The Real Truth of the X-Files…

Or how mass media manipulates thoughts and opinions through popular culture

Kevin Scott King

In the spring of 1993 Tim-Berners Lee releases what we know as the World Wide Web… royalty free. For all intents and purposes this is the ‘Internet’ for most people. The introduction of the WWW creates an explosion of data and information sharing across the globe. People of like interests could easily find one another and share data… and they did, at an unprecedented level. This sharing of information is a godsend for any persons whose interest lie in obscure or hard to find subjects. This is particularly important for those who research controversial subjects, like those of a conspiratorial nature. But regardless of what subject, be it obscure or common, this new ability to find and share information easily and quickly, rapidly accelerated research. And hence was a boon for harder to research subjects, especially those in which parties are not keen on the ‘facts’ becoming common knowledge. Such as acts of gross criminality at the governmental and political level; murder, fraud, theft, false-flags… also labeled as ‘conspiracy theory’.

In the fall of 1993 the Fox network introduces The X-Files. The show is about Fox Mulder, an FBI agent who believes in and investigates the paranormal and supernatural, and in particular aliens and UFOs. In large part because he witnessed his sister being abducted when he was 12yo. Dana Sculley, a skeptic and medical doctor, is assigned as a partner to Fox, to debunk his work. So the entire show revolves around subjects that are… ‘out there’. A play on the ‘The Truth is Out There‘ tagline that is regularly shown at the end of the shows intro credits. Which is in and of itself a double-entente. The truth is ‘out there’… meaning somewhere in the world the truth can be found, and also because the deceptions are so grandiose, so elaborate, so long running. That many times the truth is hard to believe… hence it’s ‘out there’.

As part of the show there are 3 regulars who appear in roughly 5 episodes a season, referred to as ‘The Long Gunmen’, who Mulder taps for hard to find information. They are an interesting trio, unabashed ‘conspiracy theorists’. They are the geeks, the outcasts, the nerds. Byers – the straight laced, serious, immaculately dressed one, and former FCC employee, Frohike – the frumpy, unkept, short, hacker, and Langly – the long haired hippie, Dungeons & Dragons player, and hacker extraordinaire. These three represent the fringe, the counter-culture, the antithesis of mainstream.

Throughout the 9 season series there is an ongoing story often referred to as the alien mythology arc. The basic premise of this arc is that a secret organization within the USGovt is hiding evidence of alien abductions, aliens on earth, and alien spacecraft. Mulder is convinced they are aliens, whereas Sculley believes them to be terrestrial.

The genesis of the UFO and alien story line come from an alleged crash of a UFO in 1947, outside of Roswell, NM, in which alien bodies were reportedly found. Imo there is enough evidence to prove that ‘something’ happen that fateful evening in Roswell… but what? This is where I think about what is more probable? Was it an alien craft with aliens on board, or was it a man-made experimental craft with some kind of human experiment/hybrid on board? I know the latter was not only possible in ’47 but it certainly is more probable than an extra-terrestrial craft. Certainly the government would want to keep a very tight lid on both truly exotic experimental craft and any kind of ‘experimental’ human.

And the alien cover story works so beautifully on multiple levels. For most people, once the ‘alien’ option is produced they dismiss it outright… the whole story. But for the persistent, for those ‘Who Want to Believe’, the alien creature works perfectly to disguise the human experimentation angle. Remember the alien creatures are always… humanoid. Did you ever wonder why? You don’t think the Nazis and Josef Mengele were the only people and nations doing research on human subjects, and the only time period, now do you? The same logic applies to the craft itself. When you say UFO, people roll their eyes, and most dismiss the entire story outright. But what does UFO stand for? Unidentified Flying Object. There is nothing in that description about alien, or extra-terrestrial. It simply means the craft could not be identified against other known craft. Is the craft terrestrial or not? Which is more probable? The same principal also works with abductees. Which is more probable? Small secretive groups within Governments capture people to experiment on them or aliens?

The X-Files expounds on this already created narrative that aliens and UFO’s is silly, and only fools are crazy people believe in them. They literally say numerous times that the creatures they find are government experiments, but Mulder is determined to believe they are aliens. That the UFO is actually not of this earth. We have the secret government represented by the ‘Smoking Man’, and the ‘Syndicate’. They portray the Lone Gunmen as kooks, ‘conspiracy theorists’, one in the same is the idea to be planted into the sub-conscious.

Imho they literally flaunt the truth the entire series. That a secret group at the top level of government is doing human experiments and covering it up, part of which include abductions, and experimental craft.

This is not a new idea. H.G. Wells wrote the ‘Island of Dr. Moreau’ in 1898! Doctor Moreau, who creates human-like hybrid beings from animals via vivisection. Might it be apropos to mention here that Wells also wrote the non-fiction ‘The New World Order’ in 1940, proposing one world government?

So then the purpose of the X-Files was to reinforce the already planted idea that Aliens and UFOs is silliness, thus hiding the reality of experimental humans and aircraft. Many X-Files ‘Monster of the Week’ episodes were ridiculous. Impossible story-lines. The point is to mix the ridiculous with the possible; real; truth; and lump them all under the moniker of fantasy. It links this silliness with general ‘conspiracy theory’ believers, a role the three Lone Gunmen fulfill. As does Mulder who also believes in ‘conspiracies’. Mulder is seeking the truth, of course his truth is the alien conspiracy. The ‘believer’ discounts the human experimentation, or at best that it is always with aliens, because they want to believe in aliens. The casual fan (majority) just enjoys the show and discounts all of it, it’s all just foolish and fake… but a fun show. And the fans who really are aware, that there really is something more to the story, well they get pigeon holed as simply X-File fans… you know people on the fringe.

It is important to note the difference of the general audience, target audience, and core audience. The core audience is the hard core fans, these are the geeks, counter-culture, non-mainstream. Those who either believe or are open to conspiracy theory. But X-Files went mainstream. And this general audience was the target to discourage from believing in conspiracy theory.

Ok, but what does this have to do with the Internet? I started this article with a paragraph about the introduction of the WWW in the Spring of ’93 and it’s historical importance. And the X-Files started in the Fall of ’93. What did, what we now simply call, the ‘Internet’ have to do with the X-Files? What correlation is there? The internet provided a tool for the curious to explore subjects that they otherwise would not have. The internet opened doors for many that otherwise would have remained shut. So the internet provided a way for individuals to privately/secretly* look into some of these socially taboo subjects… including ‘conspiracy theories’. The globalists understood this, and they had to subvert this curiosity. And this was the purpose of the X-Files. To reinforce that Aliens, UFOs, conspiracy theory, paranormal, is ALL just silly nonsense. Good for an entertaining TV show, but nothing that should be taken seriously. Investigate the silliness all you want on that newfangled World Wide Web… but just don’t believe any of it. And the X-Files was a very successful Fox network show. Subversion complete.

* Of course now we know that our ‘secret’ investigations online, regardless of what or our intent, were not secret at all, but in fact have all been recorded. As well as ALL of our texts, emails, web searches, phone calls, etc. Everyone say hello to the NSA!

Still skeptical? I completely understand. I really do. But this is how ‘programming’ and ‘conditioning’ work on the human mind. And any person who has grown up where mass media is prevalent has been exposed to this ‘conditioning’ their entire lives… it has become ‘normal’ to us. So then let’s go deeper.

Remember the Lone Gunmen? The three geeks, the conspiracy theorists? They were fan favorites. So much so that Fox created a stand alone series of their own aptly titled; ‘The Lone Gunmen’.

And just in case anyone does not understand the play on ‘The Long Gunmen’ moniker. The lone gunmen ‘theory’ is the official USGovt narrative for the death of JFK in particular. That Lee Harvey Oswald acted completely alone. Pulling off a difficult to impossible feat of shooting with an average weapon mounting a broken scope. The lone gunmen theory also applies equally to the assassinations of RFK and MLK.

So on March 4, 2001 the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen appears. And the crux of the episode? A government conspiracy concerning an attempt to fly a commercial aircraft (by remote control) into the Twin Towers, with increased arms sales for the United States as an intended result. Which is exactly what happened 6 months later… coincidence you think?

In May of 2001 the movie Pearl Harbor was released. Reminding the nation of the treacherous Japanese, and the heroism of GI JOE (technically that would be GI Affleck, god help us all), and reinforcing how great the US Military is, and how much we need them. Bush Jr. and his pals are in charge at the White House at this time, the NeoCons. The Project for the New American Century guys. Who wrote in their PNAC document ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ (1997) in the “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” section. A passage suggesting that the transformation of American armed forces through “new technologies and operational concepts” was likely to be a long one, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. Which is exactly what they got on September 11, 2001, and in fact Pearl Harbor was referenced many times during the coverage of the 9/11 attacks and aftermath. Surely just another ‘coincidence’… right?

You did know that Pearl Harbor was not the ‘surprise’ attack that it was made out to be? The Japanese were goaded into war by deliberate actions of the US. The US had broken the Japanese Military and Diplomatic communication codes in the 30’s. FDR wanted US involvement in WWII, the US populace did not want any part of it. The meeting of the Japanese diplomats to declare War before the attack was intentionally delayed. The two very valuable aircraft carriers, stationed at Pearl Harbor, and all their new support ships were in transit to and from Midway Island (delivering planes) during the attack. Another coincidence? And in fact most of the ships berthed at Pearl Harbor ‘s Battleship Row were no longer considered valuable, WWI generation ships. The globalists knew that the aircraft carrier was the new Queen of the sea. So what appeared to be a very devastating loss from an equipment standpoint, was really not one at all.

Maybe you think this line of reasoning is a stretch, that TV and Movies are just for entertainment? They don’t actually influence people… oh really? So I guess the $68 billion spent on TV advertising in the USA in 2014 is just thrown away by companies that have nothing better to do with their money?!? The base rate of $5 million for a 30 second spot at the 2016 Super Bowl is bought by companies for what purpose? To just entertain football fans during commercial breaks? So then Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Snickers, Doritos, Skittles are really just entertainment companies masquerading as food companies?? Hold on, I thought you weren’t a conspiracy theorist!?! The video in whatever form and whatever device it is viewed on (movie theater, 4k LCD TV, computer monitor, tablet, smartphone) is a powerful tool of influence. There is a reason McDonald’s spent $1.2 billion in 2008 on advertising. Because it bloody works. Burger Business says that one out of every six dollars spent by the restaurant industry on advertising is spent by McDonald’s. How the hell else can one explain McDonald’s, at best very average food (imo it’s just bad), being the largest fast food chain by dollar sales in the world? “I’m lovin it” was a brilliant advertising campaign and slogan. You’ve got to convince people ‘their lovin it’ else they might throw it up. I can hear some of you right now. McDonald’s advertising has no affect on me! Nor I, but I woke up that were much better hamburger choices than McDonald’s in the *mid-80s. But there are many many different companies that advertise on TV, and the ones that work best on you personally are the ones you consciously notice least.

*And it is not ironic that I discovered better burgers due to the very popular Wendy’s ‘Wheres the Beef’ ad campaign. And in 1984 Wendy’s made a damn good burger, of course they’ve been crap for decades now as well.

What I would give to see what would happen if McDonalds stopped all ads for 1 year… then we’d all learn just how powerful advertising really is.

Let’s look at another example, a personal anecdote. In 2001 Lexus began the ‘December to Remember’ ad campaign (technically it started in ’99, but ’01 is the year it went national). Their special sale in the month of December, using Christmas gifts as the theme. December is traditionally a very slow month for car sales, and overall car advertising is less due to seasonal ads. So it was a shrewd move as Lexus was able to own this space, and in fact this very successful ad campaign continues on to this day. The target of these commercials is men, in particular husbands. The car is a gift for their spouse. And what is the primary emotion they use to encourage this purchase? Guilt. I personally remember having this reaction, and in more than one year. Why? Because at the point I remember the commercials, around ’02/03, I had been married around 10 years and had never purchased a new vehicle for my then spouse. Couple of used ones. I was square in the target demographic, even though at the time I could not afford it. Which in hindsight actually increased the guilt. Because based on societal expectations, education, background, career path, I should have been able to. So Lexus played on this emotion very effectively. Don’t you love your spouse? Doesn’t she deserve a new car? With a big red bow on it? Stop being a cheap selfish bastard. I eventually became cognizant of this guilt reaction and started changing the channel when these commercials ran… seriously, I felt guilty every bloody time I saw one.

