounced the name (quite correctly) as Ep-styne, and a bunch of zionists (perhaps to deflect the issue) starting having a go at him over the pronunciation, saying it should 'ep-steen', and accused him of AS accordingly. Utterly absurd.
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/21526d44-810d-4034-a311-3820e374088d
"I think the moon landings being faked is so important because if widely known it would totally shatter the myth of American exceptionalism"
Only with Americans. The rest of the world already knows.
Thanks for the resource links. It looks like you're way more into this than I am. That Aulis site is quite extensive. Can you tell us whether they are questioning whether there have been authentic unmanned landings on the moon or just questioning the manned missions?
Ah - yeah, I don't think they question the unmanned missions - in fact, one theory (which I think Dave McGowan points out in his hilarious Waggle the Moondoggie series: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/ ), is that many of the unmanned lunar explorer missions were in part to get a whole load of photos they could use to fake the manned missions (to make them believable, that is). So it's not so much that unmanned spaceflight isn't possible, it's manned spaceflight beyond low orbit (partly because of radiation).
It was, actually, reading DM's series which got all my doubts going - he's a really accessible writer and kind of demonstrated some of the absurdities involved in the idea of people walking around on the moon in what must've been magic suits - given there's no atmosphere, there's no heat diffusion - this means there'd be something like a several hundred degree temperature difference between sun and shade, so the magic suits would have to protect against that differential somehow. The photographic film too for that matter. It's really quite funny when you think about it.
Anyway, yeah - you're right - Aulis has a very, very extensive list of articles and I think they'd be better off providing a kind of 'introductory list' like 'start with these 3' or something, instead of just the 'A-Z'. It's difficult to advise where to start - I just sort of selected things randomly to be honest based on the titles. The Kubrick one is quite good, although it's long and it gets a bit esoteric in places. I am quite into the arts of filmmaking though so for me it was quite fascinating, but I can imagine for others it would be a bit much.
I think for anyone wanting to get a really good insight into the main arguments, DM's Moondoggie is probably my recommendation for where to start.
Thanks again. From the Moondoggie series...
"There are indications that this lie does indeed have a shelf life. According to a July 17, 2009 post on CNN.com, “It’s been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.”
The goal of any dissident writer is to crack open the doors of perception enough to let a little light in – so that hopefully the seeds of a political reawakening will be planted. There are many doors that can be pried open to achieve that goal, but this one seems particularly vulnerable."
Part II is seriously good!
A++ comment. Very well said. From the fakery to the psychology, I could not agree more.
In fact, I also was just recommending aulis.com to someone still buying in to lunar landing hokum. It's a great resource, but yeah, even without their breakdowns the entire sham is just ridiculous once you start to look into it seriously. As a fellow sci-fi, I went through a similar process as you. Here is hoping more and more people wake up to the lies and we can get humanity working together to actually accomplish amazing things!
Maybe the West needs to technologically "curry-up" and catchup. Ironically, most of the dough being thrown into outer space are for spy satellites surveilling humans on Earth. 🔎
I won’t read this now as it’s so late but I can confirm -- 100% -- that yes, this is the case. 🚀 “moon landing”, my arse.
Of course the Moon landing was faked. It is clearly still up there!
How do you know it's not a replica?
A cheap Chinese knock-off would be broken by now. Just look at Joe Biden, for example!
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/bf88e593-cac3-4345-bff2-858fa6e89fd6
I am of the non-existence of viruses. The Yobin Owl rocks.
Debunk this:
https://qz.com/1668201/was-the-moon-landing-faked-absolutely-not-says-a-film-expert
Notice he spares us the sardonic wit until the very end. Perhaps he realizes that it adds nothing to the debate, but simply makes the person arguing their position look like a polemicist, of which we have plenty already.
Facts aside (whatever they may be) what purpose does a debate like this serve? What else could be happening that we're not supposed to focus on, given that the hallmark of a good psyop is misdirection, bearing in mind it doesn't have to be false, it only has to misdirect.
I have a better term for "Conspiracy Theorists." I call them "Selective Skeptics." They're only skeptical about certain things, but challenge their core beliefs and instead of a debate you get called a troll, or "controlled opposition" which I anticipate will be the response to this post.
To which I would reply...
How may people reading this article have actual training in the scientific method, not to mention intelligence and counterintelligence methods? Not many I would guess. For example, start with the premise that the government lies to us (which can be proven). Does that mean that everything the government tells you is a lie? That's the default assumption of the Selective Skeptic, but it's also a logical fallacy. See if you can figure out which one, and yes there will be a test.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/logical-fallacy/
Reasons:
1) It's entertaining
2) It shows the government has lied to the public in the past, which might serve to convince some people that they've been under a spell cast by media propaganda for a long time.
