Apollo Moon Hoax, JFK Assassination and 9/11 Truth
Over 70 Logical Arguments and Evidence Debunking the Official Stories
(Note: This is an ongoing project that will be continually updated and revised. So check back regularly for new info, arguments and evidence.)
"Americans don't need to lie to themselves. That's what the government is for!" ? Michael Rivero
"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ? Gerald Massey
Greetings. Welcome to my report on the evidence and arguments for conspiracies in three major events in US history. Conspiracies are a hot but growing controversial topic nowadays, both because they challenge our cherished beliefs that our government is our just protector, and because there is a growing distrust of authority in Western society and increasing number of dissidents.
That being said, those with entrenched establishment mental conditioning still have a knee jerk reaction or ridicule and automatic dismissal to the notion of "conspiracy theories". Dismissing something you know nothing about without researching it first is so common, even among intelligent educated people. But it is not logical to pretend to be an expert you know little or nothing about, or to automatically dismiss something without considering the evidence for it. Yet this act is commonplace.
Everyone thinks they are right in their own mind. As Eckhart Tolle wrote in "The Power of Now" and "Stillness Speaks", "We all harbor the mistaken belief that our thoughts = truth and reality." This is very true. No one is exempt from this fallacy. That's why we have to learn to keep an open mind and not harbor fixed rigid beliefs that resist change. As Darryl Sloan said in his book "Reality Check":
"The most productive mindset you can have is simply this: always, always, always have a belief system that doesn?t resist change. Go wherever the information leads you, without fear, because surely the truth is never something to dread." ? Darryl Sloan, Reality Check
Thus, we must learn to follow the data and evidence, and derive logical hypotheses and conclusions from them, rather than taking on faith whatever we hear from establishment sources with vested interests. We are all brought up under the fallacy that "authority=truth" when in reality it is not. Truth is determined by evidence, data, and logical reasoning based on the evidence.
In this report, I will cover the major conspiracy arguments for three major events in US history ? the Apollo Moon Landings, the JFK Assassination and 9/11, based on my years of research into them. I will present a plethora of easy-to-understand logical arguments and evidence for a conspiracy in these events, written for the average layman enthusiast. I will present them in a concise yet comprehensive manner. Altogether, they will show you why the conspiracy claims are not as crazy or farfetched as you think, but have a legitimate basis according to the rules and standards of logic and common sense. The arguments I will cover are not all the ones available of course, but they are major ones that I think are the most important for consideration.
Many books have been written about the conspiracies behind these events. But I am not here to write another book. Books go into extensive detail, more than what most people want to get into, which the average person doesn?t have time for. I know you must have a busy life - your time is valuable and so is mine. Many people are tired after working and taking care of their families, and just want to relax and unwind, so are not inclined to be flooded with a mass of details. Books are time consuming and tedious to go through. That?s why I am going to help you understand the conspiracy case in these events without having to read a whole book. Although this report may end up being book-length in size, most conspiracy books only cover one of these events, so in that sense you are getting a lot of core info from three books in one.
I will present these core arguments as concisely and comprehensively as possible, with links for further research, so that you can grasp the overall big picture of the case for conspiracy in these major events without having to read a whole book. Hopefully this will incite your interest to inspire you to do more research. At the end of each section, I will provide links, films and books to learn more.
While reading this, please try to keep an open and objective mindset rather than a knee jerk dismissive reaction. Try to remove bias, emotion and prejudice during your analysis of the points I'm going to present. Try to be like Spock or Data from Star Trek, purely logical and rational without emotion, ego or bias.
What?s interesting to note is that there tends to be a direct correlation between the amount of time a typical person researches this subject, and the tendency for that person to believe that there was a conspiracy and cover up behind these events and that we were lied to. In other words, the more time a person spends looking into this, the more likely that person doubts and disbelieves the official story. That is very telling and speaks volumes.
Now let me first say that I am not here to tell you what to think or what to believe. You don't have to agree with me or believe what I say. All I want is to give you arguments, evidence and points to consider that will get you to think and question more, rather than just believing whatever you were told pertaining to these historical events and taking it on faith. Just think, question and consider, is all I'm asking you to do. Remember that you can't really be free unless you learn to think for yourself and question authority.