Here is a Lexus ‘December to Remember’ commercial from 1999.

The two consistent themes from ’99 too today. The theme music and the big red bow. Apparently the theme music is very popular, has a ‘Home Alone‘ feel to it. The below is a video of just the full theme song. Here are just two comments about it;

“Love this song so much. Every time it’s Christmas season and they play this music during the commercials, it gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling.”

“Absolutely love this song. Wouldn’t be Christmas without it.”

So people’s Christmas mood is now being created by a commercial selling cars (correction: using guilt to ‘encourage’ people to buy a car for their spouse)… the very essence of the ‘Commercialization of Christmas’. Bravo Lexus. This is the real ‘spirit’ of Christmas in 2015 in the USA…

We discount or believe commercials are ineffective on us personally because we recall all the commercials for products that we have no interest in, hence we are NOT the target market. You react to commercials that are in your sphere of interest. I don’t eat pizza anymore, so an ad or commercial for pizza has little to no affect on me. But one for Tacos… it’s at least going to get my attention because I love me my tacos. But please remember that most commercials are very overt. The TV commercial works wonderfully well despite the audience being aware of this overt attempt to influence.

But what of the less overt, the more subtle, the covert, the sub-conscious? So you can admit that yes TV advertising is hugely influential, and even occasionally on yourself. But regular TV programming has no influence on peoples thoughts, desires, emotions, opinions?  It’s not called a ‘program’ by accident, or maybe that is just another ‘coincidence’?

Etymology of the word ‘program’:

1630s, “public notice,” from Late Latin programma “proclamation, edict,”

General sense of “a definite plan or scheme” is recorded from 1837. Meaning “list of pieces at a concert, playbill” first recorded 1805 and retains the original sense. That of “objects or events suggested by music” is from 1854. Sense of “broadcasting presentation” is from 1923. Computer sense (noun and verb) is from 1945.

Definition of the word ‘program’:

a plan of things that are done in order to achieve a specific result
a set of instructions that tell a computer what to do
a thin book or a piece of paper that gives information about a concert, play, sports game, etc


to give (a computer) a set of instructions to perform a particular action
to give (a machine) a set of instructions to perform a particular action
to make (a person or animal) behave or think in a particular way

Does TV reflect society or does society reflect the TV? You don’t think the TV has any real influence on you or your family, or your roommates? I challenge you then to keep it off for one month (all video forms; TV, tablet, Netflix, smartphone, DVD). See what happens, see how your interactions change with those you live with. See if your thought life changes. Can you do it, can you do it for a week? Do you understand that if you cannot go without something but for a few days, especially that which is not required to actually stay alive, that this is the classic definition of addiction? But don’t feel bad, almost everyone is addicted to it, hence it’s ‘normal’. The video format was designed to be addictive. And now we have the smartphone, so people can bring their video addiction with them everywhere.

When people tend to think of propaganda they recall examples from other places and time periods. Why? Because it is easy to recognize propaganda whose target audience is from a different culture, speaks a different language, follows a different religion. Because it is so foreign to you, it is obvious. But it not as easy to recognize propaganda within your own culture, especially if you think it is not being used. And in particular when you’ve been exposed to the propaganda from birth It becomes a ‘normal’ part of culture. Background. Subconscious. Not all propaganda is designed to be overt. And if it is to be covert, then it needs some vehicle in which to disguise itself. And is not the harmless sitcom, or drama, or action movie a good option for this?

Below is an example of United States Military overt propaganda. Before you watch it I ask that you do a thought experiment. While watching it imagine that this was is not for the US Navy, but for the Russian Navy or Chinese. What would your reaction be if this were so? And viewing this for what it is, what tactics are they using in order to create the response they seek? And what is the response the commercial is seeking to create?

This is overt propaganda, and so is this; Defense Dept paid NFL millions to salute the troops  of course this is very cleverly ‘hidden’ overt propaganda. The US DoD regularly works with Hollywood, you know to ensure accuracy, lend a helping hand, and make sure the director portrays the military in the appropriate manner… pro-military.

The USGovt is the 2nd largest PR firm in the world, based on number of PR employees. Public Relations = Propaganda. Don’t believe me, consult the man considered the father of Public Relations, Edward Bernays. Who started the first public relations firm, and identified it as such. And also wrote the seminal work, Propaganda (1928). Which I highly recommend reading. You can DL a pdf copy free off the Net. And it’s a relatively quick read.

The first paragraph from Edward Bernay’s book ‘Propaganda’ (1928):


The Truth is Out There. Indeed it is. And the truth many times is stranger than fiction. And it seems that either by choice or by other forces, that the globalist use the Mass Media to signal their intent. Also referred to as ‘predictive programming’. A form of mental conditioning of the populace to an idea or event, so that when it actually occurs it is more readily accepted.

I Want to Believe. I do too. But I am only interested in believing in that which is true. And I will continue to push my way through the myriad of lies and the cavalcade of deceivers to find it, wherever it may lead. Including secret societies covering up human experimentation. Including social engineering on a population level, using tools such as; astroturfing, propaganda, culture creation. Including the use of false-flags by Govt insiders to push for war.

I hope you will continue on this journey with me.


I never was an X-Files fan per se. I watched it some in re-runs, but lost interest in it. I’m watching the anthology episodes now, the show takes on a whole different meaning when you watch from the standpoint of USGovt covering up human experimentation.

A 6 episode X-Files miniseries launched on Jan 24th, 2016.

Leave a Reply

134 thoughts on “The Real Truth of the X-Files…”

  1. Good article and analysis for a teaser. And the mention of “Christmas” being used as a consumer event, it always has been and will continue to be.

    Let`s stop observing Valentine’s Day, Easter, Christmas and all other Satanic pagan festivals, and see how quickly the mind-raping/propaganda is accelerated.
    Here some Bill Cooper for that “ancient stuff” that no one pays attention to, anymore.

  2. I was telling my husband when we were watching the recent X-Files episode dealing with possible hybrids the shows were a mix of truth and fantasy deliberately planned to condition humans to believe this is just entertainment. Like you inferred, some of the monster episodes are basically dumb. I’ve seen most of the original series and was always was a bit frustrated with the unrealistic episodes. Mix the truth with the farcical to keep the sheeple compliant.

    My father had a Zenith Trans Oceanic radio we used to use to listen to Russian propaganda on. I was born in ’56 and am so glad to have had an education that taught US and World History, US Civics, including the Constitution, etc. Most of us learned discernment and how to analyze solve problems. Granted, there have always been flaws in some of the “truths” we’ve been taught over the decades but, for those of us born before things really changed, we can easily see the bullsh*t being fed to the masses for what it is. The treachery going on after 1900 up until the mid 70’s was real, but it wasn’t personally affecting most citizens yet. I was fortunate to have wonderful parents and given what we are all dealing with now, I’m rather nostalgic for the relative innocence of the late 50’s and 60’s.

    Thanks for a great article!

      1. Dear Brother, I checked out the link – and was greatly amused. Thanks.

        Do you have any inks to someone alleging this hybridization program who doesn’t believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament?

        If you believe in the literal truth of the OT then apologies if my comments appear offensive, but to my mind the Bible’s a strange starting point for an analysis of contemporary black ops.

        If it’s a spiritual matter, can’t you Christians simply invoke Christ and have done with it?

        1. Because there’s no way for your conclusion to be useful. The Bible is one continuous story, told through various men over thousands of years. It seamlessly describes the unfolding Plan to redeem the human race. Michael Heiser ( is the best scholarly source to demonstrate this.

          I read widely, and could certainly provide many links of the sort you’d like to see, but I won’t do it because I don’t want to mislead you. The Bible is true. People who don’t want to believe that are certainly welcome to their opinion, but I’m not going to help them.

          And in the end it does not matter about Doug’s belief in the Bible. He has worked with the mothers of the nephilim children in our era for decades. You can listen to their testimonies at his web site. These are real people with real experiences. The fact that they match the Bible like a hand fitting a glove is almost immaterial. These are the real evidence of what is happening. Real people, testifying, over long stretches of time. OUR time.

          But again, Christianity is nothing without the Old Testament. Every chapter of the OT is about Jesus. The whole thing is about Him. He was predicted in thousands of ways, across all the books that make up the Old Testament—which is what He told those guys on the walk to Emmaus. (Luke 24):

          15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17 And He said to them, “What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” 19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. 21 “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. 22 “But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive. 24 “Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see.” 25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures…. 44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

          The entire Gospel can be, in other words, taught from the Old Testament.

          That said, there is an explanation for the strange reality of hybrids/aliens. The secular, pseudo-scientific set want it to be a race that evolved on another planet unimaginable lightyears away, who are way more advanced than us technologically. Ask yourself why they want it to be that way, when the Biblical answer is faaaar more plausible? The secular world hates God, that’s why.

          As I said originally, if you want to understand the solution to the mystery, read/listen to Doug Riggs. (And Mike Heiser.)

  3. I was a latecomer to the series, but it’s become a guilty pleasure of mine.

    I’ve missed the very last of the new series (lack of sleep), but otherwise, I’ve followed the new series, and found it to be quite enjoyable. Chris Carter’s sensibilities are pretty well honed, and it looks as if the chemistry between Mulder and Scully is intact.

    What is the real truth of the X-Files?

    The truth IS “out there”…in every aspect of the phrase.

    I would advise those interested in a different slant on this to read PLANETARY by Warren Ellis, John Cassaday and Laura DePuy, published by DC/Wildstorm Comics. They delve into a number of ideas, including the Open Conspiracy.

  4. I sold advertising. Sometime it failed, sometimes it worked great. If a little dry cleaner wants to advertise taking down drapes, dry cleaning them, and re-hanging them for older ladies, what is wrong with that? I know a company that expanded into four locations by offering that service. Yet, on a “government level” I do not disagree. I think it was Vance Packard who wrote, “The Hidden Persuaders” about subliminal messages in ads. We are hit with mostly propaganda constantly. Re: UFO’s: I very recently changed my mind completely. I thought they were outer space visitors for a long time. Then I began to think of that “boy who saw Jesus in heaven” story. Jesus was on…what kind of gold chair? Did not realize that there was a manufacturing infrastructure in heaven. So, now I feel it’s been gov’t the whole time, and the human structure analysis is a good one. And yes, messing with/experimenting on humans, sort of makes sense to me now. Kind of like me saying goodbye to the new age movement. There is no starving woman in the Sudan who can “think” her way into a plate full of mangoes. I just tossed a paperback two days ago entitled “How to do Automatic Writing”. No mas, por favor. Going back to my affirming Jesus, trying to be fearless in the face of lies from sadistic shills as I pursue Sandy Hook Hoax, and try to make my later years, to quote that dreaded, overused word, “meaningful”. Re: “Advertising” I recall the words of Lily Tomlin: “God has a TV set. When I think He is watching, I do a little commercial for myself”.

  5. Very nice piece, Kevin. It is very broad and insightful. It is so broad, that I want to comment on every element, but that would be far too boring for others and probably hard to follow.

    I suppose, in general, you article raises the question; “are we merely observers?”. If we sit and watch the world “like cows to a passing train”, we are ripe for manipulation.

    Whether one sells ideas, or cheeseburgers, every such effort has a purpose. It certainly isn’t to leave us alone.

    Taken all together, it is such a chaotic mass of information and misinformation that we can easily achieve a sort of hypnotic state. There is no room for “our” thoughts and idea, only those of advertisers and change agents.

    I actually think “The X Files” is very good (intentionally or otherwise). You captured much of its substance. I think there are more elements to it, however. I rather think that it wouldn’t be on TV if the network gatekeepers actually thought it would lead to enlightenment.

    It broaches many themes, and even though some are handled with a raised eyebrow and subtly dismissed, they manage to leave conclusions to the viewer.

    Just like TV itself, there is no question but that anything can be used for evil purposes. In fact, the more curious we are the greater the need for discernment. I wouldn’t be surprised if many first became aware of some of the subject matter presented through the show. I doubt if that was their intent.

    In a more complex way than much of the normal fare, the show presents is own share of choices. Of course, those are not the viewer’s only choices. I appreciate that this is rather artfully done.

    I think its safe to say that anything that comes to us from commercial interests is a form of propaganda. They are not simply conveying information. They are selling memes.

    One note on TV revenue. I personally believe that all of the money-making schemes are subterfuge. Those at the top “cause ‘money’ to be”. They don’t NEED it at all. The game is to use access to it to control those who are dependent on it.

