Disambiguating
Religion, Science and Psychological Warfare Operations
Zahir Ebrahim
| Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
May
24, 2014 at 4:24 PM | Last Updated June 10, 2014 | Documentary
video confirming this analysis added as Appendix June 16, 2018 |
Preamble added on the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 Mission, July 23,
2019
Preamble
In
the week of July 16 – 24, 1969, I recall that as a young child
in Lahore, Pakistan, our young family was glued to the tiny
television screen in the living room watching the first man in
earth's recorded history famously take that first giant leap for
mankind on the moon's surface with these momentous words: “That's
one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
It
never occurred to me, until 2014, some 45 years later, to doubt that
narrative. In the meantime, I had attended UET, MIT and Stanford,
studied engineering and science, even social science, especially
behavior control, and never doubted that the Americans had landed on
the moon.
I
remember that in the fall of 1979, exactly ten years after the
greatest story of mankind ever told, I had taken a seminar in the
Center for Space Research with the late professor emeritus of physics
and a pioneering theorist of the space age, Dr. Stanislaw Olbert, and
learnt all about the technical details of Van Allen belt and other
science esoterica that undergraduates at MIT with even an iota of
interest in astronomy and astrophysics get exposed to in their very
first year. I recall doing my term project on the science and
technology aspect of some gizmodic-device (don't recall what exactly)
carried in the Voyager 1 and 2 probes to study Jupiter and Saturn,
and eventually toward interstellar space. The Voyager mission had
been made famous as far away as Pakistan, at least for the readers of
astronomy magazines in the free to access American Center Library, by
the first showman of science, Dr. Carl Sagan, for the sounds and
songs of earth recorded on a 12-inch gold-plated copper phonograph
disc carried on board these spacecrafts to greet and inform any
aliens it might run into about us and our view of the universe.
1979
was also the year that Skylab was about to fall to earth and some MIT
geeks at Bexley Hall had stretched out a net between buildings to
catch it. It had been an exciting decade for the study of the
heavens. So it was natural for me to also be caught up in the
excitement of visiting the heavens in real science terms, and find a
year long UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program) in
X-Ray astronomy in CSR under a fantastic young mentor, then graduate
student, and now Professor/Chair in Department of Physics and
Astronomy at Sonoma State University, Dr. Lynn Cominsky.
1979
was the first year that I had finally felt like a kid in a candy
store in any school – for I had always hated school before
then. I could learn anything at MIT. It was all there for the taking,
each according to their capacity. Albeit, for someone of very limited
capacity like myself, it was often like trying to take a drink from a
firehose.
And
long before that, I had hung around the American Center and British
Council Libraries in both Lahore and Rawalpindi for years, reading
reading reading everything under the sun, especially astronomy, from
science fiction to science facts. In all that rigor of passionate
book-worming – for the want of a more interesting lifestyle for
someone of humble origins and limited means – I never thought
to doubt the American story.
I
used to think that all the man on the moon “deniers” you
came across here and there – mainly among the Muslim religious
fundos who used to say that the Americans landed on a hill somewhere
and were just pretending in order to not appear to be lagging behind
the Communists – were just nut-jobs. Part of the flat-earth
society crowd of imbeciles. Until that fated time in 2014 when I
first wrote of my discovery to my science friends worldwide, when I
felt embarrassed and an imbecile myself.
I
had not seen through America's yet another big lie despite all my
fancy science and social science thing-a-lings! In the age of
universal deceit, to learn the truth is a revolutionary act. A
half century later, a great many far more intelligent people not just
doubt the American story, but think it a big lie, told exactly for
the purpose that some of the simpleton religious fundos fifty years
ago, not understanding why except for the absurdity of their honest
belief that man can never reach the heavens except when six feet
under, were passionately arguing!
Are
you among the intelligent skeptics? Do you know what a big lie is?
And how many America has told and continues to tell to make the
public mind?
In
an extempore letter to friends, activists, scientists and engineers,
I wrote of my consternation:
FYI
-
It is the work
of William Cooper, author of that incredible book:
Behold_a_Pale_Horse, which I had read a while back, but now, based on
all that I have learnt over the years, I might read again. The PDF of
the book can be downloaded from that website as well. Behold a Pale
Horse had confirmed to me many things which earlier authors whom I
quote from often had written about, including Carroll Quigley, Bill
Clinton's professor at Georgetown whom the incoming President after
winning the elections in 1992, or was it after winning the Primaries
at the Democratic Convention I forget, had credited as having
influenced him greatly in his political development, etc. Carroll
Quigley, part of the establishment and most respected teacher of
generations of American diplomats groomed at Georgetown University's
famous School of Foreign Service (
http://sfs.georgetown.edu/how-carroll-quigley-came-to-georgetown/
), had blown the lid of the drive towards world government in his
1966 twelve hundred page book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the
World in Our Time, which I have read.
The
disturbing thing here is that what some of us have discovered on our
own based on our own due diligence from source materials, and our own
forensic analysis commonsensically putting it all together, is not
only substantiated to some extent, but what this article indicates is
that we have barely scratched the surface of how deep the rabbit hole
goes --- a lot of the stuff in here I have no idea is true or false.
The
article covers a very vast canvass. If anything is known to be false
in it, please let me know. Note that it is always harder to prove
things true, but far easier to falsify. Basic fact-checks can often
reveal falsehoods easily, for instance. But truth is often difficult
to "prove". This philosophical fact of the matter even
forms the basis of the famous Occam's razor principle in science to
construct what is called the scientific process. It is used to
formulate the bare minimum and simplest possible axioms necessary for
theorizing empiricism; assumptions or statements which cannot be
proved to be true, but are presumed to be true with the possibility
of falsification. The scientific axioms in the scientific process are
held to be true until shown to be false. Precisely because proving
the “truth” on fundamental fronts is always harder and
often borders on beliefs.
The
difference between that and religion is singular – religion
permits no falsification of its axioms, but scientific axioms are in
fact contingent on their being falsifiable. And once deemed false,
the axioms are abandoned, or circumscribed to their applicable limits
as warranted. So far, everything I have punched into Google, or
wikipedia from this article bears out that very point out --- that
the “truth” of the matter cannot easily be proved on the
topic at hand: the scientific evidence of America's landing of man on
the moon in 1969 has not been preserved for any third party to
adjudicate the claims of the United States Government as underwritten
by its organization NASA (see below). Therefore, in its absence, the
claims can only be falsified, unless that claim borders on religious
faith! Is the belief in America's manned mission to moon in Apollo 11
a religion? And conversely, is disbelief in that narrative another
religion? For a scientist passionate about his search for truth and
inquiry, neither of these can be true.
Thus
we, as passionate scientists, both as hard scientists of physical
sciences, and as social scientists fully cognizant of all modalities
of social engineering, proceed in examining the available empirical
evidence with the fewest possible axioms none of which must hinge
upon faith and belief in officialdom, or in its detractors' atheism.
And therein the real difficulty commences:
- What is empirical data on which we make observations – how do we define data?
- Is it data that is born from official narratives?
- Is it data that is recovered from declassified documents?
