Most half awake people now realise that we are constantly being manipulated by The Powers that Shouldn't Be, via their corporate, and other, media. They run psyops on us all the time.
ISIS being a current case in point. It was created, and it is fully owned and closely managed, by the Western bad guys and their proxies. It is an Empire brand. Same as Al Qaeda was. This is all thoroughly documented if you care to do the research, as usual mainly not in TPTSB media of course.
So how long have they been doing this sort of stuff?
Was it just since the internet era?
When did all this actually start?
Well, it has gone on for centuries I think Certainly in the 18th & 19th centuries, and very likely a lot earlier. The form of media used was different then, but they still ran their psyops.
The British elites are past masters. They taught the Americans all their techniques too. The British elites "Security Services" even set up the CIA for the US in 1946.
The British are not known as "Perfidious Albion" for nothing.
So, in truth, all of our official, academic, ie. TPTSB, "history" needs reappraisal.
By way of illustration lets have a look at one of the earliest "Conspiracy Theories" the very problematic "Moon Landings" of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Please read all the following and then think it through for yourself:
Truthers do not usually believe that the moon landing story is true. Probably because they have been exposed to the plentiful logical analysis, which is freely available, and which shows numerous anomalies.
A cursory study of the science of the story is troubling. There are far too many scientific impossibilities for the story to be true.
NASA now admits that, for human travel through the intense radiation in space then extensive, and very heavy, lead protection is required for a human to survive.
On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA's Vision for Space
Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas …Finding a good shield is important.”
So how did they get through in the 1960's in their tin cans? How did they land in their tinfoil lunar module?
This is the real story killer. If they could go to the moon in 1960's then why can they not return in the 2010's?
The moonsuits were ridiculous as well. The temperatures on the moon are literally boiling in sunlight and freezing in darkness, with nothing in between. It is very hard to believe that the suits would last 5 minutes on the inhospitable lunar surface. Particularly when you realise that the suits had to be battery powered, there was no other power source. They must have had great batteries in the 1960's! Not. And especially with all that radiation, and all those high speed particles, bombarding down. Maybe they just got lucky and none came during the many hours that each mission spent on the moon, much of it outdoors in their suits.
And what about the, literally, tinfoil lunar landing craft with its one "lunar module descent engine" to slow it's descent? Rockets are not aircraft, they cannot be "piloted", they are far too unstable, especially single engine rockets. Modern hover drones all have multiple stability systems don't they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System
In fact the inherent impossibility of "piloting" a rocket was the subject of an in-joke about the first astronauts; as revealed in Tom Wolf's 1979 book "The Right Stuff".
The very first US astronauts, both Mercury and Apollo, were all ex-test pilots from the US airforce. And all US test pilots had very, very, big cajones. They were truly brave, very intensely trained, very cool under pressure, very high risk taking people when at work. They lived on the very edge, and many died in accidents when piloting dangerous and unstable planes that were under development by the military industrial complex. They were a breed apart. It is impossible to imagine any current air jockey accepting the risks that they routinely accepted.
Tom Wolf was spot on with his title. They certainly were made of the "Right Stuff".
Anyhow, the joke was that the non-astronaut test pilots labelled the astronauts "monkeys in a tin can". Why? Because they were not pilots when they went into space, they were passengers. The monkeys refers to the earliest passengers who went into space, before humans.
But we are expected to believe that all the lunar landing modules were piloted down to the moon's surface using a single engine propulsion system, like a rocket with a throttle. Does your common sense tells you anything?
There is another massive clue. That is the later life demeanor of Armstrong, the first man on the moon. If you look carefully at his late life interviews then you can see that he is very unsettled by the telling of the official story. He really looks like he is lying. He is very uncomfortable. Very. Some very interesting body language analysis has been done. His body language screams: "Lie!"
Most of the key aspects of the story could easily be false. They would have been quite easy to fake if necessary. Hollywood has essentially been under shadow government control since it's start in the early 20th century, certainly since the CIA was founded in 1946. Hollywood is an important component in the endless bullshit stories that they spin. It softens people up for their psyops by introducing ideas into mainstream consciousness. It is notorious for this. It constantly prefigures future scenarios. It is an integral part of their control system. Cue Stanley Kubrick.......
People certainly saw the big rockets take off from Earth, and millions saw the returning capsules land in the ocean. But this start and finish, and everything in between, was only shown to us all on TV, by the corporate media and BBC . The only part of the story that was actually witnessed live by ordinary people was the launch from Earth. The return landings were in the middle of the ocean miles from all civilians. And all the rest was from inside the capsule in space, or on the moon, so obviously no witnesses there!
It was all "top secret" and "national security". The same old stale bullshit excuse that they always use. So it was all on a "need to know" basis. A hoax could in fact have been pulled off with a very small number of insiders. How do we really know that the astronauts ever left Earth orbit? In fact how do we really know that they ever left the Earth?