Before we begin, let me explain why I will not use the common term "conspiracy theory" to refer to the arguments and evidence for conspiracy. Such a hackneyed term, often used by those with anti-conspiracy mindset, automatically labels conspiracy arguments as merely speculative and without evidence or basis, which is not true at all. It presupposes that the official version of events are facts whereas conspiracies are merely speculative "theories" or conjecture. Such a presupposition assumes that "authority=truth", which is demonstratably false (although "authority" would like you to believe that of course).
Thus, the use of this term by conspiracy deniers is a neurolinguistic form of mind control developed to trick your subconscious into believing that all conspiracy arguments are without merit and in the realm of speculation rather than fact. Such a misleading mind control tactic itself should tell you something: It is a red flag. After all, it is manipulative, so you gotta ask, why would truth need manipulation? Shouldn?t truth be self-explanatory? Therefore, I will not perpetuate this misleading term by using it here.
With that, let's begin.
* Note: Most of the films and documentaries I refer to in this report can be found on YouTube, Google Video or Vimeo. However, I've decided not to post URL's to them because YouTube has an annoying habit of constantly removing videos and making uploaders reupload them, which changes the video URL. Thus any YouTube URL's I post may become outdated. Instead, I will mention them by name so you can do a search for them on YouTube, Google Video or Vimeo to find the current versions.
* Note: Where possible, I?ve placed links above each image to where I obtained them, so that you can open them to view their full size.
* Note: Questions, comments or suggestions can be sent to me through my contact form at: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/contact.php? You can also listen to my audio interview with Jim Fetzer about this report at: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/11/winston-wu.html
"The bigger the lie, the easier it will be believed." ? Adolf Hitler
Of the conspiracies I'm going to talk about, the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax is the one that gets the most ridicule and derision and is put in the same category as Holocaust Denial, which is a cheap discrediting tactic without merit. The Apollo Moon Landings of 1969-72 are seen as an accomplishment that is a pillar of American pride in being the first to go to the moon. They are like a sacred religion that is taboo to question. Anyone who questions it is assumed to be crazy.
So at first, you might think that any notion of the Apollo Moon Landings being a hoax are crazy and absurd, something that only nutcases believed. However, the fact of the matter is, you really can?t know if the Apollo moon landings were real unless you?ve been there. So all you can do it take it on faith that we?ve been there.
It?s only when you dig deeper, examine the evidence, and employ critical thinking with logic rather than emotion, that the facts begin to shock and disturb you. You begin scratching your head. Then, when you wake up and see the obvious, that your common sense was subdued all along by faith, emotion, pride and groupthink. Consider the following evidence, arguments and points, and you will realize that the moon hoax case is a lot more valid than you think. You will realize that the probability of one of the following two statements is very likely to be true:
A. The moon landings were a hoax and we never went there.
B. We did go to the moon but there is a dark secret surrounding it that caused us not to go back and led to the faking of at least some of the videos and photos of the moon.
So before you think that I'm crazy, please hear me out first. While doing so, I ask that you first put aside your patriotic pride and emotions so that you can be more objective in examining and considering the following arguments and reasons. Let's begin.
Let?s start with the strongest argument. First, here are some shocking facts that will leave you scratching your head:
? FACT: Every major technological accomplishment in history has been repeated well under forty years, all except one. Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin?s orbit of the earth in 1961, many others had done the same. Yet forty years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon in 1969-72, not a single person or country has done it, nor attempted to do so (including the Russians who were ahead of us in the space race). Does this not seem highly strange and illogical?
? FACT: Since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, no one has ever gone higher than 400 miles above the Earth. Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that, remaining well under 400 miles.
? FACT: So far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that went 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, with no loss of life at all? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Does that seem odd? Would you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch that is?
If these don?t leave you scratching your head, then nothing will. What all this means is that inexplicably, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How believable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It?s totally illogical and nonsensical.
To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you?d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth under 400 miles! (If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.)
Look at the implications here: Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it by their actions (in not doing so) and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080331
In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994, NASA Administrator Dan Golden openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 25 years prior, which supposedly went 240,000 miles outside Earth orbit. This doesn?t make any sense given that none of the astronauts on the six Apollo missions allegedly passed the radiation belts with no problem and no sickness.
Obviously, by this admission NASA has shot itself in the foot. Logic would ask, if they can't figure that out, then how did they get astronauts through it six times in 1969-1972 without any casualties or sickness from radiation?! It's a huge discrepancy ? one of those obvious things right under your nose that you don't notice unless someone points it out to you. Yet amazingly most Americans are too gullible to notice when NASA shoots itself in the foot. This can only testify to how deeply ingrained the brainwashing of Americans must be.
