Tribalism and Moon Landing Hoaxes

I can’t believe that the Moon landings are being denied by people on the Right. First by Owen Benjamin, a guy who became a conspiracy theorist the honest way by pursuing an acting career in Hollyweird despite being a decent human being. Then Unz.com published an anonymous it’s-a-hoax post. Vox Day jumped on it, too, and off it goes, in time for the 50th anniversary of the Moon Landing on June 20.

It’s stupid. One can see the equipment and even footprints left behind. The moonwalkers are still alive as well as thousands of supporting workers. Evidence against the landings happening: the US gov’t lied to us about everything else so they must be lying about this, too. They couldn’t have honestly done something impressive.

There are many reasons to indulge in the conspiracy theory subculture from mental illness to Walter Mitty. This time around, it’s tribalism. Identity politics. These moon hoaxers want to hate the US gov’t so badly that they looks for excuses to hate it more and invent those excuses as needed. Just like CNN. That’s a moral trap, wanting to hate your enemies. If ever you’re disappointed that your enemies aren’t as evil as you originally thought them to be then you’ve got a serious problem.

Not to mention, if you ever speak words without care of whether they’re true in order to achieve a desired outcome. That’s what the snake did in Eden.

Vox Day’s usual curtness makes his commentary on the coming article an excellent example of that kind of evil: “I always reject every Official Story endorsed by the U.S. government on principle, because it has always – ALWAYS – proven to be less than entirely true for one reason or another.”

This from the same guy who uses and IIRC, coined the meme “You can trust biologists because physicists get amazingly accurate results”. Distrust the CIA? The FBI? The State Department? Okay, but why blame NASA, too? They’re staffed with nerds, not liars and king-makers. Let’s fisk the Unz.

The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?

http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/

By “Moon Landing Skeptic”, 1 April 2019

Coming up is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a survey showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year. British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings. In the US, the percentage seems much lower: A 1999 Gallup poll indicated just 6 percent Americans doubting the moon landings, and a 2013 Pew Research showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. Not surprisingly, then, a 2010 Pew Research poll showed that 63 percent of Americans were confident that NASA would land an Astronaut on Mars by 2050.

Polls are not evidence of anything. NASA could land an astronaut on Mars by 2022 if it wasn’t bogged down in finding women clothing for spacewalks and getting the Vibrant Dindu Module attached to the ISS. The science is there, the Christian white male space that bridges science into reality is not.

The moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of Internet and gained momentum with the development of YouTube, which allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing.

That’s actually a very good insight into why Internet kookery is a thing. The Internet is great for getting together with like-minded people from across the planet… and that’s a bad thing if you mind is paranoid schizophrenic wanting validation instead of pills.

One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then came Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America!, also self published.

Kaysing quit Rocketdyne in 1963. His book questioning the Moon landings was published in 1976. According to this website maintained by his daughter,

http://billkaysing.com/biography.php

Mr. Kaysing moved his house boat to Oakland, California. It was here in the harbor area, that he met some Vietnam War veterans. The conversations he had with these disillusioned veterans inspired him to research the then recent USA Moon Landing.

As I’ve reported on this blog, the primary way California was corrupted was the military discharging convicted homosexuals into San Francisco, being the most convenient port for its Pacific Ocean operations. The Navy in particular… and Kaysing was living in a houseboat? Why did he got involved with the homo crowd?

Bill Kaysing Tribute Website - Gallery

I can believe he’s homosexual but his physiognomy isn’t a smoking gun for it. He has those huge drooping lower eyelids I’m still trying to figure out. Ears stand out from his skull as I’d expect for a conspiracy theorist. The vertical lines between his eyebrow mark him as a very determined personality; his chin looks like he clenches it a lot, also. This is a face that thrives on facing opposition.

Unz.com makes it sound like Kaysing was fired from Rocketdyne for whistleblowing. That was not the case. Only when he went fringe, Oakland style, a decade later, did he ‘realize’ the hoax.