- Is it the data that is easily accessible to scientists so that the scientific method can be applied to it?
At
some point in that process of defining what is data, and specifically
when data is not directly generated by the observing scientist, nor
directly accessible to him, nor directly reproducible by him, axioms
must come into play. Axioms that are reasonable assumptions and
falsifiable. When this data impinges on social engineering however, a
fuzzy “trust” factor gets coupled to the construction of
the axiom, such as trust in government, trust in its institutions,
trust in its authority figures that they don't lie, all of which have
the tendency to induce group-think which is more akin to religious
beliefs than to falsifiable scientific axioms.
For instance, on
the CIA memo reproduced by Cooper which speaks of using UFO/Aliens
mantra for psychological warfare, a topic which I have analyzed and
written about and reached exactly the same conclusions as
independently reached by the article and confirmed by that CIA memo,
I wondered who this Walter B. Smith, Director of CIA was. And O boy,
wikipedia has a very intriguing bio such that the memo signed by him
is entirely believable. But did General Walter Bedell Smith of the
United States Army, as the Director of CIA between 1950 and 1953,
indeed write such a memo which bears his name for secret
communication or for later public consumption as a limited hangout?
If the former, why on earth was it ever declassified and released to
the public? This memo directly substantiates, for instance, all that
I analyzed and concluded here a few years ago:
https://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/alien-agenda.html
https://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/alien-agenda.html
Caption
CIA Document on using Flying Saucers phenomena for psychological
operations (via hourofthetime.com). Full Text:
Memorandum
To: Director, Psychological Strategy Board
Subject:
Flying Saucers
1.
I am today transmitting to the National Security Council a proposal
(TAB A) in which it is concluded that the problems connected with
unidentified flying objects appear to have implications for
psychological warfare as well as for intelligence and operations.
2.
The background for this view is presented in some detail in TAB B.
3.
I suggest that we discuss at an early board meeting the possible
offensive or defensive utilization of these phenomena for
psychological warfare purposes.
Walter
B. Smith
Director
What
the CIA memo's careful wording does not say is admit that the
intelligence apparatus is itself constructing the flying saucers
phenomena. But we already know even that to be true from the images
of experimental flying aircraft built by NASA to look like UFOs and
bearing US Air Force insignia from my aforementioned report.
Indeed,
the long departed Director of CIA confirmed my analysis by writing
this memo and the United States government again confirmed it by
releasing it, as does this article by Cooper. But Cooper confirming
it is one thing. Why would that intelligence agency want to lend
confirmation to the world of what the skeptics have argued time and
again that a mind-fck is in progress and also identified exactly its
purpose, to cement world government? The fact that they are so full
of hubris, that even smart people putting 2+2=4 together cannot
really bother their cause, just like Carroll Quigley stated, that
nothing can derail the drive to world government because a lot of it
is already in place long before it was unveiled, but, even when it
can matter, they can easily put anyone to sleep with the fishes ---
William Cooper was shot to death by the cops in an "encounter"!
Who
is to formally define for a society who is a bigger patriot: those
who challenge the abuse of power or those who assist in that abuse?
It is as convenient today to dehumanize, marginalize, and idiotisize
the inconvenient patriot in order to get rid of him as yesterday. And
to ensure that his memory also remains soiled among the masses, as a
friend responding to this letter observed: “Interesting to note
that the Wikipedia page on Cooper is grossly misleading in that it
majors on his alleged belief in UFO's and extra-terrestrials as a
reality, with no mention of the fact – as evidenced in this
article – that he regards the phenomena are major tools in a
vast hidden reality perception/mind control program. The page is
protected and it is not possible to edit it without obtaining
permission from its gatekeepers – why was I not surprised?”
Wikispooks, an
alternative to Wikipedia for topics where the latter lends more
sympathetic treatment to establishment's narratives and marginalizes
the detractors, has a page dedicated to this topic with enough study
links to keep insomniacs busy for quite a while (and it has sure
taken up many hours of my leisure time on this most patriotic of
weekends, the Memorial Day holiday in the United States of America):
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Apollo_program
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Apollo_program
Similarly, the
discussion of moon-landing in Cooper's article is interesting in that
same context, of principally enabling and legitimizing the story of
Aliens can land on earth .... It had not ever occurred to me to think
that way that moon landing could be faked, and I used to dismiss all
these flat-earth society skeptics of "small step for man, giant
leap for mankind” bit as fringe lunatics --- but based on my
meagre understanding of physics, which isn't beyond college level
taught in electrical engineering at MIT in course 8 and course 6,
even if I could remember any of it, I cannot immediately see the flaw
in the commonsense presentation by William Cooper of the
thermodynamics of the Apollo space suit. Can you? In the sunlight and
shadow areas on the moon surface, the temperature differential was
confirmed by the NASA environmental systems test engineer for the
Apollo mission in the documentary Moon Machines (see Dave
McGowan below, cited in part-9):
“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.”
How
did NASA ever engineer the space suit thermodynamics to handle that
500° F instant temperature differential on the moon surface with
the 1960s technology? This is clearly an easily falsifiable
proposition even today.
But what is more
disturbing is that such a Big Lie, if it is so, like
9/11, can stand among the world's physicists!
So
I am sure this explanation must be wrong --- please show me where it
is wrong... my mind stopped practicing physics beyond 9th-10th grade
level after 9/11 when "bad Muslims" broke all the laws of
physics with their terrorism of taking out the WTC towers.
A well known
electrical engineer, Phil Karn, KA9Q, debunker extraordinaire of the
skeptics of moon landing, ( see Debunking crackpot science,
http://ka9q.net/crackpots/
) has the following statement on the front-page of his website as the
Quote of the Day to express the same suspension of the laws of
physics, but in both cases: “Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings. --Victor J. Stenger”. But
the bearer of this famous call sign KA9Q, for those of us in
electrical engineering and not unfamiliar with that name, is hardly a
dunce. As he describes himself: “Space telecommunications was
one of the things that inspired me to get into ham radio (I was first
licensed in 1971), earn two college degrees in electrical engineering
(Cornell University in 1978 and Carnegie Mellon University in 1979),
and ultimately a rewarding career in the communications and computer
field.” ( See http://ka9q.net/papers/mobility.html
and https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970320q.htm
). That brilliant mind of KA9Q, formerly of Bellcore, who
subsequently led Qualcomm Inc. in developing the cell phone
technologies mankind so loves today, and even advocated for civilian
cryptography in a testimony before the US Congress by most eloquently
challenging the establishment's drive to squelch it, unfortunately,
like most brilliant scholars and scientists of America, also bought
into the moon landing narrative. Just as he evidently also bought
into the 9/11 narrative (if one judges by his Quote of the Day).