Statecraft is ultimately about making extortion seem like a good deal, meaning that controlling the perceptions of the masses is all-important.
As for assumption that people without training in the scientific method are less intelligent, I think this is just intellectual chauvinism. Most scientists fell for the COVID scam. That's just a fact. They were the ones whose expertise should have alerted them to the fraud, but it turns out that their faith in the received opinion of their peers was greater than the professional skepticism they were trained to have.
Furthermore, the jig is up for scientific reductionism. Even the laws of physics are up for debate now. Take the speed of light for instance. When physicists observed photons travelling faster than the speed of light, they weren't happy to have made a discovery. They were distraught that observable reality invalidated their models. That's silly. It's the sunk costs fallacy. Why do experiments if you refuse to believe the results?
If you ask me, studying physics without studying metaphysics is ridiculous. How can you know anything about any measurement without knowing something about the instrument doing the measuring?
Now that we know that the observer cannot be separated from what is observed, the era of "scientific objectivity" is objectively over.
The scientific method aimed to make thinking foolproof, but that has turned out to be a fool's errand.
Science is about measurement, and the scientific method is good for certain purposes. But it's no substitute for philosophy. Furthermore, not everything can be measured, not all variables can be accounted for, and not all conditions can be repeated.
The sword cannot cut itself, the ruler cannot measure itself, the eye cannot see itself, and the mind cannot know itself.
I do believe that knowledge can be obtained through a combination of philosophical inquiry and meditative techniques, but materialist science reached a dead end a century ago.
Superb response. 👌🏾
"The scientific method aimed to make thinking foolproof, but that has turned out to be a fool's errand."
I don't even know how to respond to that. Whatever gave you that idea? No scientist I ever spoke to assumed they possessed the complete truth. Scientists have hypotheses that they try to falsify. If they can't, and repeated experiments prove up the hypothesis, it stands as a Theory until further evidence emerges that can falsify it. Nothing is ever carved in stone. That's Ideology's domain. Claims to knowledge of the absolute truth are NOT part of the scientific method, despite what frauds like Anthony Fauci might claim.
As for philosophy, which one? It's not a unified discipline with a set of self-correcting methods, it's just a grab bag of what some people thought were good ideas with no objective means of proving them. Try arguing with Christian whether God exists or not. Good luck with that. A scientist will tell you he doesn't know because the hypothesis can't be tested in a manner we can all objectively agree on. Not very satisfying for people who can't live with uncertainty and demand easy answers, but it is what it is.
"I do believe that knowledge can be obtained through a combination of philosophical inquiry and meditative techniques, but materialist science reached a dead end a century ago."
If you can't see the obvious advances made in the last 100 years of scientific research and application then what can I possibly say to convince you? That you'd be dead in 1924 from any number of diseases treatable today? That all you'd have to listen to is the radio because television was still 30 years in the future? That if you wanted to visit France you'd have to take a steamship because there was no trans-Atlantic aviation? How about the internet we're having this discussion on? Did philosophy create that?
What I hear you saying is that science doesn't have all the answers, but no credible scientist would ever make that claim. However, they might ask you to show them a belief system that does. That's what I'm asking. Show me a belief system that has produced anything comparable to the achievements of the scientific method. Not the scientists themselves, who are as corruptible as anyone else, but the methodology.
When you have a problem with your car you don't start dismantling it willy-nilly. You eliminate the variables, starting with the most obvious. Won't start? Check the battery. Battery OK? Test the ignition circuit. Circuit OK? Test the starter motor connection, and so on. That's the scientific method, and whether we're aware of it or not, we practice it on a daily basis. It's just invisible to most people. A Hidden Ground, as McLuhan called it.
Final point: there are people who would like you to reject science as a means of acquiring knowledge. They don't like it when you think for yourself using time-tested principles. They'd rather have you believe what they want you to believe because it serves their interests, not yours, and when you categorically dismiss the only methodology capable of exposing their lies, you simply play into their hands.
"As for assumption that people without training in the scientific method are less intelligent,..."
I don't think I said that. I asked how many people have had the training, not how intelligent they are. There's plenty of intelligent people that haven't had the training just as there are scientists who cribbed their way through college and barely passed. I'm not talking about that. I'm taking about the methodology which has to be taught. There's plenty of intelligent people who can fly an aircraft for example, but it's a skill that has to be taught. We aren't born knowing how to fly airplanes.