After the death of his wife Ruth, Bill moved to Henderson, Nevada. He had always loved the beauty of the desert. It was here that he dedicated the last years of his life to helping his dear friend Sylvia Renee Lyss run an abandoned cat sanctuary.

HAHAHA! Okay, not homo but the guy had problems.

Per Wikipedia, “On August 29, 1996, Kaysing filed a defamation lawsuit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against astronaut Jim Lovell for calling his claims “wacky” in an article by Rafer Guzmán for Metro Silicon Valley. Lovell is quoted:

“The guy is wacky. His position makes me feel angry. We spent a lot of time getting ready to go to the moon. We spent a lot of money, we took great risks, and it’s something everybody in this country should be proud of.

“The case was dismissed in 1997.”

Kaysing didn’t have enough evidence to sustain a defamation suit.

Back to Unz,

Then came Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America!, also self published.

Unlike Kaysing, Rene had no association with the Moon program or formal education, although he did hold a couple minor patents. He managed celebrity status a la Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day greatly valuable for anyone willing to make an informed opinion.

Per Wikipedia, “[Percy] is the main proponent of the ‘whistle-blower’ accusation, arguing that mistakes in the NASA photos are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to ‘blow the whistle’ on the hoax by knowingly adding mistakes that they know will be seen.” That’s the worst hoax theory I’ve ever heard. They wanted the world to know it was being faked but never actually said so?

Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon (2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which brings in valuable insight into the historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see.

Discount Howard Stern.

First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist.

They can prove that Van Allen radiation is so toxic that any astronaut going through it would have died quickly. They can find the movie studios where the pictures were supposedly taken. They can look at the blueprints and explain how the equipment was inadequate for the job. They can identify the sources of the Apollo radio transmissions, which were monitored from multiple sites across the globe. They can convince one of the many high-level participants, most of whom were engineers not Deep State swamp creatures, many of whom are still alive, to fess up and explain how the faking was done.

And one of the other nations with space programs can blow the whistle. Several of them are strongly motivated to make ‘Murica look bad.

“We cannot know the truth” is post-Christian existential bullshit.

Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proofs, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.

A reiteration of the Vox Day quote above, yet wordier. Our elected officials lie all the time! That means NASA lies all the time! And NASA said the Moon landing was real! THEY LIED!

Sorry we haven’t found conclusive proof yet despite years of searching. But you know it’s true! Signed, Robert Mueller.

But, first of all, can the NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?

Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica

Yes, they can. They brought back pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms of moon rocks and soil samples, all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks prove the moon landings, don’t they? Yes they do, but only if it can be firmly established that they were not dug out from the earth. And that is the problem. As explained here, “meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that in 1967, two years before Apollo 11, the NASA set up an expedition to Antarctica, joined by Wernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist for the lunar missions; Antarctica is the region of the earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites, but it is not known whether the expedition included geologists, nor if meteorites were brought back. In fact, it was not until 1972 that lunar meteorites were officially discovered in Antarctica; their lunar origin, of course, was determined by comparison with the moon samples brought back by Apollo crews (Wisnewksi 202).

Von Braun made a trip there but the only people I found claiming it was a NASA project are the conspiracy theorists. Why send Von Braun? He was a rocket scientist, not a geologist. If the idea was to find a bunch of rocks then claim later that they were moon rocks then Von Braun wouldn’t have been capable of more than color-matching some gravel.

No official I’ve heard of uses the rocks to prove the Moon landing. They use other evidence like photography and telemetry. Speaking of:

The photographic evidence

What other proofs does the NASA have of the moon landings? The films and photographs, of course! The films are notoriously blurry, which makes their examination difficult. How, for example, can you be sure that astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a real feather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free environment, when you can hardly see the objects? We do have a clear photo of the hammer and the feather on the ground, but how do we know they are the same as the blurry objects dropped in the film?

Blurry images are not evidence of anything. Why not look for a better example? Segue:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jul/02/apollo-11-hoax-myths-debunked

The missing flame
Claim: There was no exhaust flame from the lunar module when it blasted back off the moon. Therefore, it was a model pulled up on a wire.