So if you buy the Apollo story, you?d have to buy that the Apollo Moon Landings were the first and only historical event in which technology actually went BACKWARD by an extreme magnitude! In history, when technological feats are accomplished, they get better, faster and more efficient in subsequent years. For example, when the Wright Brothers invented the airplane, every year after that planes got better and better. When Charles Lindberg made the first transatlantic flight in 1927, it was soon repeated afterward. And when cell phones came into the market, they got better and better thereon.
However, after the Apollo missions from 1969-72, it all went backward. We never went back again and neither did any other country. Nor did anyone even try to. It was very strange. At least the Soviets should have followed soon after, especially since their space technology was ahead of ours. Yet none have even tried. And NASA itself has nothing but excuses now when it comes to going back to the moon. What does that tell you? As they say, actions speak louder than words.
If the Apollo missions were authentic, then by now, there should be daily flights to the moon as well as moon bases. All this would be so if the moon landings were consistent with the rest of world history. But instead, it all went backward, which is totally implausible and a valid cause for suspicion, because this would be the first time in history that that has occurred. Ever since then, no one has been beyond 400 miles above the Earth.
The strongest argument here is that if NASA can't go to the moon today after 40 years of technological advancements, then it certainly couldn't have in 1969, plain and simple. There are many more arguments and evidence of course, which we will cover next, but this argument itself speaks volumes and contradicts the most fundamental logic.
See these great interviews with Bart Sibrel, producer of ?A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon?, where he makes this "technology can't go backward" argument eloquently:
What?s more, NASA could not even keep astronauts safe on Earth. During a test simulation on the launch pad for Apollo One in 1967, three astronauts died during a fire that engulfed the capsule and somehow locked them inside, which was never explained and seemed to be the result of foul play. Whatever the case, if NASA couldn?t even keep astronauts safe on Earth during a test simulation inside a stationary capsule that wasn?t even moving, then how could it keep them safe 240,000 miles away on the moon during a real mission?!
I used to assume that the Apollo Moon Landings were a historic fact, until I began seriously examining the photographic and video record. The sheer number of inexplicable anomalies and apparent impossibilities shown in some of these photos and videos can only lead one to the firm conclusion that they were not taken on the moon, as NASA has led us to believe.
Many of the Apollo moon images and videos show obvious and clear signs of fakery which indicate that they could not have been taken on the moon's surface. Photo experts bold enough to tell the truth, have stated this as well, such as David Percy of http://www.Aulis.com. Even the engineer who developed the Hassalblad camera engineer, used by the Apollo astronauts, said that he could not explain the discrepancies and anomalies in the Apollo images. (Though he probably suspects that the moon photos are fakes, he cannot just come out and say that because his company had a big profitable contract with NASA obviously.) Here are some main examples.
(Note: I?ve decided not to use the standard moon hoax argument about the stars not appearing in the photos because it is not a strong argument in that standard photos taken from Earth, day or night, also do not show stars. To capture stars in photos requires a sophisticated with the right aperture settings. However, in spite of this, admittedly it is strange that the Apollo astronauts did not bring cameras capable of filming stars with them, which would have been a wasted opportunity if the missions were genuine. Instead, in a later section, I will discuss the discrepancies regarding seeing the stars from the lunar surface.)
The shadows diverge and converge in many of the moon landing photos. Some of them even converge at perpendicular 90 degree angles. This cannot be if there is only one light source, the sun, as NASA alleges. Under the sun, shadows run parallel to each other. They do not converge or intersect. Thus, there must have been a second light source, such as fill lights used on a movie studio stage to balance out the lighting, since officially, the astronauts did not bring any other light sources with them.
Here are some example images:
Apollo defenders try to cop out of this by claiming that the slant of the surface, angle of the sun and perspective of the viewer can cause shadows to converge or diverge. However, many of these shadows are on objects close to each other, and there is no indication that the sun is at an extreme angle. Most of the shadow anomalies were on fairly level surfaces, and even on those that weren?t, the slight slant was not enough to account for the distorted shadows.
Here is an even more bizarre anomaly. This US flag doesn?t even have a shadow at all! WTF?
In many Apollo photos of the alleged moon walks, the astronauts are seen standing in shadows while being clearly lit up and illuminated. This can only be possible if there was a second light source other than the sun. But officially, the astronauts did not bring any light devices with them, not even flashlights. This means that artificial lighting must have been used, such as on a movie set.