"I think this is just intellectual chauvinism. Most scientists fell for the COVID scam. That's just a fact. They were the ones whose expertise should have alerted them to the fraud, but it turns out that their faith in the received opinion of their peers was greater than the professional skepticism they were trained to have."
I would argue that many scientists folded because of the threat to their careers. Look at this hit piece for example:
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/anti-covid-vaccine-professor-rips-western-university-ahead-of-peoples-party-rally
Julie Ponesse stood up to the tyranny and was demonized in the press and lost a 20 year career as a result. Do you think that went unnoticed by her peers? Intimidation aside, most scientists are specialists who defer to other specialists in areas they're unfamiliar with. It's a common feature of our complex world. You take your car to the shop, and he sends you to the transmission guy. You turn up at your doctor's office with a rash and she sends you to the dermatologist.
But let's assume what you said is true:
" but it turns out that their faith in the received opinion of their peers was greater than the professional skepticism they were trained to have."
Is that a condemnation of science as a methodology, or of people as weak and easily corrupted, which is my argument? Sure they ought to have known better, and many did indeed speak up. Some of them are right here on substack. That the majority didn't is a sign of what? Human weakness, or a flawed methodology?
Let me drag Jesus into this for a moment because he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Are you going to tell me that you could have stood up to the kind of threats and intimidation brought to bear on the medical and scientific community? You can't possibly know that until the moment arrives and you have as much to lose as they did.
I'm not excusing it. We all have to answer for our actions, I'm just saying I understand it. So do our opponents. They know humans are weak and applied pressure when immediate obedience wasn't forthcoming. Nothing new there.
Who am I talking to here? There's several authors on this site I was told. I was responding to Tobin Owl. Is that who wrote this?
no this is crow.
"Does that mean that everything the government tells you is a lie? "
The government is like all good liars. They give grains of truth upfront then lead you to conclusions that are filled with lies. Still, not everything they say is a complete lie or else no one would ever believe them. However it's all based on a foundation of core lies with an overarching narrative that is definitely a lie.
There's good reason to be skeptical about everything centralized powers say considering the areas where they have provably lied already tells you that there's nothing they won't do to maintain and expand their power e.g. starting wars on false pretenses.
The best propaganda is not refutable with facts, so it is in the best long-term interests of states to keep their lies to a minimum. Does the state tell the truth sometimes? Sure. I'll give you that. But everything the state does is always of furtherance of a giant lie: that it governs on behalf of the people.
In reality, the state is institutionalized plunder designed to enrich the ruling class.
I agree with your premise, but I'd point out that governments are composed of people, so it's not the institution of government that's necessarily corrupt but the people who form the government, which is just a subset of people in general. I contend that people are corrupt, or at least corruptible in the sense that they're easily misled and lack a foundation in critical thinking.
"There's good reason to be skeptical about everything..." I'd just leave it at that. Everything includes the things we think we know are true. That's the hard part. The things we *think* we know. But how do we know? Haven't we all believed things in the past that turned out to be false? So how do we know when we've arrived at the truth? How do we know that it's not just another false belief system replacing a prior false belief system?
You reminded me of some lyrics from the immortal Crass's anti-Marxist anthem Bloody Revolutions: "You speak of liberation and when the People rule / Well ain't it people rule right now? What difference would there be?"
And this is indeed the rub. There's no getting away from some people having power, and power does indeed corrupt. Healthy societies have levelling mechanisms to prevent people from getting too drunk on power, but there's no way to avoid some people having more power than others. Humans will have leaders. There is no getting around the leader/follower dynamic... most people are followers. I say 70-85%, my mom says 90-95%. I imagine there's scientific literature on this... but I haven't looked into it.
That said, that leadership does not need to be coercive, and the authority of leaders in egalitarian societies is based on charisma and their ability to create consensus.
Consensus is something that most people don't understand. Consensus doesn't exist until it is created through some kind of political process.
I'm curious - have you studied hyper-egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies? I'm reading The Forest People by Colin Turnbull right now, which is an ethnography Central African pygmies, and the problem of corruption hasn't come up. Indeed, the problem of government hasn't come up. If the ethnography is to be believed (and I see no reason to disbelieve him), their egalitarianism is so deeply embedded in their culture that it never even occurs to anyone to attempt to seize power.
It's quite tricky to separate human nature from culture, but we have zero definitive proof of any state before Sumer. This might change in the future, as we learn more about new archaeological discoveries such as Gobekli Tepi, but for now there's no definitive proof of an institutionalized bureaucracy with tax collection and a standing army, which I consider essential features of any state. That means that for the vast majority (95%+) of our existence as anatomically modern humans, we have lived in stateless societies.