    So, for those in the roles of helping with the control effort, they are allowed to run their own scams so long as they do not interfere with The Plan. So, in a sense, they are capturing “available” funds. Their owners couldn’t care less.

    If the Controllers want to put out a message, and TV is the media of choice, they will do that with or without advertisers. The TV is much too important to them as a control vehicle. Of course, if the eaters are willing to fund it, they will let them.

    So, if I’m following you, I agree that there is a glut of information and disinformation out there. It is in the sorting and discernment that it can be useful or harmful. First we need to know where we wish to go. We need to stop allowing others to make those decisions for us.

  6. Enjoyed the article. Preaching to the choir with me, so lots of confirmation bias I have to admit.

    In the first episode of the new X-Files series, Mulder mentions, in passing, the moon landings as well as the Manhattan Project. In the past, I wouldn’t have blinked, but in my newfound state of “enlightenment” as a well-researched skeptic, I caught the propaganda game.

    The general public, even a lot of truthers, still haven’t figured out the moon landings didn’t happen, and certainly have never questioned whether nuclear weapons really exist. That notion is extremely silly sounding, of course, given how we were bombarded, especially as children (if you were a baby boomer like me) with all the fear-mongering of “duck and cover” along with the numerous drills at school, not to mention the consensus “reality” from every angle of society, from films to television news, that nuclear weapons were the number one menace in the world — so much so, that lots of people literally built bomb shelters in their basements (as if). The entire Cold War centered around that threat, and we had the big scare of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And, of course, no sentient being on this planet isn’t afraid of MAD (mutually assured destruction), even to this day.

    But before you completely dismiss the notion that we’ve been lied to about nuclear weapons as the most absurd lunacy you’ve ever heard, please consider the possibility. Here are some links to get you started. Think of it as good news, if in fact it is true (which I believe it is).

    And, obviously, if we’ve been lied to, there are plenty of other questions that come into play, especially regarding the war racket.

    The Nuclear Hoax
    Miles Mathis, January 24, 2016

    The Nuke Hoax – How Far Does It Go?

    The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2015
    by Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

    The Nuclear Bomb Hoax – TV Fakery and PSYOP
    RobinMFisher, July 17, 2012

    1. Thanks again, Mangrove, “nuclear bombs” are the biggest fictitious bully ever invented to scare the public. The entire concept was cut from whole cloth in the wartime propaganda industry’s back rooms, once again illustrating that the perception of power is a power in and of itself.

      1. Thank you THX1138. I posted this information on a somewhat well-known conspiracy news site and was accused of defacing his site. He is the moderator, of course, and ALL of the comments are approved by him — but somehow it’s my fault that the comments are “defacing” his site. He’s totally on board 9/11 truth as well as Sandy Hoax. So why not at least consider the possibility of a nuke hoax?

        My guess is that he, although a truther, suffers from the same thing the general public does: groupthink. In his case, it’s his small clique of supporters and commentators who have a certain box they’re comfortable in and he’s afraid of venturing further for fear of losing his audience. Just a guess.

        He said Miles Mathis is an “infamous bullshit peddler” and likened him to Sorcha Faal and other disinfo agents. No explanation for that comparison of course, which I find unwarranted. And he likened the fake nukes idea to flat earth theories, etc. Ironically, Miles Mathis has clearly pointed out that he believes the flat-earth meme that’s currently dividing the truthers is a psy-op designed for that purpose. I had already believed that myself.

        Anyway, just more drama in the truth world and it leaves a bad taste, because the sheer lack of civility and distrust is running rampant now, it would seem. I’d been a regular on that site for years and, while I knew my notions might be deemed too far out, I had ZERO indication from the proprietor that I was crossing the line, especially since he was approving my comments all along.

        I guess the truth IS “out there” even for a lot of truthers.

  7. Good heavens! Dr. Tracy and your peeps, I expect better from you.
    You say you want to know the truth? If you do not mention Dr. Greer and the Disclosure Project, EITHER to vilify or verify him, you are not honest. You may, or may not support or believe him, but to not even mention the 500 high level witnesses he has produced, (like Apollo Astronauts), his mountains of documents and photos, and his astounding expose on Nov. 21, 2015, proves absolutely that you are not being forthright.
    You probably want to deny the existence of our galactic family, or perpetuate the reptilian-evil-lucifer-psy-op.
    ET’s are real, and they don’t need anything from you. They have everything they need. All the stories about bodily secretions, or meat, or children, or “Loosh/Negative Energy” are fabrications, as Dr. Greer and the new X-files have made clear. Abductions are real, but they are not ET’s. That is the deep secret. ET’s are benevolent. Sorry David Icke.
    Try to use some logic and reason. Beings that have free energy, anti grav, molecular synthesis and billions of planets to mine and colonize don’t need ANYTHING from you. Do you need anything from an aborigine tribe? Or a family of chimpanzees? (Well maybe the oil under their land, but not if you have breakthrough energy!)
    They do have love, however, and think of us as children. They aren’t that interested in gabbing with us, but don’t want us to destroy ourselves.
    Pravda told us the truth too:

    Or watch Dr. Greer:

    Geez. Do you WANT to continue getting off to Doom Porn? Or perhaps we can leave our womb and begin growing up, surrounded by loved ones?

      1. Thank you Anne B. I read the text at the link you sent, and it sure sounds like Dr. Mitchell, but I haven’t heard or seen it before. I have followed, listened to and read him over the last 15 years.
        I clicked on the “original source” and was met with the standard “not found” page.
        This is so interesting, I wonder if you know whether this was recorded in his voice, or if there is any other documentation or links to verify this was produced by him?
        He was a great supporter of Dr. Greer and the Disclosure Project.
        His recent passing gives us a good reason to celebrate his life.

        1. Angel, I am not sure about the recording, but Veritas Radio has some very interesting interviews on the subject. You may be familiar with Veritas. Others may not, but it is nevertheless intelligent radio for people interested in the subject. 14 minutes with Dr. Edgar Mitchell on Veritas Radio:

      2. Anne. Say it ain’t so! You BELIEVE that guy?!!!!

        The Sandy Hook play-actors are just as adamant that the hoax is all true, in all its ridiculous details. Actors are shameless, when in character.

        The fact is, it is physically impossible to travel to the Moon with the technology we were presented with in the 1960s. And every detail of the story is absolutely laughable. So this is particularly rich:

        “Now for my own experience, I have had no first hand experience like so many of you. I have not encountered a UFO, and we did not have them trailing, us as far as we know, going to the moon. We didn’t meet anyone on the moon. We did it just like we said we did. For the last twenty-five years we have dealt with the issue of, on one hand, the flat-earthers who said, ‘you didn’t go anywhere, it was all filmed out here in the desert,’ and on the other hand, another fringe that said, ‘yes you have been there, but you were followed. You were in contact with UFOs. There were beings on the moon that you met and had contact with.’ Well, that’s not true either. So, we have walked between these two extremes of misinformation, disinformation and pure ignorance. We did what we said we did, and I want to assure you, from that period up until the current time, NASA was one of the organizations ignorant of this type of activity. And the prevailing wisdom in NASA (at-the-time) was that we didn’t even think about it. It was a ridiculous idea that we would encounter beings on the moon.”

        He did not go to the Moon. He is a liar. The whole Apollo program was a transparent hoax. At least Neal Armstrong had the decency to keep the secret with the caveat that he’d never talk about it ever again. He was clearly deeply ashamed of himself for perpetrating the fraud on the world. The shameless hustlers like this scumbag, who strut the rest of their lives like the cock-of-the-walk after “winning” a rigged fight make me puke.

        1. I’m in your camp about the moonwalk and also have never been a fan of ET, but you miss what is really good in Greer’s four hour presentation – he nails what happened to the trillions missing from the pentagon and other government budgets. He gives the list of underground labs that cost taxpayers a fortune, and the secret yo yos who control the black budget including HW and Cheney (how did he get so powerful, never having gone to a top school, and having very little brain power?) Greer demonstrates how the funds are shifted and their cover up paper trail. He’s also correct about technology such as zero gravity and EM force that is not available to the public – it’s been know for years that there could be better cars and energy. As to ET, many prominent people have had so called sightings, but I never have liked the visuals involved with the little green men so the concept doesn’t thrill me.

        2. Patrick, I have an open mind. Like lophatt says, he listens to all sides and then makes up his own mind. I take everything coming from people on government payroll with an extra pinch of salt, and then one more pinch. Sometimes the stories get very salty.

          During a road trip through Nevada we visited the tiny hamlet of Rachel and stayed overnight at Little A’Le’Inn. Rachel is smack in the middle of Area 51 country. Did not see aliens there, but found some interesting reading materials at the inn by locals who live in the area.

          Some years ago, on another road trip that my daughter and I took, we did see something that was either from another world or from this world. In South Dakota on Interstate 90 driving west with eyes on the road, my then 7 year old daughter all of a sudden said “Mommy, look over there”. I did, stopped the car and drove onto the side of the road. On our right side we saw three huge disks hovering over the ground. No cars came by, the area was void of human activity, but a huge truck was parked on the side of the road in front of us with windows open and no sign of life inside.

          Don’t know why , but I rolled up the car windows and locked the doors. We sat there in awe for about twenty minutes watching these three huge disks standing still in the air. Eventually they ascended very slowly, gained speed and vanished in the horizon to the northwest of us.

          Driving again with a dazed mind we discovered what attracted the attention of the disks. A huge dinosaur stood in the field where the disks had been hovering. Later I found the history of that dinosaur:

          I discovered that Ellsworth AFB is about 45 miles west of the dinosaur, also just off Interstate 90. The base is no stranger to unexplained events:

        3. Anne, coming from you I take that as a great compliment. Thank you.

          I’ve had a few incidents myself. As you say though, “the jury’s still out”. I am neither excited or frightened by it. I simply don’t have enough information that I would rely upon.

          Part of the problem is that our reality is largely our invention. When we look through a microscope or a telescope we see rather the same thing from two different perspectives. In one we are “giants”. In the other we are insignificant.

          Seeing things is not the problem. Understanding what we see is the important part. I have a long list of observed phenomena that I certainly “saw” and accompanying explanations for it that i can’t prove.

          I’m thrilled by the knowledge that we know so little and there’s so much to understand. We should see our world with awe and respect. It is so marvelous and unfathomable that it clearly proves the existence of God.

        4. Lophatt,
          Until NASA or some Genius figures out what rhymes with Orange, I can’t believe anything “They” claim in science.

          That’s my litmus test….haha

        5. Blanc-mange rhymes with it. Its a desert and according to the trustworthy Monty Python academy one such, a human-sized one one the Wimbledon.

        6. Patrick, by “intelligent radio” I meant calm and collected, not the Alex Jones version of an interview. I have traveled extensively in the American southwest deserts. It is very moon like.

          Back in the day the space race with the old Soviet Union was on and the cold war was boiling. There is no end to the stories and hoaxes they invented on both sides to stay the leader of the pack. All the while both sides being controlled by the same masters.

          Someday in the future this planet’s past will be exposed and set humanity free, what’s left of it. I’m convinced of that.

        7. If anyone can in fact go to the Moon, we have no evidence it ever was done. Everything we have been told about the supposed Moon missions is so ridiculous that a child would scoff. Mitchell is a shameless liar. Nothing he says is worthy of attention, unless it is to investigate shameless lies.

          The nature of UFOs is another thing entirely. Very worth investigating. It is my opinion that it is an Earth-based super-technology, developed with the help of beings from the other dimension, by traitors to our race. But as I say, it is worth investigating.

          As for Apollo, every detail about the story is too stupid to entertain a five year old. Going a quarter of a million miles and back on one tank of gas? Blasting off the Moon’s surface on part of that fuel-load, and meeting the orbiting “command module”, somewhere up there, 65 miles high? Joining the two vehicles? Perfectly?

          All with computers that are a typewriter compared to an iPhone?

          Apollo was simply impossible. It is a joke.

        8. Patrick
          About you seeing a problem with going back and forth to the moon on one tank of gas. Once the escape velocity is reached, the engine may be switched off and the vehicle will continue in the correct path if you just aim well. This is true both ways and the escape velocity on the return path is much smaller. Not so far from the moon the earths gravity takes over and the vehicle just falls back to the earth.