Why it’s nonsense: The Saturn V rocket burnt liquid oxygen and kerosene on blast-off, which provides a fiery plume. The lunar lander ran on nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which doesn’t. Its exhaust gases were transparent.

The absent stars
Claim: Space is full of stars, so why do they not appear in photographs taken on the moon?

Why it’s nonsense: The astronauts took pictures of brightly lit, shiny white objects. In these conditions, cameras need a fast exposure time and small aperture, making it impossible to capture faint background objects. Guardian photographer Graeme Robertson says: “They would have used a really fast shutter speed so everything in the background would just be black.”

End segue.

Had the Moon landings been faked by the likes of Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick, there would likely have been visible flames and stars in the background… what non-technical people would have expected to see.

What would be helpful for a proper investigation is the original NASA footage. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given an answer. Here is what you can read on Reuters:

“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”

When Hillary Clinton loses a server full of national security secrets the day after getting subpoenaed, that’s suspicious. NASA finding out years after the fact that the original tapes had been overwritten by an under-funded engineer for reuse, not so much. Do these conspiracy theorists have a reason to believe that the originals were crystal clear yet every copy of them was not?

Fortunately, we have the photos. Besides planting a US flag and collecting rock samples, the astronauts spent much time taking photos on the moon. And let’s be fair: in 2015, the NASA released to the public thousands of them in high resolution. They are accessible here, and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.

So, the evil masterminds wiped the film to hide telltale imperfections yet forgot about the photographs entirely? High-quality ones at that. Which we would expect, 1960s motion cameras not being on par with still cameras.

If anything, it’s the photos that would have been wiped and the film left alone.

[Technical complaints about photographic equipment excluded. The author is suspicious that the astronauts knew how to use the cameras they brought.]

More to the point, is there any evidence that these pictures were shot on the moon? None whatsoever. They are easy to make in studios. As a matter of fact, the NASA went to great length to train the astronauts in indoor settings reproducing the condition of the moon surface as they imagined it, fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose (even before anyone had seen real moon dust), and even simulating the black sky. Some of the photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such as the following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the “real” thing, if framed differently.

That’s exactly what I would do if I was going to fake the Moon landing. I would make as good a simulator of moon conditions as possible… in public for the world to see.

By the way, theorists, where do you believe the fake Moon landings were filmed? Because we know they weren’t filmed in those simulators. Remember Apollo 13? They used the simulator to work out solutions to technical problems while 13 was in flight.

Let’s face it: there is no proof that any of the Apollo photographs are genuine. That may not be enough to destabilize the believers. But what should is that quite a few of these photographs are “replete with inconsistencies and anomalies,” in the words of David Percy, who proves his point in What Happened on the Moon? The film contains an interview of Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo Hasselblad. When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being in the shadow of the lunar module, as in the photo reproduced on the cover of Wisnewski’s book), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That escapes me… why.”

I would like to read that full quote before accepting it as legit. Even at face value, that is consistent with the Moon landings being real. The last thing a forger does is intentionally give people reasons to doubt his work. Had every last tiny detail about a photo shoot in an unprecedented, extreme location had a smooth explanation then that would have been suspicious. “I don’t know how the picture came out that way” is not “I screwed up the Photoshopping.”

I can think of a couple plausible ways that could have happened. That would be speculation on my part, which also isn’t proof, but I don’t even speculate because I’m okay with not having every last detail explained to my total satisfaction. It’s similar to my attitude towards Christians who claim that all versions of the Bible are unreliable except the original Koine Greek and Aramaic. If lots of people work on the same problem, some together and some independently, and all arrive at basically the same conclusion, then I can trust the conclusion. Don’t whine to me that a few holes and discrepancies cropped up. I’m not going to dedicate my life to either a triple PhD in dead languages or a triple PhD in the rocket sciences to know for absolute certainty that the fool talking to me does not have a valid point.

Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reason to suspect he was working for something else than what he was told, at least until someone challenged him to explain impossible pictures.