Here are some example images:
Here is one of an astronaut with the alleged sun behind him, yet every detail of? his suit is visible when he should be a silhouette:
Similarly, in this photo, the sun is behind the astronaut and LEM, yet a secondary light sources appears to be coming from the other direction.
There are even photos of astronauts? boots reflecting light with the sun is behind them, which can only be from fill lights coming from the side. There?s no way to refute that. See these example images:
Apollo defenders (such as Phil Plait, Jay Windley and the Mythbusters) claim that the astronauts are lit up due to the luminosity (albedo) of the moon's surface reflecting light onto them. However, this cannot be the explanation because:
1) The moon's average albedo (luminosity) is only between 7 - 12 percent, which is comparable to that of asphalt (used in cement freeways) on Earth. Thus it could not illuminate someone standing in a shadow from the ground up like a light bulb would.
See the albedo of various types of cement pavements here: http://www.pavement.com/Downloads/RT/RT3.05.pdf
Documented info on the moon?s average 7 - 12 percent albedo:
This Universe Today article above even acknowledges that the moon?s surface is not very bright.
?So, how does the Moon albedo compare to other objects in the Solar System? As bright as the Moon looks from our perspective here on Earth, the Moon?s albedo is actually pretty low. The object with the highest albedo in the Solar System is Saturn?s moon Enceladus, which has an albedo of 0.99, which means that it?s covered with very reflective snow and ice. The Moon is much more similar to a very dark object, like an asteroid. The darkest asteroids in the Solar System have an albedo of 0.06. That?s pretty close to 0.?
2) If the lunar surface were bright enough to light up someone standing in shadows, it would be glaringly bright like snow under sunlight (which is why skiers wear sunshades) or at least somewhat bright and glowing. But as we can see in the Apollo photos and videos, it was not. Instead, the lunar surface appeared rather dark and grayish. It did not glow at all.
3) In the Apollo videos, the astronauts descending the ladder are not lit up in the shade.
Therefore, this explanation by Apollo defenders does not hold water and is a false explanation. Moon hoax investigator and filmmaker Jarrah White exposed the fraudulent experiments conducted by the Mythbusters on this issue, which you can see on YouTube by doing a search for ?Moonfaker mythbusters? and ?Moonfaker Reflect on this?. Additionally, two Russian scientists also exposed the Mythbusters fraud, and ran tests proving that the photos of well lit astronauts standing in the shadows could not have been due to the albedo of the lunar surface. See their report here: http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is shrouded in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?
Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:
Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal to hide the discrepancy:
Apollo defenders can?t explain this at all, so they?ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. But Jarrah White proved unequivocally that the spotlight version is the original one by showing newspaper clippings from 1969 which showed that one in his YouTube video ?Moonfaker: Posing for Portrait?. So again, why would NASA alter the photos if they had nothing to hide?
In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures on each side. This indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example from a famous Apollo photo of an astronaut saluting next to an American flag. Notice that the backdrop also looks like a wall that is just behind the astronaut, rather than actual scenery in the distance. And notice the distinct line between the dirt and the white layer behind it.
This line between foreground and backdrop is explained and demonstrated in the documentary ?Kubrick's Odyssey" by Jay Weidner of SacredMysteries.com, which you can see it on Vimeo. Weidner postulates that the legendary director Stanley Kubrick was probably hired to fake the moon landing photos and videos, due to his exceptional skills in these techniques, as demonstrated in his film ?2001: A Space Odyssey?. For an online analysis of this with examples, view or download this document: http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf??
New Discovery! Here is a much larger version of the above image that I want you to open in a new window and click again to zoom in on and look at closely, because it contains a NEW SMOKING GUN that I discovered! If you look at the ground behind the astronaut?s boots, you can see the edge of a WHITE LAYER placed over the dirt! It appears to be some type of carpet, canvas or ledge. You can even see the edges and creases on it at the line where it overlays the dirt! In addition, you can see that the lunar rover tracks end where the white layer begins. This is a smoking gun I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!
Here is a zoom up of the carpet layer:
Notice the distinct line between the white cloth layer and the dirt. The layer definitely looks like it was placed OVER the dirt. You can even see slight creases in it. Now why would they need to put a white layer over the dirt like that? Did the astronauts have plenty of extra room in that small LEM to bring unnecessary materials with them, such as cloth or carpet to lay out on the floor?