        9. Patrick
          You forget that the rocket+fuel decreases in mass all along the trip. Bot because fuel is consumed and because more and more of the vehicle is thrown off. If the escape velocity is attained when the last stage of the big rocket is detached, the rest of the vehicle needs no more added energy until it leaves the lunar orbit. I dont know if it happens exactly in that manner but you get the general idea. During the return trip at 10% of the moon earth distance it begins falling to the earth. And on the return trip it has left part of the vehicle on the moon. Down and down the mass goes neatly matching the remaining fuel. No mystery just applied physics.

        10. Peter, If we went to the moon, it certainly wasn’t in that tin foil and mylar contraption. Its a deathtrap with less computing power than an 80’s Merlin game. Not to mention, where did they put the moon buggy with those huge tires? Were the tires solid rubber? If not, did they arrive pre-inflated to the perfect pressure so as not to explode when they got into the searing temperature of the moon’s surface? They must have gotten a bit gooey in the heat? Did the astronauts inflate them using some of their nitrogen from the air mixture?

          The batteries must have been very heavy to transport, and high tech not to explode in the sun, or freeze, and lose their charge in the shade. I have a ford from that era, and have to keep the battery on a charger in the winter, or its caput pretty quick.

          Furthermore, how about that apollo safety record? Everything went perfect on the first try. Not bad considering that they never were able to accomplish that on the simulations from what I understand. And why did the Russians give up? They were miles ahead of America in the space race before we opened up a can of apollo whoop ass?

        11. Rich
          Even the electronics could withstand 450 degrees C. They went through the awkward procedure of using semiconductors based on GaAs which at the time was far from standard. The whole vehicle went through that kind of heating to kill bacteria not to contaminate the moon and on the trip back the astronauts were isolated before it was deemed safe
          Some Russians believe Gagarin never went to space but some other guy did and crashed after a few turns and was so horribly injured that it would shame the national pride and so Gagarin was made the poster guy. I have no opinion about that.
          The wheels were made of metal
          The 2 batteries were not leadbased but had a capacity of 120Ah

        12. Dressed up rubber, i would bet my cat on it. Bye the way, how did they keep all that lunar dust away from the lem’s electronics? The dust from the boots would have been floating everywhere when returned to 0g. Must have been one hell of a door mat!

        13. Here’s the best source in one place for Apollo Moon Hoax information:

          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 2
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 3
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 4
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 5
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 6
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 7
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 8
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 9
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 10
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 11
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 12
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 13
          Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 14

        14. THX1138
          I read part 1 where Wernher von Braun said in 1953 it would necessitate an 800kt rocket. Obviously engine technology might later have improved compared with these early estimates. But three years later he said they would be able to put a radiotransmitter on the moon.
          And I havent read the book from which his older estimate came, so I dont know what the precise project was. If they planned to build a base it would need more than the carrying capacity of the Apollo project, which had a very small margin for making mistakes when seeking a landing spot as well as for staying any longer.
          Von Braun was simultaneously planning a Mars mission using a spacestation for staging the project. There would be 70 astronauts in ten vehicles weighing 3,27kt each. It would seem that Wernher would think it more interesting to build such a space station and then lift all the components to it using many smaller rockets than those he calculated for a direct trip to the moon.

        15. Peter My Friend,

          People are Pushing Flat Earth, No Nukes and all sorts of things.

          This is all a waste of time. We know most of what the Sheeple believe is a lie.

          This is the final kill to me..IMHO

          We need to focus on so many other things as a Race of Humans..

          I’m not a Man of many Words , so I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.

        16. Ric says
          “I’m not a Man of many Words”

          What happened? You used to be. You used to be Moderation Man. You used to be the Fool on the Hill.

          Now you dip in and out of here like a stranger.

          Come back and be goofy a little.

    1. ETs don’t sound benevolent to me. The people that claim to have had encounters with them, by a large majority of the accounts, describe their encounters as anything but beneficent. Taking people from their beds and performing ghastly experiments of some kind on them doesn’t really sound like a picnic in the park to me; it sounds purely wicked.

      If you want to be part of their “galactic family”, please go ahead. They are not from another galaxy, they are from another dimension…the spiritual dimension of the fallen ones.

      Both Jacques Valle and Dr. David Jacobs, two of the more famous ufologists, came to believe they were dealing with demonic entities, not space travelers from another galaxy. Writer and paranormal researcher, John Keel, came to basically the same conclusion. I believe it was Dr. Jacobs that stated these ETs very closely resemble the historical accounts of encounters with demonic entities.

    2. As I stated in my article the UFO/Alien ‘PsyOp’, is cover for experimental aircraft and genetically modified humans.

      So anyone pushing either, imho, is either deeply deceived (they want to believe) or pushing the Agenda.

      What is the current amount of ‘unaccounted for’ military spending? 7+ Trillion? At that level what haven’t they spent money on?

      I do not believe anyone has landed on the moon either. What convinced me was the Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference. Before you watch it think about how these men should be behaving if they did what they claim. You need only watch 10 minutes to get the vibe.

      1. These three men and all of their “moon brothers” are liars extraordinaire! They have been held up as heroes for the better part of five decades. They have profited very nicely from their lies for all these years, as has NASA. One can only imagine the trillions of dollars of American money they have stolen, and no doubt, will continue to steal for the next 50 years. Whenever NASA announces a new discovery, no matter what it is, it can be summed up in one sentence: “Send more money!”

  8. Great article! The first of the new x-files raise some interesting points about the new world order. It seems very close to the truth. Possible using a know far out programme to release a bit of info. Hiding the truth in plain sight. That speech in the first episode of so close to the truth its no coincidence!

  9. The X Files had the distinct feeling, among some of the better episodes of making you feel like you were learning about the real world that exists all around you,
    that reads like science fiction:)

  10. Kevin, thanks for the great article.

    I believe you are correct about Roswell…something happened there, but it had nothing to do with little green men and everything to do with human experimentation of some kind.

    Are you familiar with David Paulides, a former law enforcement officer that now investigates the thousands of people that go missing inside U.S. state parks? The circumstances that surround these disappearances have far too many bizarre factors in common for them to be coincidences. The most damning evidence in these cases is the outright refusal of law enforcement and federal agencies to investigate them. They even try to thwart all investigation into these cases.

    I believe these people, many of them young children, are being taken and used for some diabolical reason, such as experimentation. When Nazi scientists were brought here after WW2, I believe this country made a deal with the devil, and that is when these disappearances, abductions, UFO sightings, etc. began in earnest. The truth is indeed much stranger and scarier than any fiction!

    If you aren’t familiar with David’s work, his website is :

      1. Anne, I have a fascination with it too…so many strange threads running through each case, tying them all together, but with few, if any, answers to what all of this means.

        Thank you for the link to the Ellsworth AFB ufo sighting…I really enjoyed it.

      2. Anne, this topic has a bearing on much of what we discuss at this site. This “willful refusal” to look at the implausibility of things, and accept the official explanation, or lack thereof, rather than ask questions.

        In reading his books I have been as struck by some of the situations leading up the disappearances as I have been the disappearances themselves. In short, highly unusual behavior.

        The facts remain just that, the facts. If we are unable to provide answers they don’t just go away. When officials actually attempt to hide potential danger rather than lose revenue, that’s criminal, in my opinion.

        My speculations are probably “far out there”, but so are the disappearances. Our ancestors get short shrift sometimes. There are no shortage of myths that deal with phenomena like this. Myths are not “lies”, sometimes they are instructive.

        We only see what our senses allow. That doesn’t mean that nothing exists beyond our ability to sense it. It may be unsettling to some, but I am keenly aware that there are influences in the world that impinge upon man for reasons known only to them. All we can do is observe, if possible, and speculate if not.

        There may indeed by anomalies with time itself, and its influence on those who find themselves caught in those warps. I doubt that wilderness areas are the exclusive domain of these disturbances. They may be more noticeable with less people around.

        I have many “half-baked” theories that could go some way to explaining things like this, and others. Remember what they say about “faerie rings”?

    1. I had heard and did some reading on that a few years back, but did not mentally tie it in with the subject at hand. Now that you mentioned it and the fact that Law Enforcement ignores it… I believe your assertion is correct.

      1. Yes, law enforcement in these cases refuse to investigate them, and when the families of the missing try to investigate for themselves, they are even threatened with arrest. It only makes sense when you realize that they don’t want the cases to be solved.

        From David’s website:

        “David Paulides has shined a light onto one of the greatest and most disturbing mysteries of our time: the simple and awful fact that people disappear, especially in our national parks, and little effort is made to find them, let alone inform the public about the danger.

        Even when massive searches are mounted, and people are found, the events surrounding their loss and recovery are often far beyond logical explanation.

        This is the most comprehensive and expertly presented series of books on the subject ever written, and the latest volume, which includes stories from five countries, is sobering, chilling and far too well researched to ignore. Essential reading.”

        Whitley Strieber
        New York Times Best Selling Author

        1. Yeah, I think that phenomenon is what we see here a lot with SHES, BMB and others. It is easier to preserve one’s security and keep a low profile than it is to admit that there’s a problem without a believable solution.

          The real problem is, just because someone refuses to look, it doesn’t go away. I think that they would rather continue to lose a few, here and there, than lose their revenue and positions.

          If you ran an amusement park where every 1,000th visitor disappeared, would you keep inviting visitors? “Step right up, take your chance, win a Kewpie Doll”.

          No, I think you would be forced to investigate, no matter where it lead. Even if there is nothing to be done for it you would be obligated to inform the public and at least provide some possible advice to minimize the threat.

  11. I originally posted this article on 12/18/15. It was while working on it that I discovered they were doing the 6 Episodes of Season 10. Also, it was a comment post here @ MHB referencing the X-Files Anasazi episode that triggered my exploration into the cultural programming purposes behind it. There’s that ‘influence’ thing again… because this article just popped out of me.

    Few thoughts on Season 10. Slight spoilers ahead.

    Episode 1 is very interesting. We have an ‘Alex Jones’ character, portrayed as crazy who speaks truth about various active programs. Even more revealing they play with the idea that alien abductions were actually done by humans. The final angle is humans are using alien technology, very important that they still keep the ‘alien’ story, to take over the world… one world government.

    Ep 2 deals with telepathy, human experimentation, and alludes to remote electronic weapons.

    Ep 3 – classic monster of the week episode, and imho the funniest X-Files episode ever. Various jabs at our vacuous American culture.

    Ep 4 – another monster of the week episode. Dealing with government corruption, greed. Also has a very significant exchange in which Sculley calls Mulder a ‘dark wizard’…

    One more point. In Eps 1 & 2 there are brief scenes with a series of flashing light sequences. Normally this is an entrancement or hypnosis device.

    1. I notice that homosexuality is being heavily promoted in the new episodes. In episode 3, there is even a transsexual.

      I never noticed before how hooked Scully’s nose is or that she had such a horse face, lol. Mulder is not aging gracefully.

      The new series seems to be a direct “answer” to the internet. The internet is playing a heavy role in the series.

  12. Kevin,
    Not having watched the X-files, your description of the government experiment/alien duality as a dramatic dynamic makes it sound more interesting than I ever thought it could be. Kudos for that.

    I have the same criticism of this essay, though, that I had of your other piece. (Don’t worry; it’s not editorial.) You say that everyone’s mind is being programmed, whether they know it or not. If someone isn’t in thrall to this idea, then they must be asleep to their own hypnosis.

    This is pretty reductive of human experience. No matter what the apprehensions an individual may labor under, everyone has authentic experiences that give them insight into the power differentials in their own lives, even if only intuitively. Surely you’ve experienced this in a workplace.

    And I can assure you that there were people who were awake to this stuff way before the world wide web. This isn’t some new place we’ve arrived. It’s the old place, with new technology.

    This is a problem I see with much of the critique here at MHB. A thesis is projected backwards from the present, over the history of a subject, ignoring its complexity and direction of organic development, and flattening out the variety of its meanings. Your example of the etymology of “program” is one example.

    For television, the first definition you quote is the correct one, and comes down through the “broadcasting presentation” line. The definition of program as a plan or set of instructions developed in a different line of meaning, leading to the concept of computer programming, which was then applied to mind control.

    These are two different definitions. They are not equivalent. The two can only be equated from a distance with the literary device of irony, as in, “This TV program is totally programming me to (fill in the blank).” So no, it’s not an accident, nor a coincidence. It is, as you stated, an etymology, with wandering and parallel histories leading to definitions which are not interchangeable, as you try to make them.