Have you heard The Alphabet Versus the Goddess by any chance? Literacy is definitely correlated with statecraft, which makes sense once you realize that literacy became with a class of scribes whose primary responsibilities were overseeing tax collection & the provisioning of armies. So written history is not sufficient to get a grasp on human nature, because that leaves out non-literate societies. I would refer you also to Against the Grain by James C. Scott (which packs a mind-bogglingly punch for such an easy read).
Furthermore, in pre-monetary economies, people presumably stored wealth socially (hence the deep human fixation with status). Money fundamentally changed us. It would be an exaggeration to say that money is the root of all evil... but money is historically highly correlated with brutality. Money is not an inherent part of human nature... indeed it is a relatively recent invention, and seems to have changed everything. It's funny that the term "social credit" is now associated with totalitarianism because social credit is the original form of wealth.
"Have you heard The Alphabet Versus the Goddess by any chance?"
Nope, but semantics is a major interest of mine, so I just downloaded it and will start reading. BTW, if you're looking for books, this is a great place to find them:
https://oceanofpdf.com
Hard to imagine what seizing power in a stone age culture would look like. Herd all the women into a hut and block the entrance menacingly? That would last about 5 minutes.
Early writing was a method of accounting by some accounts <g>. You took your grain to the central silo and received a clay tablet recording the weight or volume. The idea was to have the grain in a secure location, and should famine occur, it could be rationed. The tablets were probably used as circulating money, so basically a bank.
I disagree with the root of all evil thesis. Anything can be used as money - cowrie shells, tobacco, ammunition. All situation dependent. The idea is to have something portable of accepted value so you don't have to barter, which is inconvenient. Taking a cow to the market every day to trade for a plow gets tedious when nobody has plows on offer, or they do but have no use for a cow. Evil enters the picture when you start loan sharking, which is why Jesus went after the money changers. A debt that can't be repaid is the lender's problem, not the borrowers, unless fraud is involved. Jesus was an early conservative monetary theorist.
Gold and silver emerge as a natural consequence of the development of metallurgy and assume the money role as they're both relatively scarce and can't easily be counterfeited. As cultures advance, the division of labour requires some form of money since barter becomes too complicated. Gold and silver met that need.
I was a stock trader for 20 years, starting with tech in the late 90's then switching to junior miners once gold started to move, so this is familiar territory for me. I was always amused by some of the stories people told about gold. One of the more interesting ones was that gold drove a major inflation in Europe from the 15th to 17th century. Bet you never heard about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
We can in full agreement there - usury is much more of a problem than money is. But I think that it is important to realize that if we're going to talk about human nature, money needs to be taken into account, as it distorts social relations and inevitably becomes a fetish object. This is true whether money is measured in cowrie shells, gold, quetzal feathers, or crypto-currencies. People being worshipping the abstraction instead of realizing that money is meant to keep track of who owes who what... money derives its value from social credit.
Arguably, math is the root of all evil. Math takes social relations and concretizes them into talismanic objects that can be traded, stolen, and demanded as tribute. But at the end of the day all forms of money are tradeable IOUs. They derive from social obligation, namely the obligation of the individual to the tribe.
No one is debt-free on this plane of existence. If you ask me, Original Sin is better conceived of as Original Debt. Men MUST toil, women MUST bear children... or society could not continue. None of us reach adulthood without an incalculable debt our parents... And in traditional societies this debt must be repaid by caring for our parents when they are old.
Social obligation is what gives its value to money.
Money was a technological innovation because it allows debt obligations to be quantified and traded to strangers.
In regards to corrupt people or a corrupt system - Lots of people subscribe to the bad apples idea, that if you can just vote out the bad apples then the system would right itself.
However the system has been setup in such a way it's on rails. There's no way you can go into the system and change its trajectory in any substantial manner even if you're the most honest and best critical thinker the world has ever known.
If you're a politician the second you get into office you're asked to sign off on things that you don't agree with in order to get some minor things done that you do agree with, which usually amounts to some tweak of a wedge issue that you can show as an accomplishment in your reelection campaign. A large portion of your time though is spent fundraising and making speeches. Politicians are simply cogs in a system.
If you do try to change the system and dare impede on the profits of a major corporation be prepared to get sued for a very long time. Just look at how the legislation is created. Corporate lawyers write bills word for word in many cases.
Also more broadly speaking, I'll point to the book Chalice and the Blade, that describes the difference in social relations between cooperative and dominator societies like ours. You can see the same patterns that run through several millennia in western society, and it's clear that this way of being was intentionally created to produce the results it is now.
It's not a bug, it's a feature for controlling and manipulating the masses.
To steal a quote from War Games, "the only winning move is not to play.”