A technique known as ?stereoscopic parallax? also reveals that the backdrop used in the Apollo images is stationary and at close proximity to the astronauts, rather than far in the distance. For an indepth analysis using this technique with examples from Apollo images, see this page on AULIS Online: http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
Here are two images with the same identical backdrop with totally different foregrounds, as you can see. In one of them, you can see the LEM, but not in the other, which is an oddity since the LEM never moved after allegedly landing on the moon.
In fact, the scotchlite glass background screen used in front screen projection is visible in many moon photos when you adjust the gamma and contrast. (I guess the hoaxers in the 60?s didn?t count on people today having the technology to examine such photos) You can see some examples here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf??
Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon?s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:
In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.
This is an image of an astronaut with no footprints leading up to him or away from him:
Here is a funny one. In this orbital photo of the moon that NASA claims was taken 95km above the moon?s surface, not only does the moon look like a fake model, but on the left is a giant shadow cast by the command module, which was only the size of a pickup truck. Thus the shadow?s proportion is way off! See below:
Could this the moon replica models used in the Apollo photos and footage?
In some of the video clips of the Apollo moon walks, you can see wires attached to the astronauts, which flicker in the light a few times. This is considered smoking gun footage as well. To see them, go to YouTube and type "moon hoax wires". Here are some video stills of them:
Now why would the astronauts need wires attached to them, unless they were in a staged movie studio?
The photos of the astronaut bootprints on the moon dirt should not be possible. Boot prints are only possible when there is moisture in the sand or dirt. But on the moon, there is no moisture. When one steps on dry sand ? such as on sand dunes ? no footprint is left and no ridges from the shoe or boot soles are embedded. All that?s left is small dent in the sand. So this is a curious anomaly.
Images of bootprints:
In a number of Apollo videos, the American flag can be seen waving on the moon, which cannot be possible since the moon has no atmosphere and therefore no air. This is very simple. Apollo defenders try to dismiss it by saying that the flag only waves when the astronauts are twisting it while trying to plant it. They claim that the act of twisting the pole is what?s causing the flag to flutter. But that?s not completely true, which is evident from the Apollo video clips. In several clips, you can clearly see the flag fluttering even with little or no movement of the pole by astronauts. Here is an example from a gif clip:
You don?t need to be an expert in anything to see this, as it is self evident. So don?t let them fool you.
There is also a clip from Apollo 15 of astronaut David Scott walking by a flag where you can see it move as he passed by. Apollo defenders claim that the astronaut?s elbow brushed against the flag. But Jarrah White meticulous analyzed this frame by frame and found that the flag moved BEFORE his elbow could have touched it. See his YouTube video ?Moonfaker the Flags are Alive?.
Under where the Lunar Lander (or LEM) landed there should have been a blast crater. But none of the Apollo photos show any craters under the LEM at all. Example image:
But the LEM needs to fire its thrusters as it descends, or else it will crash or tip over and be damaged, which would big trouble. Apollo defenders dismiss this by arguing that either the LEM turned off its engine and glided down without thrusters, or due to there being no atmosphere on the moon, the thrusters simply dispersed.
However, these explanations are nonsensical. If the LEM could just glide down like a parachute, then why did it have thrusters? Why did NASA?s own technical drawings show blast craters beneath the LEM? In the Apollo 11 landing footage, you can hear Armstrong saying that he turned off the engine after landing, not during the descent. And if the atmosphere dispersed the thrusters, then what good were they if they couldn?t perform their job of keeping the LEM?s weight steady as it descended?
Jarrah White meticulously lays out the math and science proving why the LEM had to produce blast craters under it if it were really on the moon in his YouTube documentary ?Moonfaker No Crater?.
Quite possibly, the hoaxers either forgot or decided not to put a blast crater under the LEM, and so had to continue doing that in all LEM photos to be consistent.
Further, the fact that in the photo of the LEM, no dust at all can be seen on the LEM?s footpad is nonsensical since it would have blown a dust cloud as it descended, in addition to creating a blast crater underneath. See this image of the footpad below:
The LEM also showed to be highly unstable on Earth as it constantly crashed even months before the Apollo 11 landing. Even the slightest degree tilt caused it to turn and crash. Yet it seemed to work flawlessly on all six lunar missions?!