    I don’t expect to change your or anyone else’s mind here, but I think it’s important that I say this anyway. I’ll cut my efforts though, and focus on just one more example from your piece.

    The Christmas song from the car commercial is a real song, composed by a real guy, who made a deal with a production company, which had a car company for a client. People heard the song on the commercial and sought out the original, which you embedded in your post, and from which you quote the comments as proof of the commercialization of Christmas.

    But the comments were not made about the commercial. These enthusiastic comments were made under the original song on youtube and mention the commercials as the place people heard it first, but are now hearing the entire piece. It’s not the Lexus they want for Christmas, it’s the song, which is not surprising. It is a Christmas song.

    Post after post, the enthusiasm is for the song, not the car. The happy memories of the woman who associates the song with the birth of her now-teenage son, are not diminished because she heard it in a commercial. In fact, she illustrates a major lesson for our time. Even in the belly of the beast, there’s nothing that can’t be salvaged if you take pleasure in it, or value it in some way. Think of the Beatles. Think of wonderful films from filmmakers who are mobbed up with intelligence services. Think of songs from commercials. There isn’t much that’s not been touched by compromise.

    If something appears as lovely to us, then we can delight in it, free of its compromising context. It’s a side effect of these huge cons that beauty is made available in this way. This is what grace looks like in the 21st century. Take it where you find it.

    Everyone here is in agreement with you about the treasonous lies and murderous behavior of the government and its institutions. These things are recognizable. They may be enumerated and recounted, but they need not mystify us, or be given a power that they don’t have.

    Thinking that a song is tainted by being used in a commercial, or that your mind is being programmed and there’s nothing you can do about it, is superstitious. And it’s a superstition that serves the elite by sapping the strength and narrowing the perspectives of people who should know better. Instead they think that they already know better, because they feel awe at the “voodoo” they perceive before they reflexively turn their heads, and pity as blind those who do not.

    Here at MHB, you’re in the majority in the way you describe the mind. But to me, your description is like being at the entrance to someplace you want to go, but you’re stopped by the horrible gargoyles at the gate.

    Ignore them. Gargoyles can’t stop you. Go ahead and walk inside.

    1. Wow, Toni, beautifully expressed. Almost brought tears to my eyes as I listen to my copy of STEVE KUJALA – December to Remember, which I will play whenever I want to and put on repeat because I enjoy the song so much. It goes well with the snowstorm outside my window. I’ll try to remember to play it on my birthday in June, too.

      Indeed, the perception of power is a power in itself, and by ascribing power to someone or something in one’s mind, people weaken themselves. I found out at the ripe age of 5 that if you walk up to a big bully, twice your size, scared as you might be, and lay a stick across his ear, he will never bother you again. That was a valuable lesson.

      The enemy needs your fear. The most satisfying thing you can do is deny it to them, and live life without fear, or when afraid, face it like the bully, and move on. I am finding out that everything the enemy puts forward to promote fear is fake. From attacks to viruses, all fake. Nothing they say can be believed or feared.

      Thank you for your wonderful comment.

    2. Toni, I appreciate your well thought out comment. But you do not understand or appreciate the power of music and video, or how technology is being used against humankind. This comment is consistent with your comments from my prior article. Which I would identify as one who is in denial.

      Lexus took an existing song and used it to hawk cars. It tied a song titled ‘Family and Friends’, that was designed to create warm memories of Christmas, and used it to manipulate people to purchase a car. The song is still beautiful. But most people were unaware of it before the Lexus commercial. And if you play it to people today, many will recognize it from the Lexus ads. And so they tied the enthusiasm for the song (and the warm memories) with Lexus… thus making one more amenable towards Lexus, and that is the whole point. To transfer those ’emotions’ to the Lexus dealership. And it works.

      Toni, possibly you are in that small % who are immune to most techniques of suggestion and hypnosis? If so, then it is difficult to relate to those that are not, or understand how it works and thus discount it’s effectiveness. Or maybe you simply have never recognized how you’ve been manipulated? You’re too smart and clever for that?

      Or maybe you’ve just willingly submitted and… ‘entered the gates’? Decided it’s not so bad being controlled and manipulated by others? All these wonderful benefits if we just surrender to our ‘masters’?

      I am not selling fear. I am identifying a way out of bondage. Avoid the tools used to keep you ‘mystified’. Extricate yourself from the systems used to control you where you can. Free your mind, and your spirit.

      1. Kevin,
        In my previous comment, I summed up your essay this way, “You say that everyone’s mind is being programmed, whether they know it or not. If someone isn’t in thrall to this idea, then they must be asleep to their own hypnosis.”

        In your new comment, you have added nothing to my summary, while at the same time making no response to anything I said. Nevertheless you tell me again that I’m in denial, and because I deny being hypnotized, that I am asleep.

        It’s like I’m triple-deep in oblivion over here: asleep, hypnotized, and denying the whole thing. Paradoxically, in my unconscious state, I have also accomplished the feat of “WILLINGLY” submitting to “our masters,” having “DECIDED to be controlled and manipulated by others.” (emphasis mine)

        I don’t have to point out the logical inconsistencies here, do I?

        I’ll ignore that your metaphors are staggering into each other like zombies, and just say that if you want to make these charges stick, Kevin, you’ll have to back it up with something. Tell me how I’m asleep. Respond to something I’ve actually said. Explain yourself. Otherwise, your accusations not only make no sense, they are empty.

        One thing? A good third of your comment is questions? I guess they’re meant to sound really snide? Like you think your disdain is unmistakable this way? For instance, in this quote, when you said, “Or maybe you simply have never recognized how you’ve been manipulated? You’re too smart and clever for that?”

        Your use of this device to add insult to your words may work in an oral screed or in your head when you’re running down grievances or even in a spontaneous comment made in frustration, but it’s not very nimble in a written argument. You worked yourself into this mode in your actual post, too, as you got wound up.

        Instead, try just making it a statement, “Maybe you simply have never recognized how you’ve been manipulated. You’re too smart and clever for that.” I think the sarcasm on the second sentence still holds, and without the use of the foolish “I’m just questioning?” pretense, it sounds like a more serious charge. Of course it isn’t, because you don’t substantiate it in any way, but it succeeds in inflicting the insult while leaving very little to respond to, which is perhaps your intent.

        This is of small matter. The danger you represent is not literary. The thing to be feared here is authoritarian. It’s the worst kind of demagogue who refuses to acknowledge individual experience. You insist everyone must be subjected to your interpretation. Anyone’s experience is false if it doesn’t agree with yours. You issue repeated calls to be afraid, to trust you over one’s own mind. To follow you.

        This is very scary. Especially for yourself, although I bet you don’t see it. You’re much better off if other people are thinking for themselves. I hope you don’t learn humility the hard way.

        But, nevermind. Let us not to our shared and noble goals admit impediments on this Valentine’s Day. Certainly we can say that we share many of the presuppositions grounding this argument, from the abuse of power to the pervasiveness of psychological influence.

        So in solidarity, Kevin, let me say that your strengths as a writer are the passion in your clarion call to truth, and your willingness to marshal resources and do the hard work of writing. These things are invaluable. They give you something to say and the means to say it. Kind of like a straight shot. You’re very lucky.

        But you need to know your mind better, and to be more logical with the concepts you want to use.

        Liberation lies in developing the mind, not in avoiding danger in the world. I’ve tried to describe that the way to take charge of a symbol or a sound or a technology or a concept, or anything else that you want, is to make it over in the image of your own mind. This is how you counter influence, by taking it in consciously, and remaking it into something you can use. Exactly like the Christmas song from the Lexus commercial that escapes its manipulative context through the people that love it.

        Like the YouTube commenters for the Christmas video, this is something that average “sheeple” do spontaneously everyday. They appropriate artifacts from their surroundings and give them a meaning that outshines the object’s provenance. They become the influence on the artifact, rather than the other way around. I think most people need only be made aware of the astonishing creative capacity they already use, for them to be able to fortify their minds against all comers.

        This is why I don’t agree that in general, people are asleep under waves of programming and hypnosis. I think it’s more accurate to say that they don’t realize how awake they are, or the awesome power that they have that can overturn these insidious and outworn social structures.

        There’s an old saying from the 60s: We are as gods and we better damn well start acting like it. It’s time to stop trembling before the malicious intent of the other side, and start encouraging individuals to consciously create their own meaningful constructs in defiance of the evil wished upon them.

    1. With Paul Chambers, Jimmy Cobb, and Coltrane of course. I met Miles a couple of times and he was not so nice, always on something, but my friend watching here with me knew Coltrane, was always at the clubs where he played and said he liked him alot – Elvin Jones said “he was like an angel.”

      1. Yeah Marzi, my uncle lived in Harlem and played with Miles and said the same, sort of like multiple personalities without the drug. And alot of Jazz men got to that “Church of Satan” rubbish thru Sammy Davis Jr.
        But Miles was talented.

        1. Miles was a genius. Like many other genius’, he could be “difficult”. He went through a period where he thought he had “surpassed” diatonic concepts. The music he produced then was understandable only to him.

          He locked himself in his apartment and kicked heroin, cold turkey. He had an enormous ego. He was immensely talented but its anyone’s call if that gives someone license to be an asshole.

          He was famous for firing musicians at the drop of a hat. Even those who played with him for a long time. No mercy. He had a lot of enemies.

          Still, he wrote and performed some great music. His life was a wreck. His music was wonderful.

        2. He was told by his doctor to remain silent after whatever it was that damaged his throat (I can’t remember the details) but when he flew into a rage shortly after that, as he was wont to do, he just couldn’t help himself, and he screamed so strenuously that his voice was ruined for life.

          I wonder if every time he tried to talk after that it served as a reminder that rage is not good for us. Lots of us are incapable of learning such lessons.

        3. My friend said notice how they take their time and use silence too as opposed to the noise and hyper-excitement people now prefer as in the superbowl or boring grunts of rap. The greats were always in the clubs at the time and you could talk to them. I also remember Monk and an aging Bobby Blue Bland – so fab.

  13. The Roswell event was staged with crash test dummies.
    And they did indeed have the necessary technology for the Apollo project in the 60s.
    And for example, in order to lift from the moons surface requires much less energy than the corresponding earth-liftoff. Say 24 times less or so.
    It looks less impressive due to the vacuums absence of heated dense gaseous material.
    One argument claiming the nonexistense of the technology is about missing blueprints. Who knows for sure that they are missing? The US authorities might simply have decided they didnt want other nations to get their hands on that info. It should occur to enthusiasts that such rockets may carry something other than astronauts…

    1. The first two episodes of the new 2016 x files were jaw dropping – moved the storyboard a lot closer to what this article is saying – and to what we’re all seeing and thinking…(not going to spoil it for those who have yet to watch)…watch and see your stories on the big screen, truthers. Then (too close to the edge?) the series went back to the old style b-movie search for various odd monsters format, not so interested.

      Still, like James Fetzer says they have to mix in nonsense with truth , or else the overlords pull the show (and the writers “commit suicide” or “crash their cars/planes”) and it sure looked like someone threw it all out in the first two and then got told. Buyt it was fun to see “our stuff” on the bigscreen for once, and nice to know lots of new folks got exposed to it.

    2. Incorrect. You summarise ignorance itself. In fact the stock footage of the “autopsy” was REAL but “redrawn” in parts due to damage of the negative. The entities are called Futczhi’s, have “no genitalia”, are of a blue grey colour and [reputably) live on moon bases. Lives ones have been filmed in Brazil.

      Whereas I agree with the content of this article, the author be wise to understand the denominator too. Star genes know the truth and don’t need “guidance” from Fox network or any other sources. Feedback on the current series has been encouraging, but I often find errors, misinterpretations when I bother to investigate these sort of things. My latest post on my Exopolitician discusses putrid archaeology and the stench you call “history”


      1. Ozzie
        Thats what that particular design of crash test dummies looks like but they’re called Futczhies not Futczhi’s.

        1. What did you expect, Peter? Is not reasonable to name something “not explained” after something familiar. The Futczhis’ eyes are of the “human type” but very strange looking. When they are motionless they look a little like “dummies”. I think it is the correct word for them.

    3. Peter,Certainly they had the technology;what they didn’t have is what they don’t have today: the ability to ascend through the Van Allen Belts with out frying everything,inc. humans and equipment. However,I haven’t discounted the possibility of their having discovered a Wormhole…that is possible…however improbable.