Perhaps
KA9Q is still mulling over the latter as he hasn't offered any
debunking that I can see of the 9/11 skeptics who equally come in all
flavors, noise, red herrings and all, but for the Apollo skeptics
however, this talented and passionate engineer was most daring to
challenge its most idiotic flat-earth society type useful idiots and
the obvious disinfo artists who make unsubstantiated claims of free
energy, UFO technology, etc. In legitimately debunking this crowd of
conspiracy theorists who are pre-designed to exist in America's free
society in order to lend cover to its Plausible Deniability
(NSC 10/2) Executive Order (and its still classified successors) –
and who, as useful idiots, as Machiavellianly advocated by Cass
Sunstein, president Obama's information tzar and former academic of
Harvard university, in his social sciences paper titled Conspiracy
Theory, introduce “beneficial cognitive diversity”
into the empire's narrative space with meaningless but plausible
sounding gibberish to diabolically defocus attention from the handful
of real intelligent skeptics who might forensically question and
unravel empire's criminal covert-ops and big lies before its
shelf-life was over – Mr. KA9Q easily dismissed all skepticism
of the topic by arguing his imposing credentials in radio
engineering.
Unfortunately,
like in the brilliant Nazi Third Reich in yesteryear, the American
scientists, engineers, technicians, scholars, artists, poets and
playwrights et. al. today, right alongside hoi polloi who are
known to be easily amenable to propaganda, also United We Stand
with their own empire by the demonstrated absence of any forensic
thinking and skepticism to the narratives of their ruling power. This
despite making great claims to possessing superlative brains and
technical genius. I wonder how KA9Q might explain William Cooper's
most basic observations on the astronaut suit and counter my proof,
which I am willing to argue in any court of law and before any legal
body that will hear it, on 9/11 being a Big Lie (see last link
below)? I hope KA9Q will gladly lend his phenomenal brains here
because mine is stumped on this moon landing question.
What
mistakes is Cooper making in his analysis of why he thinks the lunar
landing was faked? I mean this is totally off scale and I am now
sitting here feeling stupid, either because I can't tell what's wrong
with his accurate description of heat, vacuum, and heat exchange
which should have fried the astronauts in those suits to a
temperature higher than shish-kabobs (despite going to MIT), or, that
why did my mind not try to observe those same things myself and these
had to be pointed out to me by someone like Cooper who isn't even a
technician?
I
am embarrassed. Because, like everyone else, I had just assumed that
I was not watching a movie.... even though, I knew, for instance,
that Stanley Kubrick was shooting Arthur C. Clarke's book 2001: A
Space Odyssey as a movie at the same time and there have been long
running rumors that some of the moon-landing images shown to the
world on worldwide television were shot on his film set.... similar
rumors were tickled by the James Bond movie Diamonds are Forever. I
never pay attention to rumors, but I thought I did pay attention to
science.... evidently not! It never really struck me to even imagine
that the moon landing could be a Big Lie – until now!
While in search
of understanding more of these real questions on the moon landing
skepticism posed by rational people rather than dismiss it all (as I
had previously done) due to the crackpot flat-earth society and other
disinfo con-artist graduates of MK ULTRA style mind control programs
pitching variations on the aliens/ufo/free-energy themes to discredit
all skeptics by association with even the subject of questioning the
official narrative, I came across yet another incredible compilation
of commonsensical observations. It is: Wagging the Moondoggie,
by Dave McGowan, a multi-part forensic and rational examination of
the Apollo programme which is not rooted either in flat-earth society
or in alien technology:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
Like
William Cooper, Dave McGowan also has me stumped on some of his most
basic observations, while some other
stuff he writes is provocatively imaginative and purely speculative.
In fact, on a second careful read of McGowan, there is only excellent
analysis and well argued imaginative skepticism, which really ought
to have come from the men and women of America's science but instead
emanates from the commonsense reasoning skills of an un-indoctrinated
ordinary man in search of truth! Can the men and women of science who
proclaim the same values address his commonsensical observations
which also bother me? And like the Wikispooks page on
Moon_Landings_Hoax where both Dave McGowan and KA9Q are cited as
counterpoints to each other, Dave enlightens us that all 13000 tapes
of the Apollo moon landing mission are missing! There is reportedly
no record of the telemetry data, video transmission data, and other
technical mission data from mankind's historic, one and only, journey
to the moon? See news reports in the Appendix below.
How can one
validate the marvelous claims made by NASA and the US government if
one cannot examine those raw video footage said to have been beamed
from the surface of the moon? In 22-page report titled The Search
for the Apollo 11 SSTV Tapes, John M. Sarkissian, Operations
Scientist, CSIRO Parkes Observatory, 12 May 2006, states in the
Executive Summary (
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/The_Apollo11_SSTV_Tapes_Search.pdf
):
For
the past several years a group of dedicated former Apollo 11
personnel have been searching for the original magnetic data tapes
that contain the high quality Slow-Scan TV of the Apollo 11 EVA.
This
report is a detailed justification of their efforts to date. In
summary, the key points are:
- In July 1969, three tracking stations received the TV signals of the historic Apollo 11 EVA. They were the DSN 64 metre antenna at Goldstone, California, the MSFN 26 metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, and the 64 metre CSIRO Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia.
- The TV signals transmitted from the Moon were high quality Slow-Scan TV (SSTV).
- When received on Earth, they were scan-converted to the commercial TV standards before being broadcast to the public at large.
- The scan-converted TV signals, from each of the three stations, were then relayed via landline, microwave relays and geostationary satellite to Houston before being released to the TV networks for general broadcast.
- The signal, as sent from the Moon, was initially degraded by the scan-conversion process, producing lower resolution images and introducing additional signal noise. Also, the transmission of the scan-converted TV to Houston caused additional signal degradation. This lower quality TV is currently all that is available of the Apollo 11 EVA.
- The SSTV was of superior quality to the scan-converted pictures viewed by the world.
- As the raw SSTV signals were received at the three tracking stations, they were recorded onto 1-inch magnetic data tapes. Following the EVA, procedures required that these tapes be shipped to the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).
- In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
- These missing data tapes include the raw Apollo 11 SSTV tapes. For the past several years, a search for these tapes has been undertaken by several former Apollo 11 personnel. To date, no Apollo 11 SSTV tapes have been found.
- When the tapes are found, it is hoped to recover the original, high quality SSTV of the first lunar EVA and to release it to the public for the first time.
- The Data Evaluation Lab (DEL) at the Goddard Space Flight Center is the only known place that has the equipment and expertise to playback the tapes and to recover the data.
- The DEL is slated for closure in October 2006.
- Efforts are underway to assure the future of the DEL (the critical hardware located in the DEL that would be required for tape evaluation and processing is being removed and retained through the efforts of the former Apollo engineers).
- It is vital that the DEL (or some elements of it) remain open and functional, otherwise none of the Apollo data tapes can ever be played back and the historic information recovered.
- This report details the reasons why the search for the tapes was undertaken, how much better the SSTV was to the scan-converted TV and the progress of the search to date.
How
bloody convenient that no one can access this data today!
The
world is invited to take it on faith alone that this data ever
existed. And the photographs provided by NASA to foster that belief,
as is noted in my second letter in the Appendix below, of these
pictures having been taken on the moon surface, have the unmistakable
artifacts of studio lighting. From a photographer's eye, which I do
have a technical eye for if not a wholly aesthetic one that I admire
in the most talented photographers, it is impossible to light some of
these scenes without secondary lighting assist, active and passive.