That fails on two grounds. One, citation needed for the space program being “need to know”. The only secrecy was to keep the Russians a step behind. Two, Lundberg was commenting on a topic inside his “need to know”, being the project engineer for the camera.

To take another example, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project, which remained completely hidden from the public until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Is the Manhattan Project still secret? The designs for our nuclear weapons were leaked by the Rosenbergs in 1944-1950. We couldn’t keep Manhattan controlled for one decade but the faked Moon landing is 5 decades and going strong?

If the Apollo crews had photographed the moon’s starry sky, that could have served the NASA to counter the accusation of fraud. For back in the 1960s, it would have been very hard to make the computer calculation to make the stars constellation consistent. Unfortunately, no one thought about it at the NASA. The astronauts were asked to look down and collect rocks, not to look up and study the stars. It is as if the NASA were a congregation of geologists who despised astronomy. And to think that they spend billions of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit! To be fair, I have read about a telescope installed by the Apollo 16 crew, but it seems that no one has ever seen what came out of it. In any case, not a single picture of the NASA archives show any star in the sky.

*checks* I assume he means the Far Ultraviolet Camera. Color me shocked if a UV-spectrum camera didn’t produce images visible to the human eye.

The official explanation? There simply were no stars visible in the moon sky. Period. It is so incredible that even some “moon hoax debunkers” prefer to explain the black sky in all Apollo photographs as resulting from low exposure. But they are wrong: the astronauts saw no stars with their own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, consistently declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” in the words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.

I found the full quote by Mitchell:

“When I went to the moon, I was as pragmatic a test pilot, engineer, and scientist as any of my colleagues — But there was another aspect to my experience during Apollo 14, and it began with the breathtaking experience of seeing planet earth floating in the vastness of space. The first thing that came to mind as I looked at earth was its incredible beauty – a splendid blue and white jewel suspended against a velvet black sky. How peacefully, how harmoniously, how marvelously it seemed to fit into the evolutionary pattern by which the universe is maintained. In a peak experience, the presence of divinity became almost palpable and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random process. … It was knowledge gained through private subjective awareness, but it was – and still is – every bit as real as the objective data upon which, say, the navigational program or the communications system were based. Clearly, the universe had meaning and direction … an unseen dimension behind the visible creation that gives it an intelligent design and that gives life purpose.”

The Unz author’s dishonest usage of this quotation is clear.

Edgar Mitchell dies; Apollo 14 astronaut had 'epiphany' in space - U.S. - Stripes

Mitchell, Apollo 14. Horizontal lines on his forehead and vertical line between the brow indicate intelligence and determination. Flat lower eyelids and thin mouth indicate rational outlook on life. Eyes are recessed but with the lids still visible, suggesting he was introverted yet sociable. Visionary eyebrows (heavy on the inside) suggest independent thinking, which helps explain the poetry in the above quote. Thin, non-flanged nostrils suggest he was emotionally generous but not financially generous. Square face shapes suggests a life of practicality and endurance. An excellent face for an astronaut.

Was it because the luminosity of the moon surface was too strong, so that their eyes couldn’t adjust (a day on the moon lasts 27 earth days, so the astronauts who landed on the illuminated side of the moon never experienced a night on the moon)? If that was the reason, then at least, the astronauts should have seen plenty of stars when travelling between earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. When they orbited around the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves in pitch darkness, and saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around the moon several times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong were on the moon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t remember seeing any!” That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think of from an astronaut, but the whole press conference is a bizarre experience to watch.

Citation needed. I reviewed their 1969 post-mission press conference on youTube and the only mention of not seeing stars was in the context of landing the lunar module. Question for the author, are you claiming that none of the Apollo astronauts ever saw stars at any point in all their respective missions?

Don’t ask Neil Armstrong

Neil Armstrong’s November 1970 interview is just as bizarre. It has been used by several skeptics as evidence that he is lying. I highly recommend this very professional analysis commissioned by Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet TV from by Peter Hyatt, a nationally recognized expert in deception detection. I find it devastating for the credibility of Armstrong.