Here is another discrepancy that is right under your nose that you never realized. The Moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth's. What this means is that if you were on the moon, you could move faster and jump higher. But in the moon landing footage, the astronauts are actually moving SLOWER than they would the Earth! (oops, must be a major screw up there by the producers, or else they were not able to simulate low gravity in the studio?) Go figure.
The Apollo defenders have no argument against this simple discrepancy except by saying that the astronaut space suits were so heavy that it made movement slow. However, even if that were so, in 1/6 gravity, they still should have been able to move faster and jump higher than if they were on Earth. Further, the dirt being kicked up in the video of the lunar rover vehicle should have been shooting up higher in 1/6 gravity as well, than if it were on Earth.
Now keep in mind, these are not just ?anomalies?. They are conclusive technical discrepancies which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Apollo moon photos could not have been taken on the moon. Of that we can at least be sure of, regardless if anyone has been to the moon or not. For an extensive analysis by experts of the discrepancies in the Apollo moon photos, see the 3+ hour film "What Really Happened on the Moon" (available on YouTube) which features photography experts such as David Percy and others. The Fox one hour special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" is also a great, though shorter, introduction to the Apollo photo discrepancies.
For more anomalies, discrepancies and evidence of fakery in Apollo moon images, see this page: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
To see how Apollo defenders try to refute these photo analysis moon hoax arguments with cop outs, denials and obfuscations, see some of their websites below:
The Van Allen Radiation Belts that surrounds the Earth, starting at about 1,000 km above up to 60,000 km, would have been lethal to anyone passing through them. They were named after James Van Allen, the scientist who discovered them. He stated that they posed a great danger to humans passing through them and published this in an article in the science journal "Scientific American" in 1959. His findings were later confirmed by Geiger counters attached to space probes which passed through the Van Allen belts. In addition, beyond the radiation belts, the solar flares from the sun, which were at a high during the first Apollo mission, would have been deadly to the astronauts as well.
Later, when Van Allen went on NASA's payroll, he changed his mind and said that the belts were not that dangerous after all. But as you know, when you are on someone's payroll, your objectivity is compromised and you are required to do and say what your employer tell you. In other words, you now have a vested interest in your employer?s agenda. And in this case, Van Allen had to change his mind about the passability of the radiation belts in order for the Apollo missions to the moon to be plausible. What choice did he have? In any organization, if you don?t tow the party line, you?re out. (Anti-conspiracy people never seem to understand this, even though it?s common sense, as if it were over their heads) Regardless of Van Allen?s reversal, the hard evidence says otherwise ? as the Geiger counter readout within the radiation belt indicated.
Today, NASA scientists use circular reasoning when they say that the Van Allen belts must not be that dangerous since six Apollo missions went through it with no problem. Either that, or they claim that if you pass through it quickly, then it will not harm you. Yet if the radiation belts go up to 60,000 km, one cannot pass through it that quickly.
Further, NASA has contradicted itself about that. In a press release, NASA said that they cannot return to the moon until they find a safe way to let humans pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belt. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080331
Have they forgotten that they did it six times before between 1969-1972 without any astronauts suffering radiation sickness? Are people so gullible that NASA can shoot themselves in the foot like this and get away with it without anyone noticing?
NASA defender Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com, tries to get around this by claiming that the Apollo missions circumnavigated around the radiation belts by going through the donut holes at the top or bottom. However, if that were so, then why did NASA issue a press release that said it had to solve the problem of the dangers of radiation to astronauts first? Why would that even be an issue?
Jarrah White?s FAQ page goes into more technical detail about the dangers of the Van Allen belts and solar flares beyond them:
?First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen?s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.
Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.
Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminum honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA?s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.?
In Bart Sibrel's documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" (available on YouTube) unedited video footage is shown of the Apollo 11 astronauts faking a shot of the Earth from low orbit, while radioing to NASA that they were 130,000 miles from Earth, halfway to the moon. In it, you can hear the astronauts saying that the video camera was put up against the window. Yet something blocks the view of the alleged distant Earth, and a light structure can be seen moving in the corner as well, which isn't possible if the camera were situated against the window. And when the lights go on, we see the blue light outside, which means they were either in low earth orbit, or in the daylight blue skies of Earth. In fact, the blue light can be seen from two separate windows in the command module!
This is a huge SMOKING GUN in the Moon Hoax debate. Other moon hoax films such as "What Happened on the Moon?" and "Apollo Zero" also analyze this smoking gun footage. So you have to ask, why would they fake a shot of the Earth being far away if they didn't have to?