So what real evidence is left behind for man's journey to the moon if
the photos cannot be authenticated to the level necessary to stand as
evidence in a court room? The “moon dust”? And the “moon
rocks”? The evidence is surely inconclusive based on just these
two artifacts. These could have been salvaged from meteorite showers
on earth someplace ---- how can a scientist know for sure, apart from
religious faith in empire which hands these out? The scientist who
first predicted the presence of moon dust, the late professor Thomas
Gold at Cornell university, was evidently given a sample of it for
examination. He isn't here with us today for me to go ask him these
questions. See letter to Dave McGowan in Appendix.
This
missing Apollo mission evidence that now precludes forensic
examination of the tallest claim of man to have reached the heavens,
which I presume, were it available, could have been authenticated as
coming from 234,000 miles away from the moon surface and not
synthetically generated from simulation on the earth's surface (as an
aside, even while being only an ordinary engineer, I understand this
domain of simulation to the level of being a professional for which
corporations paid me good monies to ensure that even the most complex
chips actually functioned as specified, and I can therefore speak as
an expert witness on this subject of the intractability of separating
simulated data from empirical data if one wanted to deceive as in a
Big Lie), is exactly similar to how all the 9/11 evidence was quickly
removed and destroyed, the air traffic controller tapes erased, and
the melted steel and other concrete debris from the WTC crime scene
immediately carted away to China and other remote places for
permanent disposal, which similarly precludes forensic examination of
the greatest crime scene in man's recorded history.
When
I had entered MIT to study science and engineering in the 1970s as
any excited kid in a candy story, little did I understand that like
political science and religion, science and pseudo science also
interplay in the service of empire. The following is my contribution
to speaking up following in the footsteps of the first patron saint
of modern science to have demonstrated the courage of his
convictions at the risk of the gallows, Galileo. Just look
through the telescope, he hath pleaded before the church of his
time, countering their divine authority with uncommon boldness: “In
questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble reasoning of a single individual”. Except
that today it is the church of science that has taken over from the
Church of Christendom. The risks today are also substantially the
same. Only the labels might be different. Among the tens of
thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide, there are evidently
too few Galileos alive to make any impact on the new Church of
Science that has taken hold in the twenty-first century.
With
no hard evidence preserved from the WTC crime scene for forensic
analysis as is the norm for crime scenes, or preserved from the
Apollo mission as would be expected of such a monumental achievement
for posterity to examine, to analyze, to learn from, and to marvel
at, just like the Apollo mock-ups are preserved in the Smithsonian
museum to awe future generations, how can technical investigators and
scientists today, and in the future when the American empire no
longer wields its fiat of absolute power and hungry historians
congregate to either dismantle or eulogize its achievements,
adjudicate the claims on either of these two most monumental events
in American and world history? That will remain the victor's history
once again – a history fashioned in my own lifetime.
I
guess the dilemma is best summed up by a slight modification to the
Quote of the Day used by KA9Q on his website: “Mind control
flies you to the moon, or into buildings, as needed for patriotism.
-- Zahir Ebrahim”. And in its juxtaposition to the original
version: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you
into buildings. --Victor J. Stenger”
Which
one of the two empirically captures the reality at hand in its
entirety?
How
can it be validated, or disproved, with the consistency of empiricism
and logic, and outside the parameters of faith, religion, public
relations, and name-calling? There is no hard scientific data left to
examine in either case. So the examination must be, both in its big
picture as well in its details, entirely forensic, logic driven, and
holistic, such that 2+2 equal 4 on all fronts along all axes with the
consistency of empirical observations that we each can make today.
And for that to happen in any practical way, one needs to understand
one's own axioms and presuppositions first. These can often be
subconscious. If one starts with faith in empire, then like faith in
one's religion that one grows up in, even the most diligent study
will often culminate in renewing faith in empire and its holy
narratives in the best example of incestuous self-reinforcement
[confirmation bias]. If one starts as an agnostic however, and
permits one's own discoveries to inform one's judgment, perhaps that
is really the only honest pursuit of truth discovery, forensic
analysis, and objective science. Is that method really practiced
however, or even feasible in order to be successful as a scientist,
engineer, scholar, or any technician of empire who is funded and
honored by the establishment? A pursuit which remains cognizant of,
and is not impervious to, the social sciences and human control under
which it functions, of engineering consent, of making the public
mind, of what is funded and what isn't, of what is rewarded and what
isn't, of what is self-policed in expectations of continuing in the
profession and what is silenced by contract, of how Machiavelli and
self-interests actually work together to create both social
acceptance and funded projects, is yet to be seen in modernity.
Recall
Plato's Myth of the Cave. It was, after all, the evil
scientists who, under orders from evil controllers outside the cave,
were projecting the images on the inside walls of the underground
cave to manipulate and control the public watching the scenes. As
Plato argued 2500 years ago, and his argument still stands today, it
is studied across the social science spectrum in as many languages
throughout the world, that no one in the audience can figure out the
truth or falsity of what is projected on the screen to the five
senses, without ascending to the level outside the cave! I suppose a
pragmatic approach to this conundrum for detectives of integrity and
honesty of purpose is to start as an agnostic. That is necessary, but
not sufficient initial condition. A lot more has to come into play in
order to go against the grain --- which is what must happen when
systems of control which fund and seek predetermined outcomes are in
place, and you as the detective wants to figure out what that control
fabric is. The fabric is usually transparent for normal pursuits. But
when orchestrating a Big Lie, as we can all immediately grasp from
the CIA memo admitting of covert psychological operations upon the
public mind in secrecy, surely only the masterminds can fully
understand all of its sub components and the complex
inter-relationships among them, making it an uphill battle for the
forensic detective.
Under
this reality space of the history of the Mighty Wurlitzer
playing the world for a fool (see below), the genuine patriot,
uninfected by misplaced faith in his government and its perception
managers, must now be more like Sherlock Holmes in seeing and
quantifying the unseen forces in order to unravel the whole reality
of the matter, rather than like the daft Dr. Watson in eloquently
expounding merely what is already visible and presupposing it all to
be true.
Unfortunately,
the challenges besetting today's Sherlock Holmes are a tad more
formidable than in the nineteenth century. Apart from official
narratives of the crime and the crime scene, there is not much of any
actual evidence preserved for forensic examination. Furthermore, to
continue with that detective analogy, the police hierarchy, as part
of empire's officialdom, are inimical to any investigation which
might unmask the true culprits or lead to conclusions identifying any
other culprit from the officialdom's version, and run copious
interference by laying out false clues, propaganda systems,
conspiracy theories, and adverse press marginalizing any skepticism
of authority. Even the field of psychiatry is enlisted to define a
new mental illness in the latest release of classification of mental
illnesses and their treatments called DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics
Manual of Mental Disorders): “oppositional defiant disorder”
exhibiting a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and
hostile behavior toward authority figures” and therefore, a
threat to themselves and to society, and consequently to be put away
as a potential “domestic terrorist”. Under these adverse
conditions, today's Sherlock Holmes not only has to make forensic
sense of the matter, but in order to do so with any degree of
confidence in the scientistic method, must first adjudicate what is
real evidence and what are baseless clues and deliberate red
herrings. Referring back to 9/11 to illustrate the point, we already
know that no debris of 9/11 demolitions is preserved to send for
forensic examination to check for “gun powder” residues
and other fingerprints which might reveal who might have had access
to such “gun powder”. And lend clues to how it was
carried out with that “gun powder” thus leading to a
narrowing down of the list of suspects who may have had the
expertise, the means, and the opportunity, to execute such feats of
destructive engineering as was witnessed for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7
on September 11, 2001.