"Those pictures were taken on the moon"
"That film was taken on the moon"
"Those rocks came from the moon"
"They are from the moon because we said that they are"
We already know that the scientific establishment, and particularly the corporate media, lie to us all the time.
So why would we trust known liars when it comes to the moon landings story? Do you really think that they were more honest in 1960's? Really? I already told you that the CIA was founded in 1946.
In fact NASA has become so notorious for lying that it is often referred to as:
Never A Straight Answer
There are at least 2 other obvious questions that follow from all this:
How might they have done the fraud?
Why might they have done the fraud?
I already told you about the How. That would have been easy. The tv images that they broadcast were ultra low definition. I know that because I saw them "live" myself and they were very indistinct. Very. The available cameras in 1960's, both tv and others, were much higher definition than we actually saw on the "live" broadcasts. Rather than use a direct tv feed from the control centre, they actually filmed a tv set showing the "live" feed, to broadcast their images to us all, via our tv's! Thus ensuring ultra low def. No high def for the plebs, they might spot something.
NASA now says that it has "lost" the tapes of all of the "historic" video record too. Thousands of spools. So no way of doing any modern image analysis. How convenient!
The still photos were good old style lens and film. Leaving aside the effect of all that radiation on unexposed film, how did they actually take the photos? Well, the cameras were mounted on the chest of their moonsuits. They were high def and the resulting snaps are freely available to view at various websites.
But htf did the moon walking astronauts focus their cameras so well wearing those massive moon suit gloves? All the stills are in good focus ffs, all of them. And htf did the astronauts frame their photos so well from inside their space helmets? All of the photos are well framed. It makes no sense.....
As you would imagine then there has been lots of, independent, thorough analysis of these photos. And numerous anomalies have been revealed as a result. Like why did the lunar lander rocket engine not stir up all that lunar dust? The lander should surely have been covered in dust? Not even the feet of the lander have dust on them. There are lots of shadow anomalies too, indicating multiple light sources. You know, a bit like a film set........
If you are interested enough to want to know more then, this book is a good starting place. Well it is far more than that in truth. It is a thorough demolition job of the official story. It is a great read, and very funny in parts too:
http://www.whale.to/c/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf
The highly respected Dave McGowan sadly passed away recently. But his work is still out there for free.
As regards the Why then read Dave's theories about Vietnam in Part III of the above link. He gives as good an explanation as I've read anywhere else. It was a distraction from lots of other nasty stuff that was happening at the same time. Same old, same old then.......
In conclusion.......
The fact that you saw a grainy black and white image on a tv in the middle of the night doesn't make the story true.
The fact that the mainstream media was unanimous in its promotion of the story doesn't make the story true.
The fact that nobody in the media properly questioned any of the numerous scientific anomalies doesn't make the story true.
The fact that those in academia, and elsewhere, who did properly question these anomalies, did not get any airtime, anywhere, doesn't make the story true.
In fact the media, and academic, unanimity in the moon landings story reminds me of 9/11. The same absolute adherence to a ridiculous story is evident.
The 9/11 hoax was so ridiculous that it stunned many people into looking at our "history", as taught to us all in our state schools, in a much more inquisitive way. The media curtain was ripped away, and the little men behind it were revealed to have no clothes.
Many of their numerous lies have been revealed, and continue to be revealed. And there is no way to un-reveal them, short of 100% control of the internet, and social media.
And that is surely impossible. We are not dumb enough to allow that to happen are we?
Addendum 2nd April 2019
https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/
Addendum 13th July 2020
Proof that the moon landings were fake in a few easy steps
First look at this link:
Quote:
"Let’s take a look at the diameter first. The diameter of the Moon is 3,474 km. Now, let’s compare this to the Earth. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. This means that the Moon is approximately 27% the size of the Earth.
What about surface area? The surface area of the Moon is 37.9 million square kilometers. That sounds like a lot, but it’s actually smaller than the continent of Asia, which is only 44.4 million square km. The surface area of the whole Earth is 510 million square km, so the area of the Moon compared to Earth is only 7.4%."
So the Moon is 13 times bigger than the Earth measured by surface area, which is what we see [100%/7.4%=13.5]
Now look at these famous images from Apollo 8:
See a problem?
Why doesn't the Earth look massive from the moon?
It should look 13 times bigger than the Moon does from the Earth because the surface area is 13 times more
So the famous 1968 Apollo 8 "Moonrise" photo is a fake then
[It's not as if there is only 1 Moonrise photo either, there are lots of them as you can see. They say that men landed there 6 times]
Why would it be fake if they had really been there and done that 6 times?
QED
But don't tell anyone about this, they will think that you are a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist 
ps
In the 1960's NASA owned and ran a massive film studio at Lookout Mountain Laboratory, the intelligence community’s top-secret, state-of-the-art film studio nestled high in the Hollywood Hills. Overlooking Universal Studios in fact
Why would they need to do that? See above for the answer to that 
This is why NASA is now known as
Never
A
Straight
Answer
No comments:
Post a Comment