      1. Ray
        This argument has been refuted time and time again.
        The passage through the belts took under 1 hour. And the worst region took phaps 10minutes. Time matters. Their suits were thoroughly developed with many layers. The vehicle had lower thickness laterally but gave better protection backwards and forwards.The result was that during the 6 days the trip took they received about twice as much radiation outside compared to inside the Allen belts. But altogether it was acceptable. Since the duration ratio is 1h/144h this means the intensity was on average 72 times stronger inside. I’m not sure I remember exactly the right numbers but its roughly correct.

        1. Peter,then why did a prominent NASA spokesman recently admit that they are incapable of moving a ship through the VA Belts safely,due to their inability to withstand radiation? It’s one thing to refute an argument…quite another to settle it with irrefutable facts. Did they have much better technology back in ’69?

        2. Ray
          You need to quantify ‘safe’ here. The dosimeters carried by the Apollo crews indicated they got less than 5 rem, the yearly limit for nuclear industry work. That limit corresponds roughly to 20 years of natural background radiation. So the 6day average intensity was < 1200 times natural background. And from my previous comment you get that the average intensity during passage of the belts was 72 times that or <90000 times natural background.
          And the increased cancer risk is about 0,3%
          Very very rough estimates but you get the general idea.

          Like they imply there experts had indeed worried about it but the path chosen and the protection they wore turned out to be good enough.

        3. “The dosimeters carried by the Apollo crews indicated they got less than 5 rem, the yearly limit for nuclear industry work.”

          Of course, Peter. Except that they were carrying them around a movie set, on Earth. No problem. That’s why, incidentally, none of the actors ever came down with radiation-caused cancers. Soundstages are not radioactive.

          And I should point out to you that their “spacesuits” were made be the bra manufacturer Playtex. They were just linen costumes designed for eyeball appeal so the viewers of the show would be impressed:

          “Eight companies reportedly submitted proposals to NASA for consideration. Almost all were companies that were known within the aerospace industry. One, however, was known for its work in a somewhat different field of endeavor; the International Latex Corporation was best known as the manufacturer of Playtex bras and girdles. Improbably enough though, it would soon be adding Apollo spacesuits to its product line.”

        4. patrickchatsamusably
          davesweb is not a trustworthy source. A quick look and I discover he claims the Sovjets put the reflector which is used for bouncing a laserbeam back to earth. And since he published it the new lunar orbiter has provided sharper pictures of the landing module, despite traveling at 1,6km/s at a height of 24km.
          He claims the engines and fuel were inadequate but doesnt provide a single quantitative info, saying he isnt a rocket scientist but reminds us that the moon causes the tides on earth so its pull must be hard to overcome…
          He quotes W von Braun from 1953 without mentioning the time as if technology didnt develop dramatically in those days. And without mentioning what size of payload Wernher assumed.
          The Apollo project was a near minimal configuration. Or bringing up the fact that he sketched on another project where a spacestation was a part. The moon project didnt overlap with the spacestation so he may have had that motive for casting doubts about the ‘competition’ in order to get his Mars project accepted.
          And the real suits are not at all like you say but contain a complex multilayer structure researched for several years. However I’m not sure that makes a big difference for the radiation apart from the magnitude of grams/unit area. And it’s not a priority for me right now but I may look it up again later. Do note that in my earlier comment I state that the intensity at the dosimeter was five orders of magnitude above background level for the ten minutes passage through the worst part! Those were crude estimates but still onehundredthousand times!
          No wonder experts were worried.
          So nobody denies there was strong radiation. But not strong enough for the short time duration. You need to do the math to substantiate your claims. How much higher than natural background do you claim it was?

        5. Peter, correct me if I am wrong, but the lunar orbiter is much closer to target than the average earth orbiting satellite, and is not obstructed by a thick atmosphere, yet can’t resolve images like the satellites of the Gulf War that were reading license plates on Iraqi autos in 1990.

        6. Rich
          Remember that the number of pixels is finite. 50 cm pixels:

          To get smaller pixels they would need a wider objective say using a newtonian type mirror arrangement (that may be how they do it on military satellites but I dont know) but with ordinary cameras more than 10cm wide lenses are uncommon.
          I dont know the exposure time but 1msec means 1.6 m fuzzyness so they need to compensate for the motion.
          I was thinking why didnt they use a wider objective but maybe the orbiter wasnt intended for the purpose of proving the existence of the Apollo project but just for planning future exploitation. They mention finding more hydrogen.

        7. Rich
          I did answer about the resolution but I dont see it maybe the link was an obstacle. The pixelsize depends on diffraction and the 30-50cm Nasa cites corresponds to a normal camera objective.And they need to compensate for fuzziness due to the motion:1,6 m for 1ms exposuretime. Military satellites may use wider diameter objectives or multiple objectives and state of the art image processing (you bet). And the lunar reconnaissance orbiter was probably not primarily aimed for proving the reality of the Apollo project but for prospecting potential mining areas and such. They mention finding hydrogen-richer areas.

        8. Patrick, I confess to not having made a major study on this topic. I also acknowledge that Peter is obviously superior to me in the knowledge of physics.

          That said, I have still not seen a logical explanation that is consistent with what I do know about radiation. Without the Earth’s atmosphere, there is nothing save the thin skin of the space craft to shield travelers from deadly radiation.

          There are also “hot particles” that, if absorbed by the body, could easily spell doom for the recipient. Besides those, there are “micro-meteorites” that travel at incredible speeds. Punching a hole through an object that is in essence little mare than an aluminum can would not be a challenge for them.

          I watched your video link (all 3 hours of it!) and they do raise some pretty pesky questions. In the interest of staying away from suspected motives, the actual technological challenges present enough problems of their own.

          As they say, why have we not returned? The degree of danger for radiation exposure, like other hazardous materials, are rated as the product of the level (dosage) over exposure time. It seems, at least from the video, that NASA was rather generous with their calculations as to exposure in the Van Allen Belt.

          While that is a formidable obstacle itself, once through the belt one is not exactly “home free”. Coupling that with the nature of the propellant used in the LEM, apparent visibility for landing both impeded by the apparent non-existent reaction of dust to thrust and the difficulty of landing in an area obscured by the terminal line of darkness on the Moon, as Desi says, “you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do”.

        9. lophatt
          Correct, you’re not home free outside the belts. In the above handwaving estimate(dont trust me on the exact numbers) I got <three orders of magnitude above natural background during the six day trip, 2/3 of the total doseage. Its still less than the maximum nuclear workers are allowed to get in a year. But 60 times more intensive than the maximum average intensity for them since its 6 days vs 1 year.

        10. Jack White’s photo studies of the fake Apollo record are quite eye-opening:

          One thing he did was calculate the time each of the missions was supposedly out of the “ship,” and the number of pictures we are told the actors took. It turns out, that if they did nothing else but snap photographs they could not have taken that many pictures. It is impossible. Too many photos, too little time. But they also had to set up their dune buggy, you know, clop golf balls, that sort of thing.

          The whole thing is so ridiculous I’m amazed Peter applies his splendid mind to understanding the inner logic of the lies NASA told us.

          As for radiation, their costumes had absolutely no protective aspect, and if they actually walked around on the Moon, there being no atmosphere to protect them, they’d have gotten a toxic dose just being there. But that’s not the start of it. It’s 240° below zero in the shade and 240° in the sun. Their costumes would have had to be capable of instantly switching back and forth as they walked in and out of direct sunlight, which of course was not the case. The temperatures would have killed them long before radiation or micrometeorites tearing up the linen would have done. Those Platex brassiere seamstresses who made them simply weren’t given the technical know-how for all that.

          Fortunately, there was no radiation or extreme temperature troubles, much less micrometeorites, in the studio when they were putting on the show. No worries.

        11. Patrick
          The vacuum at the moon doesnt have a temperature. The lunar surface absorbs sunlight and therefore gets hotter than the highly reflecting suit. So unlike the earth where 100C would require cooling, at the moon, a reflective suit and insulating boots suffice. And they had indeed thick boots. Busted!
          Be more quantitatively specific. What exactly was the number of independently taken photografies at a single trip you claim would be impossible? That wouldnt take you long to summarize.
          And were some of them simply copies made of select areas of originals. Just asking. But you constantly jump to conclusions without providing anything quantitative.

        12. Now that you mention it, Patrick, there is a little problem with heating and air conditioning in the absence of air. I’ve never been able to figure out just how those suits managed to perform heat exchanges under Lunar conditions.

          When it’s 240 outside, your heat exchanger is, likewise, 240. I loved the explanation from the Hasselblad camera expert as to protecting the cameras. “They were painted silver”. There ya’ go.

          I’s like to see the job application for this mission. “May be irradiated, broiled, frozen or punctured”. Then we have the lift off of the tin can. It looks as though it were being jerked skyward on a string.

          There are serious lessons to be learned here about the linkage of gullibility to expectations. There is a guy in LA who has regular UFO sighting meetings at his home. Just like clockwork, a gaggle of aficionados gather each week and ALWAYS spot them right on cue.

          For some of us that might raise a red flag. I’m not saying that they don’t exist, but I doubt that they hover around invisibly waiting an opportunity to perform on cue.

          Just like in the hoaxes, the narrative explains what we are supposed to see, not necessarily what we are looking at. If we don’t want to be considered heretics, we nod sagely and say “yeah, I see it!”.

  14. Peter, you ask for specifics about the number of photographs reportedly taken per mission, and the impossibility. Admittedly, the link I provided is very large, so you probably didn’t find the page. Here it is:

    As for temperatures, Dave talks about that at some length, as concerns the fake “ship,” if not the costumes. But remember, a space suit is a miniature, self-contained, spaceship so all the elements remain the same. (

    “It took eighteen months to redesign the command modules. Over 100 design changes were made to correct various shortcomings. This redesign process was undoubtedly made more difficult by the fact that no paper records had been kept of what had been installed in the module. As we have already seen, the Apollo program didn’t place a high priority on record keeping.

    One bit of technology that had to be developed for the command modules (presumably for the lunar modules as well) was what Moon Machines described as “an environmental control system designed to cope with the most extreme environment ever encountered by humans.” Cliff Hess was an environmental systems test engineer with NASA during the Apollo days, and he described the challenge they faced as follows: “You can go from +250° F down to -250° F, and it can happen just as you cross the line of a shadow … so you can instantaneously go from one extreme to the other and have like a 500° F change.” Apollo 8 astronaut Frank Borman described his alleged flight to and from the Moon in precisely the same terms: “You’d be 250° plus on the sunny side, and once the spaceship rotated and you were in the shade, [then] you’re minus 250°!”

    This is yet another example of a claim that I previously made that was ridiculed by the ‘debunker’ brigade as being ill-informed. And yet here we see once again that the very same claim has been made by one of the guys who actually worked on that aspect of the project, as well as by one of the guys who allegedly flew the missions. It’s rather shocking to find that so many of the people who developed and/or utilized the Apollo technology actually know significantly less about it than the ‘debunkers.’ Before running their mouths off to documentary film crews, these old-timers really should visit a couple of ‘debunking’ websites.

    I wonder why it is, by the way, that the Apollo 13 astronauts were said to have been very cold throughout their return flight in their allegedly crippled spaceship? As recalled by Jim Lovell, “The trip was marked by discomfort beyond the lack of food and water. Sleep was almost impossible because of the cold. When we turned off the electrical systems, we lost our source of heat, and the sun streaming in the windows didn’t much help … It wasn’t simply that the temperature dropped to 38° F: the sight of perspiring walls and wet windows made it seem even colder. We considered putting on our spacesuits, but they would have been bulky and too sweaty … We found the CM a cold, clammy tin can when we started to power up. The walls, ceiling, floor, wire harnesses, and panels were all covered with droplets of water.”

    There is so much wrong with that brief description of the flight that it is difficult to know where to begin critiquing it, but let’s start by pondering why they would have been short on food and water. The mission ended up returning a few days early, so unless they overindulged the first few days, there should have been more than enough food and water for the trio in the conjoined command and lunar modules. And as for the cold, how could that 250° F “sun streaming in the windows” not help much? What does Lovell use to warm himself at home – a blowtorch?”

    He also talks about the boots:

    “The final spacesuits sent by ILC to NASA were supposedly composed of three layers: the water-cooled undergarment, a pressurized inner suit that featured flexible, bellows joints, and a white outer covering made of an experimental fabric known as Beta cloth. The bra and girdle manufacturer, which I’m guessing must have had a large engineering division, designed and built the entire integrated suit, including the helmet and visor and the specially designed boots and gloves.”