Evidently,
the same travesty magically transpired for the manned mission to the
moon --- all real evidence of the transformative feel-good
one-upmanship event during the height of America's barbaric Vietnam
War, itself is destroyed leaving behind only pious narratives. In a
previous analysis of 9/11 evidence by its prominent skeptics offering
alternate theories, I had highlighted the intractable epistemological
problem of defining what is real evidence and what are false clues,
red herrings, and unauthenticated plausible sounding narratives
claimed as evidence, when such evidence intersects with the
construction of the Big Lie. See excerpt below.
Few
hard scientists, to my great chagrin, and to the world's much greater
loss, actually understand the real art and science that underwrites
the making of the public mind with the Big Lie; the price paid for
narrow-gauge over-specialization into niche fields by experts, or
fast-talking broad generalization as in the journalism profession
with no depth and understanding of any matter. Self-interest and
“United We Stand” to authority easily follow in its wake,
easily accomplishing Shakespearean self-deceit which evidently
succeeds more readily in the reality of imperial funded science,
academic and social respectability, lucrative membership in
academies, and Nobel prizes, than in the idealistic fable of Lady
Macbeth's overly troubled conscience. There is evidently no troubled
conscience in any empire. This was demonstrated most persuasively
both by Operation Paperclip in 1945 which brought the Nazi
scientists over to the new American empire; and by Hannah Arendt in
1963 in trying to explain the Banality of Evil which caused
six million Jews to be so easily burned to ashes and grounded into
soap ingredient by the most sophisticated civilization of Nazi
Germany, the torch bearers then of the Hellenic Civilization, in a
Holocaust so unparalleled, that the founding director of the
Holocaust remembrance museum in Washington DC likened it to “when
something was revealed in the Sinai”; the cataclysmic event now
untouchably trademarked by the Jews which is why I have capitalized
its spelling as a proper noun.
Well, here
(see excerpt below) is the fundamental problem of defining evidence
when the evidence no longer exists; it applies as much to the
HolocaustTM, as to 9/11TM, as to ApolloTM,
as to any monumental and cataclysmic event, past, present, and
future, that is axiomatically used to create an “industry”
and “religion” around it which is diabolically harvested
for mobilizing public opinion for political purposes. All three
listed events fall in that category! In fact, the shrewd historians
and academics will immediately see, whether or not they will admit
it, that many moving historical events have been packaged in
precisely that way by the villainy of ruling power that is able to
pen and pass on the dominant narratives. The sanctioning of
mainstream Christianity by Roman emperor Constantine which still
underwrites all available books of the New Testament regardless of
denomination and sect; to the sanctioning of mainstream Sunni version
of Islam by the Muslim emperors of Abbasside Caliphate; to the
sanctioning of Shia version of Islam by the prodigious Shia clergy
which tolerates dissent with its axioms even less than the Sunni
clergy; to the sanctioning of the Holocaust narrative which even has
legal entitlement for dissenting view to state hospitality centers in
most of Europe and Canada, and minimally, marginalization and loss of
livelihood in the United States; to the latter day narrative of 9/11:
all fall on that same distorted contour of social engineering. The
impact of such sanctioning of narratives, without exaggeration,
remains unparalleled in society in contrast to all other forces of
making the public mind. Not only is an individual's rational and
logical skepticism both politically and socially forbidden in the
group-think where these narratives wield real social and political
power --- it does not look good on one's resume, nor helps in one's
career --- but its pernicious impact on fabricating a living reality
of false and misconstrued history which irrevocably feeds both the
ethos and the scholarship of endless generations to come, is
unsurpassed. The truth of this self-evident sociological phenomena is
examined in:
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/sanctification-of-911-narrative-zahir.html
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/sanctification-of-911-narrative-zahir.html
I received a few
replies in response to the earlier version of this letter that tried
to dissuade me from pursuing this investigation further. A fellow
Jewish activist compatriot who runs a very popular alternate news
website even wrote me: “This crap is planted by the government
on the internet to make us all look like idiots.”
Unfortunately, I am really like the inquisitive child when asked not
to do something, and never having fully grown up to obey authority
figures or observe political correctness, I make it a point to do
precisely that. The sociologist par excellence, Hannah Arendt, even
in her grave, would surely smile at me --- I would save six million
Jews from certain annihilation by not being like Adolf Eichmann who
famously proclaimed at his trial in Jerusalem in his own defence for
his “United We Stand” with the axioms of the Third Reich:
“I was only following orders”. So surely will my
cognitive science professor of psychology at MIT, Steve Chorover, who
introduced me to Hannah Arendt in his class on behavior control in
course 9 (
https://web.archive.org/web/2010/http://bcs.mit.edu/people/chorover.html
), also be proud of me for endeavoring to overcome my own Banality of
Evil by not staying silent in the face of absurdities upon
absurdities being foisted on the public mind. Of all the diverse
education I received at MIT, I have Steve Chorover to thank the most
for my fearless disobedience to gratuitous authority despite the
recent modifications to the DSM manual of psychiatry. Professor
Chorover was surely not consulted for that update.
But in my
continuing education in America, though mostly imperfect, I have also
learnt a great deal from the sobriquet of the State of Missouri, the
“Show-Me” state. Missouri legend attributes the phrase to
Missouri's U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, who served in
the United States House of Representatives from 1897 to 1903. While a
member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs, Vandiver
attended an 1899 naval banquet in Philadelphia. In a speech there, he
declared, “I come from a state that
raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy
eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You
have got to show me.” -- as noted in the Missouri
state's history archives:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp
Begin
Excerpt
[The
question of] evidence, and the separation of real evidence from the
attendant noise, some of it deliberately fabricated noise as red
herrings. This point about evidence and false clues being fabricated
and put in place to mislead real investigators requires some
elaboration.
There
is a fundamental issue here, namely, that of layers of deception to
mask both the methods and the culprits of 9/11. Deceptions in who
dunnit is already obvious. [4] Deception in the method of executing
9/11 by the perpetrators; deceptively removing the crime scene and
destroying all evidence in the name of cleanup before any forensic
study could be performed or evidence preserved for later forensic
examination; deception in the myriad cover stories to mask how it was
done; deception in misleading and/or concocting any and all
investigations spanning the gamut from the official 9/11 Commission
and the official NIST studies to the so called private investigators
from the academe and from among the activists; have all muddied up
the waters by each insisting that their evidence-set and their
explanations are the most accurate 'truth'. And what's the best way
to obfuscate even honest thinking civilians looking at whatever is
available from the photographic evidence and the dust field?