I don’t even care to watch the linked video. Suffice to say, nobody goes to all the trouble of a hoax the size of the Space Program and then lets the star of their show get pantsed in an uncontrolled interview shortly afterward. The Swamp did better than that with David Hogg.

Peter Hyatt sounds interesting, however. I might peruse his blog some lazy afternoon.

Fasten your Van Allen Belt
We set out to find out if there is any proof that the moon landings were real. We have not found any.

You did find proof but you found it lacking. That’s different from “no proof”.

Instead, we have found evidence that they were not real. But in fact, it was hardly necessary: NASA engineers themselves tell us they are impossible, for the simple reason that the astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which would kill them, and damage the electronic equipment as well. Listen, in the 10-minute video below, to astrophysicists and astronauts inadvertently admitting that the technology to send men beyond lower earth orbit is not yet available.

So, all our unmanned probes are hoaxes also? Again, WE HAVE EQUIPMENT ON THE MOON. We have wheel tracks. We had radio communications throughout each mission, through that radiation belt. Our electronics worked just fine.

He asserts, with no evidence, numbers and surely no personal knowledge, that the Van Allen Belt would have be fatal to human life despite the shielding of the time. He doesn’t know that’s true… but he needs it to be true. Because if landing on the Moon was possible then this might not have been a hoax as he wants to believe.

Why does the author want to believe it was a hoax? Because he wants to hate America’s Deep State of the post-WW2 years:

That may be the reason why, since the presidency of Tricky Dick, no manned mission to the moon, or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted. Remember, the International Space Station is orbiting at a distance of 250 miles from the earth, whereas the moon is about 237,000 miles away. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a new endeavor to “gain a new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). 

Alternative reason: why bother? The Moon is a barren, gigantic rock. No economic value. No political value, less the Chinese “me too” missions duplicating America’s success. Going there was never cheap and as a tourist destination, the Mojave Desert is prettier. Awesome bounce house, though.

No manned mission to the moon came out of this announcement.

Translation, no funding came with this announcement. Baby Momma needs her monthly check!

Time is working to the advantage of the moon hoax theorists, for every year that passes makes people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?” Less that half of the British and Russians still believe in the moon landings. Among the educated, this percentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty years, when Americans realize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will the United States of America survive the exposure of this giant hoax?

Teaching lies about your enemies is a classic element of identity politics. As Western Civ transitions from Christianity to tribalism, the desire for reasons to hate and discredit America increase sharply. The reasons don’t have to be real, merely the results they bring. Hence the increasing popularity of “USA lied about the Moon Landing” among people with either always hated USA or were raised by teachers who hated USA.

Magic spells: words that must be spoken to produce desired results. I don’t expect better from the Communists or pagans but it’s unfortunate to see the alt-Right employing the same evil.

Manufacturing belief

If the Apollo moon landings were faked, serious questions ought to be asked about the NASA, to start with. Then, there is a need for some deep thinking about what has become of the United States since World War II. And beyond that, the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our mind. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.

A serious question for the author, what if the Moon landings were real? Would you feel relieved that it wasn’t a James Bond-level psyop and the American people weren’t that badly brainwashed? Would you happily admit that your enemies were not as evil as you had believed? Or would you be upset that the people still haven’t woken up to their brainwashing?

The first step is to grow out of our infantile beliefs about the NASA, and do some basic study on what it is all about. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Many people today commend Eisenhower for warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex, and the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Ironically, the foundation of NASA was itself a giant leap for the military-industrial complex. There is no question that NASA’s so-called “civilian space program” was first and foremost a cover for a military program. The NASA Act of 1958 made explicit provisions for close collaboration with the Department of Defense, and in practice, the Pentagon was involved in all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, as early as 1969, and concluded:

It’s not a cover when it’s an official, publicly stated purpose. Thank God the author spared us the hysterical “NASA was a haven for Nazi scientists!” conspiracy. Which is actually true. Wernher Von Braun was only one of about 1,600 German scientists who traded their knowledge for a ticket to the only Western nation not shelled into the Dark Ages by World War 2.