    On the other hand, apparently, the soles were made of rubber: (

    “The Apollo program ran until 1972 and took 12 people to the surface of the moon and back. It also involved 6,000 GE workers and engineers who ground-tested the missions’s command and lunar modules, developed the silicon rubber for moon walking boots….”

    That apparently saved Playtex’s crack engineering squad one tricky wicket, thank God.

    I’m sure that rubber is the best thing for walking on a surface that hot. That’s what the inventor of Nike gym shoes knew, of course, when he used a waffle iron to make the soles of the shoes he made. Out of rubber.

    As for your chat with Rich about the dune buggy, Dave includes a video on one of his posts that includes a NASA video of the “collapsable” vehicle unfolding itself. It’s on another Wagging the Moondoggie article, which I will post as another comment, fearing too many links send us to moderation. There are lots of pictures of the thing all over the place; Jack White’s analysis is full of them. The tires were rubber, not steel.

    1. Davesweb is not a trustworthy source. His sourcing is sloppy. He doesnt really want to know. The wheels were rubber when they tried it out on the earth because the 6 times stronger gravity was too much for the moonwheels made of metal strips.
      The boots were partially made of SILICON rubber not common rubber.
      The fabric of the suit. What counts with respect to radiation is grams/unit area. Not a big deal and given the right material selected by the r&d team, why wouldnt a garment maker do a good job with it?
      Data for moon-doseage.
      A recent document mentions that occasionally spurious peaks of deadly doseage may indeed happen and living for years out there would necessitate piling up rocks or staying underground during such short bursts. But otherwise the Lunar Reconnaisance orbiter has measured radiation levels in good agreement with what the Apollo crew dosimetres found of around 50 times natural background
      Like I stated in a previous comment the vacuum has no heating or cooling effect so temperature on the moon surface only affects the direct contact areas of the boots and the vehicle. Since the suits and the vehicle are highly reflecting surfaces their equilibrium temperature swing is much lower. As for the cold ship a similar consideration is appropriate. Had the ship been imbedded in air it would take on its temperature, but again due to the reflectance R the cooling/heating is much less so the couple of hundred watts P produced by the astronauts compensates for part of the loss by thermal radiation from a shiny surface when its in the shadow while there appears to be a need for cooling when its exposed to the sun. I guess they must have been in the shadow when they had the emergency. You need to know the reflectance and effective surface area to make an estimate. With some guesswork I got reasonable results assuming the reflectance for ir is high.

      1. It is obvious that you have not actually read anything I have linked to. Clicking through is not sufficient. Your response is that of an ignoramus.

        Clogging up the space with pseudo-scientific jargon does not help your case. I provide simple to understand demonstrations of NASA’s lies, and you obfuscate with impenetrable clouds of who-on-Earth-knows-what-you’re-talking-about.

        Again. You are REALLY close to losing me as a correspondent.


        “SuperPerformance72 explains, “This video released by NASA about the upcoming Orion space exploration craft, shows a NASA scientist admitting that they still haven’t worked out how to properly shield the spacecraft from the radiation emitted from the Van Allen belts.”

        This is the ultimate conspiracy, as it brings together two huge issues – the viability of the Apollo Moon Landings, as well as dreams of a human colony on Mars. This latest admission by NASA places both of these in jeopardy.”

        1. Mick
          He doesnt say they cant get past only that there is dangerous radiation and that we must solve these problems first before the manned trip.
          Note that this is intended for public consumption and for to raise enthusiasm about the project. Nasa anticipates environmentals to maybe endanger the project by raising concerns about radiation. So they want to forecome that and make the politically correct statements.
          That is what a consultant would probably advice them to do.
          They do want to minimize doseage all along the trip and the real worries are sporadic intense bursts from the sun. But in addition the long duration of the Mars project means that they would like to optimize protection of more commonly occuring intensities. According to data from the Apollo project three years of the same average intensity would mean deadly doseage even without any of the bursts. And testing materials in the van Allen belts might be useful for all those purposes as well. But mostly this is about averting political problems.

        2. NASA has been an entirely fake agency from the start, probably designed as a money-laundering operation that used federal budgetary dollars to build the Deep Underground Military Bases. That is, the fake space missions were a Potemkin Village. No one was the wiser, especially the taxpayer, because national pride covers a multitude of sins.

          Until the photo analysis became possible. They did not anticipate that. Now, we know it was all completely fake. All they have is their ridiculous “debunkers.” It can’t be recovered. You are on a losing team, Peter.

          They hire people like you, Peter, to pretend that the “official record” is as unquestionable as the rules of arithmetic. We saw a lot of the same dynamic (still do) with the cockroaches that systematically invade MHB on the issue of Sandy Hook: they are like a waterproof garment, impervious to the comments that we write in response pointing out that the official story is impossible. They never address them though, simply moving on with another remark that also assumes everyone “knows” that the official story is true.

          Nothing about the Apollo story is remotely reasonable. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability, who has read/watched what I have provided to you, would conclude that. That you do not is what is in poker called a “tell.”

        3. Patrick
          Prey tell, when will I get the paycheck? I mean you didnt put hire in quotation so I take it you really mean it dont you? You believe I’m a cognitive infiltrator payed by Nasa or Cia?
          I love this!

        4. Patrick
          ‘prey’ was a ‘tell’ as well
          Was it a freudian slip and if so who’s the prey and who’s the predator?
          Me and Cass must have a little get-together and see if we can perfect our strategy and avoid the ‘tells’.
          And I must remind him about the paycheck.
          Or would you kindly give me a hint about who hired me?

        5. “poker tell”: A tell in poker is a change in a player’s behavior or demeanor that is claimed by some to give clues to that player’s assessment of their hand. A player gains an advantage if they observe and understand the meaning of another player’s tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable. Sometimes a player may fake a tell, hoping to induce their opponents to make poor judgments in response to the false tell.

          I don’t know why you refuse to examine this evidence, Peter, in defense of a fairy-story. I did not say you are getting paid. But it is clear by your refusal to converse about this topic in good faith, and your blind acceptance of obvious lies as truth (and your linking to stupid “debunking” sites), you have an agenda. I don’t know what it is, and I don’t care. I’m just pointing out that you have revealed yourself unconsciously.

        6. Patrick
          But you wrote that I’m hired. So then I must share some mutual interests with those you believe to be hoaxsters. What could that be? Perhaps a scientific career dependent on good relations with the US. There is a rocketbase in northern sweden the Esrange and I suppose there may be strong ties with the Us. That would seem to be a plausible explanation. Interesting if it were true. But it aint Patrick, I am simply seeking the truth and you never commented about my counterarguments so I still dont know if you still believe the version about rubber wheels on the moon or rubber boots. I commented several other arguments and showed that they were invalid or inconclusive. Not only in our interchanges. This increases my resistance against spending more effort on further arguments. I suspect that they will end up in the trashbag along with the rest. In addition I got foodpoisoned and fell terribly ill. It was my own fault failing to use separate equipment for cutting raw meat and cold foodstuff much later the same day.
          Next you show yourself from the nasty side and that made me even less motivated.
          The thing is I’m not sure they mind the conspiracy theorists to convince people. There are new people there now. Those who are offended by your disbelief are old and dont count much anymore. Maybe the purely military and secretive side of space science will get a boost if you guys manage to belittle Nasa.
          So I’m just as conspiratorial. And therefore dont expect all evidence to be put on display and am prepared to find doctored evidence as well.
          Only with the opposite intention of the one you expect.
          I note that you are dead sure about the unreality of the Apollo project.
          So far every argument I have seen has fallen appart or become inconclusive. In particular the semiscientific impossibilityarguments have failed 100% in my eyes. Then remains such things as the packing of the buggy and the number of photos.
          I dont expect much but since you intrigue me with your intensity, I might take a look at the stuff you recommend later.

        7. Actually, Peter, I said “They hire people like you.” That is, people who display the same pattern. We know this is true; they admit it.

          You ask me to speculate as to why you are defending the fairy-story so enthusiastically, and why you are so adamant in your refusal to examine the abundant evidence that proves it is a ridiculous charade. I told you that I don’t know, and I don’t care. I meant it. It is distasteful enough that you have wasted so much of my time, my assuming that by carefully crafting persuasive arguments, and presenting air-tight evidence, you would go to the trouble of examining it. It is extremely rude to lead me along that way. I don’t like it.

          But now you are so disingenuous as to say that you are “simply seeking the truth, before concluding your remarks with the admission that “I dont expect much but since you intrigue me with your intensity, I might take a look at the stuff you recommend later.”

          That is, you admit that I was correct in my deduction. You have not been seeking the truth, because your mind was already made up, and there is no point in examining the arguments for the other side, because as far as you are concerned, there IS no “other side.”

          Why you hold this view, again, is not interesting to me. What is of intense interest to me is this monumental rudeness on your part. When people waste my time this way, they tend not to get another chance.

        8. Patrick
          You are right about some of the arguments relating to this issue having a persuasive influence ON YOU. Not on me. I consider most of the Apollohoax arguments I have encountered to be wrong or lacking. You still havent commented about the faulty arguments about the rubber wheels and boots. Now thats rude of you according to your own logic and there was more, instead of simply admitting you dont understand the physics of heatbalance in the vehicle you produce another rude statement describing it as ‘god knows what’. I understand that it lies close at hand for you to speak of rudeness for you’re full of it if you define it in the way you do with respect to me. I sense that you are preparing to escape from this debate with excuses about my rudeness which isnt worse than your own. My impression is that you changed your tone when you became aware of abovementioned errors. I wouldnt make a big deal out of it if you simply communicated but I still dont know whether we agree that you got it wrong or if you stick to your original statements. Instead of communicating you insisted that we discuss something else.
          I dont expect to be applauded for digging up info and correcting faulty arguments. But to you the time or effort I expend isnt worth anything only the time YOU spent on your part. Did it ever occur to you I also lay down effort or do you think I have a splendid mind making everything ‘piece of cake’?
          I on my part will in due time take a second look on the texts having a persuasive effect on you no matter whether or not you and I continue our interchange but my expectations are low. However I dont want to sound belittling with respect to the author(s). People are free to speculate and I’m not implying that they(nor you) are stupid.
          One difference between us is I put greater weight on the outcome of the arguments about the impossibility of the nontrivial physical performance attributed to the various facets of the project. After seeing that the skepticism was unwarranted I feel more confident about the trustworthyness of the official version. With a different outcome of that part of the analysis there would really be a problem.
          Next are the more mundane physical or logistical, call it practical aspects. I dont know much about the skeptics characterization of that aspect, but if there is something suspicious there I would be prone to suspect that the info isnt reliable.
          Such is the case with the photos. Even a whole lot of fake photos doesnt prove they didnt make the trip. Maybe they were ashamed of having taken many poor photos or even had camera failure and didnt admit that in some cases.
          I admit that is being biased, but it doesnt stop me from taking part of it. You on your hand are dead sure about the conclusion and repeat that over and over again without adding any substance thus guaranteeing that you are biased.

        9. If you bothered to examine the evidence, Peter, you would see abundant photographs and videos of the dune buggy, and could see that it had rubber tires. So I answered you long before you asked. It’s one of the clues that you were wasting my time.

          I won’t address your specific items, obviously, because you refuse to examine the evidence I present; you can’t be fair, because you have not learned the other side. So I ignore it. That’s not rudeness on my part, Peter, it is annoyance.


          I HAVE in fact kept up my end of the implied bargain, but since you have not, I am not going to play your side of the game. Learn my side. Stop refusing to do so. Watch the movie I embedded, What Happened on the Moon?; it’s long, but vital. Read all of the Wagging the Moondoggie articles, which you dismiss with an incredibly annoying lofty wave of your hand. You say “people are free to speculate,” which is a contemptuous, disrespectful, way of saying that there’s no point in examining that material, that I’m too stupid to know the difference between speculation and a scientific examination of the data. So yes, you’re implying that I’m stupid. The facts were misrepresented by NASA, and researchers have studied them in recent years, as the tools became available. This is science. NASA is showbiz.

          If you bothered to examine the evidence, you could not make such a foolish statement as this:


          It is beyond foolish.

          Finally, you say:

          “I admit that is being biased, but it doesnt stop me from taking part of it.”

          No, you haven’t.


          Wrongo, buddy. The substance I kept adding is unknown to you, because you won’t bother to study it.