Fabricate evidence and leave a whole string of false clues behind.
In
this maze of layered deceptions, it is not always obvious what is
real evidence, what is cover story, and what is the deception-spin by
the Mighty Wurlitzer's agents and assets (see A Note on the Mighty
Wurlitzer - Anatomy of Modern Propaganda Techniques [5]). Anyone can
write anything. Anyone can publish a book. Anyone can doctor
photographs. And anyone can publish a scientific paper on Bentham
Open for $800 in the name of “peer review”. I had checked
this out myself a while back. Which peer reviewed publication asks
for money? Heck, anyone can publish even junk science, from false
theories to utter rubbish, in respectable peer reviewed science
journals (see Reflections on Science in the Service of Empire [6]).
And of course, Galileo was not published in his time – meaning,
real truth which goes against the ruling interests is a rare
commodity in public discourses. Especially, when it pertains to such
a crime as the New Pearl Harbor the unraveling of which goes against
the state's agendas. Such truths, for one thing, cannot be easily
ferreted out, and for another, cannot be easily vented without
systematic demonization, and ultimately, assassination.
Therefore,
it is easy to suggest look at evidence. But when the Mighty Wurlitzer
and his minions in the academe, media, and in “truth”
investigations teams are at work, just to figure out what is evidence
and what are false clues can be a formidable challenge for genuine
detectives. And when the pursuit is taken over by faux detectives
whose only purpose is to mislead real detectives by introducing what
Cass Sunstein called “beneficial cognitive diversity”,
the problem is compounded. Perhaps even made intractable and
unamenable to a solution in a time frame that is meaningful to
preventing faits accomplis. 150 years later, just as today even sixth
graders learn how the natives were exterminated from the America's
with biowarfare and smallpox, our progeny may also study how 9/11 was
executed in their junior-high history books with a clarity that is
unavailable to the best detective today.
Therefore,
for those attempting to study 9/11, it is primarily a forensic case
for a Sherlock Holmes and a Hercule Poirot who can draw on expert
opinions as pertinent and set aside other expert opinions as false,
rather than some simplistic noble minded (and Nobel minded [2])
scientists and self-ascribed scholars of truth assuming that the only
thing false about 9/11 was the false-flag operation of demolishing
the towers, but everything else is straightforward including the
“evidence”. Nothing is straightforward. A criminal mind
that can plan and execute the 9/11 as 'Operation Canned Goods' for
creating the pretext for “imperial mobilization” is
certainly also diabolically smart enough to realize that it also
would require cover stories and the subsequent spins, including
leaving a trail of enticing red herrings right at the crime scene. If
an overzealous detective picks up one or more of these red herrings
as if they are real clues, and creates his erudite analysis on this
“evidence”, you know where he ends up – in the
woods! No pun intended.
Having
accurate evidence to base subsequent rational analysis on, is the
sine qua non of getting useful and real scientific results which are
un-biased, un-agendist. Therefore, keeping in mind that if one is
interested in fabricating conclusions for hidden motivations, always,
almost always, faulty evidence has to be employed and passed off as
real evidence, followed by faulty logic and specious reasoning to
reach the pre-determined conclusion. Therefore, the emphasis on
acquiring un-tempered and genuine data followed by correct reasoning
process cannot be over emphasized. Those employing the former used to
be called “sophists” in ancient Greece, but today, I'll
just straightforwardly call them prostituting for empire to cause
them maximum offense.
End
Excerpt
Anyone with a
half-decent criminal mind possessing even an iota of understanding of
the forensics of criminal investigations and how not to get caught,
would have done precisely what is described above, removed the
evidence and replaced it with false clues and copious plausible
sounding bullshit narratives. More so if the criminal minds also
wielded the benefit of the fiat of absolute power to: decide what is
fact and what isn't, controlled all agencies and investigative bodies
with access to the crime scene to affect disposal and obliteration of
actual evidence, plant new evidence, and orchestrated all government
funded scientific bodies such as NIST, news agencies, and
supra-national agencies like the UN, to tow the establishment's line
on the definition of what is evidence and what is conspiracy theory.
The precise modality, of how it actually transpires easily pulling in
well-intentioned functionaries of empire right alongside the
mercenaries of empire, is detailed in my report on The Mighty
Wurlitzer:
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
Similarly,
returning to Cooper's analysis, some of the embedded links in
Cooper's article lead to even more incredible information, as for
instance, on ADL. I had never known that history of the founding of
B'nai B'rith, the parent of the Anti Defamation League. And there is
a lot more. Today, how can one ever confirm any of those facts which
Cooper brings forth, as a forensic detective hired to do so? Who has
the time and the patience for due diligence to read all those books
which Cooper evidently read? I can personally attest to the time and
energy it takes to undertake these studies based on my own effort
over the past several years. It is simply enormous.
What disturbs me
the most at this moment is that I cannot find any problem with
Cooper's deconstruction of the astronaut suit and why what has been
shown to the world simply cannot be true. What am I missing here? Why
does it appear accurate? Can you please comment on that part as its
driving me up the wall! Keep the definition of the Big Lie given by
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf in mind. It is reproduced here:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/faq-prove-that-911-narrative-is-big-lie.html
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/faq-prove-that-911-narrative-is-big-lie.html
This
letter has been updated from the original version to reflect what I
have learnt over the past few weeks of studying what others have
written: just more consternation that I cannot sensibly answer the
question posed in the title. The many parallels observed with the Big
Lie of 9/11 are too uncanny to simply dismiss as “coincidence”
for even the best of scientific minds in America's top brand academic
institutions and Ivy Leagues who almost always “United We
Stand” with their empire in no less, and no different, a
measure than the brilliant scientists of the Third Reich, virtually
all of whom were brought to America in 1945. As already noted above,
Operation Paperclip protected these pious savants from the
military war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg under victor's justice.
They were offered the opportunity to run America's science and
technology in exchange for pardon, and often under new identities.
The brilliant scientists of America today, I am sure, look forward to
the same compassion to be shown to them under any future victor's
justice, now that the great American precedent has been most
persuasively set on the point of the bayonet of its military
tribunals for all future modernities to follow.
Perhaps
that will be a moot point for the duration of one-world government,
an endeavor towards which all Western scientists and engineers,
professors and scholars, technicians and politicians, whether
knowingly or unknowingly, are working assiduously.