The early astronauts were Air Force test pilots. Kennedy gave his Moon speech in response to Russian space achievements. Don’t talk like NASA’s DoD origin and Cold War motivation was some kind of closely guarded secret.

The para-military purpose of NASA is essential to understanding the Apollo hoax. For in matters of military programs, “what the public knows is also known to the enemy. This means that in principle the public and the enemy can be seen as essentially one and the same thing” (Wisnewski 7). Therefore, we should understand that deceiving the American public was not a perversion of NASA’s original purpose, but an integral part of it.

Paramilitary purpose? Is Cape Canaveral a training camp for Muslim insurgents? Does the Houston Space Center spy on Americans for the NSA? Have our astronauts attempted a “regime change” in the International Space Station yet? If anything, NASA has ended up an overly tame dog-and-pony show for tourists.

Wisnewski (130-139) provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from Vietnam war crimes. Apollo 11 landed on the moon two months after the media revealed illegal bombardment in Cambodia, and the Apollo program stopped just after the official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia.

Distractions don’t work if they need a month or two to activate. For the cost of the Space Program, the Deep State could simply have bought all three television networks and the Associated Press. Or, y’know, actually witch-hunted the Communists giving them bad press over Vietnam.

This Wisnewski guy might have been the author of this post, so completely does the author buy into his writings. I couldn’t track him down but didn’t try hard, either. I wasn’t going to buy his book.

Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a whole. Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all other earthly nations.

That’s a blatant, shameless lie. Ask most people to name the pantheon of NASA astronauts and you’ll get Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Tom Hanks. A Baby Boomer might score John Glenn.

The author hates America’s success and is speaking the magic words that he hopes will destroy our accomplishments. He’s ten pounds of sorcerer shit in a five pound-bag.

But yes, an increasing number of people will believe his words. Not because they’re true… because they’re useful. They want their own people to be the world’s winners and the easiest way to look good is to make everybody else look bad. Because math is hard and going to the Moon, extremely hard and very impressive.

The kicker is, there’s no need to believe the Moon landings are a hoax. Our Elites have done so much wickedness that I only believe in documented conspiracies just to keep from being overwhelmed. Is it not enough that the Deep State is 95% evil? Must we lie to each other until we believe the Deep State is 100% evil?

Why is winning more important than the truth?

 

4 thoughts on “Tribalism and Moon Landing Hoaxes

  1. Whether the Moon landing is true or a hoax..it’s a big meh from me. I do think false flags are real but it has more to do with getting gun control laws in or wars started rather than telling the Soviets we owned them because we got to a barren rock first.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Owen b had some psychotic break last December, and he has been on a downhill spiral since.

    There is a ton of misinformation about the moon landing on YouTube. The governments incompetence or deliberate obfuscation adds to the problem.

    I’ve written one short blurb about one nasa misstatement.

    My short take: the government losing the data is bs. Also, even if we never went, it’s still an epic hoax. Lastly, our border wall is going to be as expensive as the early Apollo program

    Like

  3. Oh hell I’m so going to get in trouble with my comment….Hope it doesn’t get me banned!

    But I’m one of those guys who believes that the moon landings was a complete and utter bullshit hoax
    I’m not prone to conspiracy theories either….well not the stupid ones anyhow!

    Flags continuously moving on the moon which is supposed to be airless, and that is even taking into account inertia by the astronauts who planted the flags, as NASA’s explanation why the flags move………Yeah right, we’re not that stupid NASA

    Like

  4. “Owen b had some psychotic break last December, and he has been on a downhill spiral since.”

    I hadn’t heard. Poor guy. But it was surprising to see Unz.com float the idea, too, and there’s sure to be more coming on this topic with the 50th anniversary coming up.

    Pity NASA hasn’t done much since then but really, there’s nowhere to go in the Solar system. Not until huge amounts of easily accessible water are found… unlikely at this point. I hear that’s the real reason for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. If the scientists find water somewhere then they can go play on-site.

    “Hope it doesn’t get me banned!”

    Hardly. There’s a shortage of good discussions in the world.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s