          I am not biased. I once was, though, back when I thought the idea that Apollo was faked was crazy. But I examined the evidence. I’m no longer biased. I know both sides.

          Unlike you.

        10. Patrick
          Despite your continued tough tone with impolite and misplaced accusations, I note that you are communicating now and I welcome that.
          The metal is interwoven with some kind of weave and isnt supposed to look like metal other than during construction. The metal strips would never hold together and the wheels would amass dust and pebbles inside and it would be a complete mess. Therefore that weave is a necessity and gives appearance of a dense structure like a conventional wheel only it aint ordinary rubber. So the official explanation is of course that out of those two similarlooking setups of wheels the frail ones are used on the moon. If they didnt go to the moon the frail wheels wouldnt function properly so they would have to use the rubber wheels making fake pictures. But this doesnt mean you may tell them appart by visually inspecting the pictures. If it is a hoax then the pictures show rubber wheels imitating the frail ones with metal strips so they look the same.
          About the photo ‘evidence’ by Rick White, I read it before you began claiming I dont bother to read it. And concluded that he doesnt give a single hint about which photos so its possible to check anything.
          But if its correct I agree that it probably means the bulk of the pictures arent originals taken on the moon with a manually operated camera.
          I immediately read a couple of articles of davesweb before you started nagging. But I commented like I have repeated that W v Braun had a competing project on the drawing board and had conflicting interests with the moon project. From his point of view it would be more efficient to use a space station as a bridgehead rather than transporting things directly from the Earths ground level. v Brauns critique, from 1953 (something davesweb omitted), must be seen as biased due to conflicting interests. And omitting the time as davesweb did is dishonest. BS #1
          You ignored this before and pretended I didnt read your refs.
          And I read on a couple of davesweb-articles and found them all wanting.
          Example he compares the lengths of travel in space with going by car (on the freeway). That proves his ignorance. He wants Nasa tech for his car so he can travel much further on a single tank of gas. That is reason enough to stop reading. He doesnt master the basics. BS #2 We discussed it before in more detail but you now pretend I hadnt read it. Without comparing payloads he claims a 3000 ton multistage rocket couldnt reach the moon. A very simple calculation shows that a payload of the intended type ~20+ tons may in principle be accelerated to escape velocity with the energy contained in such a rocket. On the return trip the remaining fuel has the same intrinsic thrust as before but the vehicle weighs 1/6th and lots of mass is dumped. But if dave was serious he would provide the numbers. He could ask university physicists for help but he doesnt bother. The same thing with the ascent module he says wouldnt be able to rise the 69 miles to the orbiting command module. He doesnt provide anything quantitative despite the open availability of all necessary data. The correct way to go about debunking the official story would instead be to seek out these official data and prove that they are impossible. Eg by comparing with other known engines and types of fuel. But it isnt impossible. BS #3
          And it isnt uncommon during R&D to build improvised arrangements like those on his pictures which he ridicules.
          He already, just like you knows its a hoax and in a tiresomevrepetitive fashion keeps reminding us about it without adding any substance.
          However it is indeed suspicious that the blueprints and documentation are missing.
          dave says both the sceptics and the debunkers are wrong about the radiation problem but then dave shows he neither gets it right for not realizing that you must consider the duration of radiation. He treats radiation as strong or weak but doesnt mention cumulative dose. BS #4
          That again is reason to stop reading but I’ll continue tomorrow.

        11. Peter, why didn’t they just make the buggy tires out of the same super tough silica-rubber compound the boots were made of. Then there would be no need for two sets of wheels -one for earth simulation, one for moon. Also, they must have been a very tight weave to make the real ones, as you say, to hold pressure, not to mention the correct pressure given different temperature extremes of -250 and + 250. If It were me, I would have used some type of solid wheel, like on the mars rovers to avoid all the R&D. An inflatable tire would be nice to help with the lack of suspension, but not necessary in a 1/6 G environment at low speed. Are you saying the tires were simply lightweight metal with nothing inside? They surely would have been crushed when they hit that first moon rock.

        12. Rich
          I assumed that the metal structure was supposed to withstand the 6 times lower gravity by itself but that there had to be a dust-tight but not gas-tight cover. If it depended of pumping that would constitute an additional worry. But the way I look at the project is that it was designed, overall, in order to look marginally feasible to an engineering eye so it wouldnt be an obvious fraud. This way a great many scientists might have been unknowing about deviations from the official narrative.

        13. Rich
          They taped him and drew off the tape. Then they then sold the tape on a freemasonic auction for $100/microgram.

    2. Patrick
      About the number of photos. According to one source they took 1536 photos alltogether in 4834 minutes and two cameras. Many photos were of poor quality. The camera allowed for taking several pictures rapidly say 1/sec if you wanted to rush it. And these short expeditions were of course meticulously preplanned for effective multitasking. The source aulis makes claims but how do you know they’ve got it right?
      The source I quoted was comment #21 on the link
      Like I said in a previous comment they might have created a proportion of copies from select areas (including some imageprocessing to enhance some features)of originals and then listed them together with originals. Maybe the much higher number 5771 of copies quoted by others comes therefrom. None of us know this so my guess is as good as yours.

      1. This is, of course, transparently foolish. Jack is not refuted by the article you link to. He anticipated every objection.

        It is physically impossible for the photographic record to be real. Too many pictures, too little time.

        On top of that, the pictures themselves are mostly fraudulent. That element cannot be argued away, either.

        Not the fact that they were perfectly composed, exposed, and all the rest, even though the camera couldn’t be fiddled with in any way. It’s all complete bullocks. Anyone with sense–or who has gone to the trouble of reading the material–can see that.

        The Apollo program is the most self-evidently fraudulent hoax of any. All the evidence demonstrates that. All of it.

        I don’t know what your game is, but I won’t be playing it any longer, Peter. As I said, I have a long patience leash, but when it runs out, it breaks, and I don’t mend it. You are at the breaking point. If you want my replies to your comments ever again, you are going to have to explain yourself. Now.

    1. 1)How did they pack the Apollo Lunar Rover?
      2)How did they deploy it?
      Deployment of the LRV from the LM’s Quadrant 1 bay by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.
      The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics, the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.

      1. Two observations.

        One, it strikes me that you are being uncharacteristically rude in this conversation: clearly you are not bothering to read the links I provide, which answer your false assertions with specificity. I take the trouble to compose thoughtful, well-referenced arguments. People who behave that way quickly lose my amiability, and then my willingness to talk to them at all.

        Secondly, I can’t help but suspect you work, or once worked, for NASA. You repeat their incredibly foolish nonsense as if you are on that fraudulent agency’s payroll.

        Why are you wasting our time this way?

        1. Patrick
          I never worked for Nasa, and I wasnt rude at all in the comment you answered. Actually I thought you would appreciate the answer which gives logical and reasonable explanations.
          I’m surprised that you take it like this.

        2. Surprised?

          You don’t bother to read the sources I link to. That is rude. Then, when called on it, you indicate that you clicked through, and no matter how excellent they are, you say they are worthless.

          And you are “surprised” that I take it like that.

          Give me a break.

          I have proven to you, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Apollo program was a massive hoax. You evade each and every element of that proof in the most slippery way. And you say you are surprised when I point it out.

          That’s rich.

  15. Previously i think Rich or Ric and I had an interchange about the potential for using the Hubble to get clear pictures of the remains of the Apollo remains. I didnt find that interchange now but it raised some further thoughts about pictures from Hubble in general. Diffraction limits the resolution of Hubble. At the moons distance from the earth the spatial resolution would be ~ 90m so it wouldnt be very helpful compared with the LRO’s 50cm unless Hubble was moved much closer.
    At a distance of one lightyear from the sun the Hubble cannot resolve it. The nearest star is 4 ly away so no other solar-sized star can be resolved by Hubble. Giant stars within less than 1% of the size of the milky way may be resolved by Hubble but all other stars seen on astronomical photographies are mostly unresolved lightspots much bigger than the stars giving rise to the light. Otherwise it would have been surprising if Hubble couldnt do the job. What spurred me now was I had a vague recollection of having seen pictures of stars at the centre of the milky way, but I now realize that would have been unresolved spots 100000 times bigger than an ordinary star.

  16. I used to be skeptical about the Apollo project because I thought it went too well. I would have expectd dead bodies left on the moon. When I later encountered many terribly illconceived examples of criticism from the sceptics I became less skeptical. However less skepticism doesnt constitute proof. Had Patrick not brought up several invalid arguments and only pointed me to this one I might have reacted differently although I still dont know for sure.
    The claim that the russians would still be silent about it not to destroy the vision of mans space-destiny may have some cred. Lets say 50%.

    1. “Had Patrick not brought up several invalid arguments….”

      I have not brought up ANY invalid arguments, Peter. I proved everything I said. You just did not bother to take the time to examine any of it. Sheesh.

      1. I find it interesting that Peter waved off the Russian lead in the 60’s Space race with a “conspiracy theory” that Gagarin was a stand in, and the real first Russian in space crashed and burned. Then, he said he had no opinion on whether it was true or not. Ok, if you don’t know, how can he wave off the Russian lead? Sputnik anyone?

        1. Rich
          I just compared western conspiracy theories about their own space program with their russian parallell. Eg there are some russians who claim the Lunokhod1&2 never landed on the moon either. It was their most advanced unmanned robotvehicle. The plot thickens.
          Softlanding has haunted the space programs. Its tricky without an athmosphere where you may resort to a parashute.

      2. Patrick
        You said the buggy was supposed to use rubber wheels on the moon while the official version is that this was only for testing in earth gravity since the frail metal wheels for use on the moon could not withstand earths gravity. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
        Will you now please admit that you overlooked that essential detail?
        And you said the boots were made of rubber implying that this would be untenable at the high temperatures on the lunar surface, but the boots were partially made of silicon rubber which is commonly used for higher temperatures. You did cite silicon rubber once but then returned to calling it ‘rubber’ apparently unable to understand the significant difference.
        Will you finally admit that?
        I hate to press you about it but you remember your own tough talk. Can you really blame me for bringing it up under the current circumstances?
        All of this aside. Nomatter what irrelevant critique the skeptics bring up that doesnt constitute proof for the reality of the moon landings.
        Like I wrote it is actually the large proportion of illconceived or inconclusive arguments by the skeptics which have made me LESS skeptical myself. You know the feeling ‘Is that the best they got…?’
        I remember years ago how the conspiracy theory concerning the deaths of the Apollo astronauts did make an impression on me. If they had believed all along that they were going to the moon but were introduced at the last moment to the hoax and coerced to comply they might have resisted and had to be silenced. I am not at all sure but there are many freemasons among them and the high figures, who would presumably be their handlers, have a long experience of carrying out vast conspiracies.
        I also wondered why they dont lay down more effort to close the case. Surely they could have used a bigger camera objective on the LRO recently. That doesnt prove anything though.
        What regards the photos it doesnt seem too farfetched to suggest that there was a moneyscam going on. Pay per picture.
        It doesnt prove they didnt go. Merely counting the photos doesnt close the case. But it does smell.

        1. Apparently, you have no intention of examining the science I presented. I have told you I won’t discuss the details you bring up, because they are all included there. Since you are never going to be prepared for the discussion, by your own choice, I shall ask you to cease writing to me.

          That is all.

        2. Patrick
          You got the nerve to lie like that. The BS #1-4 belongs to the source you recommended thus exposing your ignorance. But I guess you listened to Donald Trump’s advice in a talkvshow a couple of years ago: Never admit you’re wr

        3. Patrick
          You throw in the towel after being exposed as a bragging ignorant. When you recommend davesweb with all the errors and leftout details, dont expect me to let that pass without pointing out the errors. Recommending a source requires some familiarity with its weaknesses.
          If you hadnt been so unfriendly I would have preferred to let it rest in peace. And I really have nothing against people who exercise their freedom of speech as in that blog. I do not look down on them. However it would have given a better impression if he had asked for help with the scientific details.
          Like I wrote to Rich, I believe the project was designed to look marginally feasible to an engineering eye, assuming they have a propensity to trust authority if it aint too obvious. While I must compliment you for writing interestingly about a variety of subjects you tend to underestimate the difficulties in the scientific field.
          Oh and I anticipate that you wanted me to be more selective and not scrutinize it from the beginning but after your tough talk.. forget about it.

Leave a Reply to patrickchatsamiably Cancel reply