That public
knowledge evidently bestows no public or private shame on American
academe and its bright technological innovators in its vast
military-industrial complex who happily continue to build the
Technetronic Era boldly treading in the legacy of Wernher von
Braun, the “Father of Nazi Rocket Science”, to become the
“Father of American Rocket Science” at NASA, and
posthumously to become just “Father of Rocket Science”:
“Once the rockets are up, who cares
where they come down?” What does it matter if it is
a global police state that these scientists and engineers construct
with their passionate commissions and blind omissions which evidently
surpass Macbeth's counsel to Lady Macbeth: “Be
innocent of the knowledge”? (Act 3 scene 2) They are each suitably
rewarded for their passionate pursuit of science and anointed as the
respective “Father of the Rocket”! If this cold
observation is hard for American scientists and engineers to digest
in their self-righteous indignation, witness this honest American
professor, Eric Fossum, the “Father of the CMOS Camera”,
defying Shakespearean self-deception and knowingly ushering in Big
Brother in The Fable of the Bees and the Seduction of Science and
Technology:
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/11/seduction-of-science-and-technology.html
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/11/seduction-of-science-and-technology.html
Enjoy
the disturbing/fascinating read of Cooper's work which will likely
confirm your own due diligence on at least some topics, but also send
you off into the rabbit hole without a paddle for others. Dave
McGowan's Wagging the Moondoggie deserves a wider read among
the science officialdom, especially among the men and women of
integrity who are not obviously in on the game. Perhaps they are both
wrong --- Show-Me under the Falsifiability of Occam's razor principle
of having the simplest axioms that are falsifiable by the scientific
method of observation, analysis, and prediction. But where the
observation and analysis must also include the social science of
engineering consent and making the public mind as is examined in this
overly verbose missive. As Mark Twain famously stated, paraphrasing:
I would have written a much shorter letter, but I didn't have the
time.
Appendix
Missing Apollo Tapes
NASA
can't find original moon landing tape
Reuters
News Service | August 14, 2006
WASHINGTON
-- The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the
first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong's famous "one
small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," a NASA
spokesman said today.
Armstrong's
famous space walk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is
among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of
searching, spokesman Grey Hautaloma said.
"We
haven't seen them for quite a while. We've been looking for over a
year and they haven't turned up," Hautaloma said.
The
tapes also contain data about the health of the astronauts and the
condition of the spacecraft. In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions
from the Apollo lunar missions are missing, he said.
"I
wouldn't say we're worried -- we've got all the data. Everything on
the tapes we have in one form or another," Hautaloma said.
NASA
has retained copies of the television broadcasts and offers several
clips on its Web site.
But
those images are of lower quality than the originals stored on the
missing magnetic tapes.
Because
NASA's equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day,
the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and
re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.
Hautaloma
said it is possible the tapes will be unplayable even if they are
found, because they have degraded significantly over the years -- a
problem common to magnetic tape and other types of recordable media.
The
material was held by the National Archives but returned to NASA
sometime in the late 1970s, he said.
"We're
looking for paperwork to see where they last were," he said.
---
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/NASA-can-t-find-original-moon-landing-tape-1895682.php
NASA
loses Moon landing tapes
Agençe
Presse-France 16 August 2006
WASHINGTON,
NASA no longer knows the whereabouts of the original tapes of man’s
first landing on the Moon nearly 40 years ago, an official of the
U.S. space agency said on Tuesday.
“NASA is
searching for the original tapes of the Apollo 11 spacewalk on July
21, 1969,” said Ed Campion, a spokesman for NASA’s
Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington
suburb.
The
tapes record the famous declaration of Apollo astronaut Neil
Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, as he set foot on its surface:
“That’s one small step for [a] man; one giant leap for
mankind.”
The
original tapes could be somewhere at the Goddard centre or in the
archives network of the American space agency, Campion said.
The
search for the tapes began about a year and a half ago when the
Goddard Space Flight Centre’s authorities realised they no
longer knew where they were after retired employees asked to consult
them.
Armstrong,
the first human to walk on the Moon, was the commander of the first
U.S. lunar mission aboard the Apollo 11 capsule, with astronauts
Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin, the latter of whom is also a member
of the COSMOS Editorial Advisory Board.
Armstrong’s
landing on the Moon’s surface on 21 July 1969, was watched
live by millions of television viewers worldwide.
The
original tapes of the Apollo 11 mission were recorded at three
tracking stations: Goldstone in California and, in Australia, by
Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station and Parkes Observatory in New
South Wales state.
They
were then sent to the Goddard Space Flight Centre, which transferred
them to the National Archives in late 1969. Later, NASA asked to
recover the tapes and that is where the trace disappeared.
“A search
is being planned, aimed at finding what happened to the
Goddard-recalled Apollo 11 mission data tapes,” Campion said.
The search effort involves sifting through 30-year old records and
contacting retired Goddard personnel, he added.
The
task is challenging. Richard Nafzger, a Goddard engineer, said there
were 2,612 boxes of tapes that NASA believes are related to the
space missions, including the Apollo 11 mission. The boxes were
returned to the space agency between 1970 and 1975.
With
about five tapes in each box, “you are talking 10,000 to
13,000 tapes in the boxes,” Nafzger said in a teleconference.
The data tapes included one track for video images and other tracks
of information like the astronauts’ heartbeat, voice and
biomedical tracking data, he said.
“We are
tracking paperwork to see if it’s in a storage facility
outside of Goddard, possibly at Goddard,” the engineer said.
---
https://web.archive.org/web/20130716023658/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/nasa-loses-moon-landing-tapes/
Moon
landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
Reuters
Thu Jul 16, 2009
WASHINGTON
NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of
the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy
images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of
the moon.
The
full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank,
California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The
preview is available at www.nasa.gov.
NASA
admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video
recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.
Since
then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the
ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking
for them.
The
good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were
part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically
erased -- and re-used to save money.
"The
goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.
"We
should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if
you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them',"
he said.
They
found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings
called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.
Lowry,
best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing
these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering
of the original landing.
Nafzger
does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the
fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program
that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was
staged on a movie set or secret military base.
"This
company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the
company was from," Nafzger said.
"The
conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to
believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike
Inchalik.
And
there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out
there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center
in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone
else in Sydney made recordings too.
"These
tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are
certainly open to finding them." ---
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
Appendix
Open Letter
Tue,
May 27, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Dear
friends, colleagues, activists, teachers, professors, scientists, and
news editors,
I
am sure I will incur the wrath of many of you when I bring this new
find to your attention. As I have unflinchingly demonstrated over the
years, I am not afraid of adverse public opinion, nor do I seek
anyone's approval, and nor do I have any agenda apart from figuring
out the reality I live in which is perception managed to the level of
a mind-fck, meaning, rape of the public mind. I have already
previously demonstrated two Big Lies by the United States government
for seeding “doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and
patriotic gratification” in order to enable and sustain
“imperial mobilization”. These are words of Zbigniew
Brzezinski from The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives.
The
first determination of the Big Lie being 9/11, the second being the
flying saucers phenomena. The former is conclusively underwritten by
the logic which falls out from empiricism. The latter is underwritten
by declassified documents. Neither of these two deconstructions
require a Ph.D. in nuclear physics to parse and dismantle --- for it
takes no more brains, commonsense, and absence of presuppositions and
blind faith in the narratives of power than is required of any
sensible jury to adjudicate on any complex matter in America's finest
legal system. The jury is required to hear both sides of the
argument. The state side has spoken. The other side has thus far been
replete with red herrings and bullshit which has buried the real
analysis under gratuitous labels of kookish conspiracy theory.
Given
that I have seen two Big Lies in my own lifetime, I am not shocked
entirely to discover that a possible third Big Lie may also exist.
But its determination is entirely inconclusive for me. My mind simply
cannot get around it, nor my limited skills able to penetrate the
thick web of narratives which evidently surround it. I cannot access
any original untampered data first hand to analyze and to adjudicate.
Photographs can be tampered easily which is why they are not
acceptable as evidence in a court room unless accompanied by some
proof of authenticity. I can only go by sensible questions that arise
from making forensic observations on the prima facie evidence, and
the pattern of incongruity that emerges from it is disturbing.
Therefore,
I wish to bring this issue to a wider audience who are far more
literate, scientific, and analytically skilled than I am. Please take
a look at this new possibility of yet another Big Lie hiding in
plain-sight --- the Apollo moon landing. Idiots and lunatics pushing
free energy, aliens, and other imbecile mantras need not apply.
Some
of you received an earlier version of this in email letter. I also
wrote to the two scholars who are mentioned in the article, and
unfortunately I cannot write to the soul of the one not with us today
whose eloquent description has me stumped. Was he just a paranoid
delusional militia-man as projected by the mainstream news? May be he
was, I don't know, I did not know him. But the observations he
brought forth must still have a rational answer in order to reject
them, or accept them.
Thank
you for your time.
Sincerely,
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
California
Enclosure
Appendix
Letter
Wed,
May 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM
To:
Dave McGowan
Dear
Dave, Hello.
I
just wanted to write you a personal note to thank you for your
analysis in Wagging the Moondoggie which is simply mind
blowing. You have me stumped by many of your observations. I don't
know how to address them. I just wanted to suggest a few observations
of my own:
1)
The photographs released by NASA and displayed on your website appear
to me to be staged in studio lighting conditions just as you point
out. I am also an amateur photographer from my college day[s]. But
that isn't necessarily a clincher for studio photography on a set vs.
onsite lunar photography, because, as one can reasonably argue, they
could have had passive reflectors for lighting off of the main
lighting source. Funny why no one has made that argument among the
debunkers as yet! I can create many of the lighting artifacts you
point out from passive reflectors. That argument is not necessarily
conclusive that it is studio photography [or that it is not studio
photography, in the absence of authentication]. But I have an
explanation of the dark skies which lends additional weight that
these are shot not on location on the moon surface, but in studio.
That has to do with astronomy.
The
constellations in the night sky look different from earth, and from
every point on earth, than from the moon. Not having photographed the
skies over the moon before [specifically from the geo-location of
Apollo 11's landing site], if they were to show the night sky from
the earth, it would be the proof sufficient that these images were
not shot from the moon surface but from earth surface. There is
software available today which you can use to study the
constellations and what the skies looked like at any time in the past
from any longitude/latitude on earth. The entire [night] sky has been
mapped out from earth, including incorporation of precession. This
knowledge is not new but ancient, and makes the [night] sky from any
location on earth an ABSOLUTE reference point on earth for all time,
of where the earth is in its rotation around the sun, and in its
precession cycle, and in its wobble cycle of its own axis. Anyway,
none of these rocket scientists and social engineers are amateurs,
and therefore, if they were making these studio shots to simulate
moon surface, for whatever reason, they could not show the night sky
from the moon because they don't know what it looks like [Any attempt
to show the night sky captured from anywhere on earth as if it was
from the moon, I presume, would be the incontrovertible smoking gun
that no astronomer could get out of.]
2)
One could argue that the photographs were a hedge, and does not
necessarily mean that the Apollo mission did not go to the moon. This
is where the more technical science part must come in, which is what
I am interested in. Specifically, as Cooper has pointed on the
thermodynamics of the space suit, and as you have pointed out of the
necessity of it being able to cool and heat both, as the astronauts
move in and out of sunlight and shadows, for a temperature
differential of over 500F, makes me wonder about this myself.
3)
So many things you have pointed out along the technical aspects of
the journey, from radiation protection to the incredible fact that
this feat of journey to the moon with the 1960s technology has not
being replicated over the past forty years despite the exponential
advances in science and technology, and that NASA itself states it
would take three times as long than before to get to the moon,
bothers me. I have no satisfactory answers.
4) The link you
provided, I think in part-5, to Professor Thomas Gold, the a-biotic
oil theory gadfly from Cornell, I traced him down to his obituary:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2004/06/thomas-gold-cornell-astronomer-and-brilliant-scientific-gadfly-dies-84
And
it states the following:
"He
was right again in 1955 when, as one of the commanding lunar
researchers of the era, he suggested that the moon's surface was
covered with a fine rock powder, a view opposed by many of his
scientific colleagues. He was not vindicated until the first moon
landing in 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew brought the first sample of
lunar soil back to Earth. Gold was one of the 110 scientists in the
United States and abroad to receive the soil for analysis, and the
researchers concluded that the soil on the lunar surface is indeed
powdery. Its darkness, they said, is explained by a very thin coating
of metal on each individual grain, caused by the penetration of the
solar wind. (Gold played an important role in Apollo 11 in another
respect: He designed the stereo camera carried on the lunar surface
by the astronauts.)"
I cannot easily
reconcile a gadfly scientist of that calibre to be faking his
analysis of the moon-dust. You stated this of him yourself:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-5/
"Before
bidding adieu, I have one final note to add: a certain Dr. Thomas
Gold was an early skeptic of the feasibility of landing on the Moon.
He made headlines prior to the alleged flight of Apollo 11 when he
predicted that any attempt at a Moon landing would be disastrous.
NASA, of course, purportedly proved the good doctor wrong."
Was
he [Dr. Thomas Gold] in on the scam too? Why on earth for? He'd be
the first one to scientifically see through the deception if the
moon-dust, which he is stated to have examined, was from earth! The
obvious epistemological problem here is, how would any scientist know
that the artifact brought from the moon is actually from the moon,
since there is no reference to compare it to. One would have to
assume, as a matter of Occam's razor principle of having the fewest
axioms which are assumed true unless falsified, that what is being
handed them by the government was indeed from the moon. How could a
scientist tell that it not some volcanic ash from some hitherto
undisclosed sub-terrain geological find? If one wanted to deceive,
then it is easy to do so because of that presupposition!
right?
Dave,
thank you again for your rational and logical persistence in seeking
out these anomalies.
Best
wishes,
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Appendix
Video
A
Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Confronting the
Evidence
Astronauts
Gone Wild - Confronting the Astronauts
Thank
You Bart Sibrel
Bart
wrote back saying: “You might be interested in posting this
highly detailed article which I wrote on this subject, linked
below.” Ok, here is the link:
.
Appendix
Video-2
NASA
ADMITS WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON
Source URL:
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/05/was-americas-moon-landing-big-lie.html
Faith URL:
https://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/06/disambiguating-religion-science-psyops.html
First
emailed May 24, 2014 at 4:24 PM | Extended May 26, 2014 | Extended-2
June 10, 2014 12:00 pm 10864
Links
fixed & Appendix Video added June 16, 2018 11:00 pm | Link added
to Appendix video, Galileo quote added in sidebar, June 18, 2018
11223
Appendix
Video-2 link added January 07, 2019
Preamble
added July 23, 2019 12039
Typo fixed September 20, 2019
Was America's Moon Landing a Big
Lie? Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org 31/31