Further, during Sibrel's interview with Buzz Aldrin (the Apollo 11 astronaut) when he showed Aldrin this "smoking gun" footage, which Aldrin himself took, Aldrin indirectly admitted that he was right. He replied, "This is going to make you famous isn't it?" Now, why would it make him famous unless it was true? This occurred just before Aldrin punched him outside, which became an infamous event that made headlines in the moon research community. You can see this interview and Aldrin?s punch on Sibrel's film "Astronauts Gone Wild" (available on YouTube and MoonMovie.com) or on any shorter clips on YouTube by searching for ?Buzz Aldrin punch? or ?Bart Sibrel punch?.
In these informative interviews below with Bart Sibrel, he goes into more detail about the smoking gun footage and why he is certain the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.
The space suits used by the Apollo 11 astronauts had no protective ability against the extreme temperatures on the surface of the moon. The blueprints of the suits did not indicate any shielding ability at all. And NASA refuses to allow anyone to examine the space suits or test them at high temperatures.
Due to there being no atmosphere on the moon to provide convection for heating and cooling, on the daylight side, which all Apollo missions landed on, temperatures are at 250 Fahrenheit and in the shade drop drastically to 250 below zero. Yet the astronauts had no sufficient cooling system, especially with the batteries they had, which were comparable to that of a car. Since the moon atmosphere is in a vacuum, they could not use air convection to cool off. So they would have needed a lot of power to radiate heat away from them, which would have drained what precious battery power they had.
Further, the Hassalblad cameras and film inside could not have withstood such temperatures to be seen today. Kodak has said that its film can only withstand temperatures up to 150F.
During the Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference (which you can see on YouTube), Neil Armstrong said that they were not able to see the stars with the naked eye from the surface of the moon, to which Michael Collins looked at him and said ?I don?t remember seeing any? (even though he was allegedly on the command module in orbit and not on the moon?s surface, which was strange). Oddly, in the Apollo 11 Press Conference transcript, Collins? statement was attributed to Buzz Aldrin, perhaps in an attempt to cover for his slip up?
However, any professional astronomer will tell you that one can see stars from the surface of the moon much more vividly than from the earth, due to the moon's lack of atmosphere. Even Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com stated this in a radio debate with Joe Rogan about the moon hoax. This is a huge glaring discrepancy in direct contradiction to what the Apollo 11 astronauts claimed, and has never been resolved. Perhaps it was a huge cock up by Armstrong and Collins during the press conference. Even NASA's chief public defenders such as Phil Plait are at a loss to explain it.
What?s more, Michael Collins later contradicted himself about not seeing the stars in his book ?Carrying the Fire?. On page 221, he wrote:
"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had." ? Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire, pg. 221
It would seem that the astronauts cannot make up their minds about whether they saw stars from the moon or not. Very suspicious, no doubt.
The live video footage of the Apollo astronauts could not have been live, as alleged by NASA. The videos that were broadcast showed jumps and discontinuities in the footage which could only have occurred through editing. One can see this by ordering the Apollo footage from Spacecraft Films, which claims to contain the unedited footage that was broadcast live to the world during the Apollo missions. This means that the scenes were pre-shot BEFORE the moon missions took place, which means that they were staged. So again, why would NASA stage the footage if it didn?t have to?
To see evidence and examples of this, see Jarrah White?s documentary ?Flagging the Gems? on YouTube. Jarrah?s Moonfaker website FAQ goes into this in more detail:
?The second smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn?t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.
The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits ? as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!
By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were sections of video missing from the ?complete? Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms that the MSFN was ?receiving? them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as ?complete & unedited.?
After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled ?Flagging The Gems?, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement and had the video pulled along with Jarrah?s entire Youtube account. Gray?s copyright claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA?s in flight telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.?
Since the command module with Michael Collins in it was orbiting the moon at 4000mph, how did the LEM dock with it for the journey home? The odds of that succeeding seem astronomically small. No human pilot could navigate a dock with an object moving at 4000mph. If they had missed, they would have been lost forever. NASA has never explained this.
Anyone involved in engineering, computer programming, or technology development can tell you that nothing new in technology works right on the first try. Sending humans 240,000 miles to the moon and back safely is a harder task than you can imagine, rifled with unsolvable problems even today. So what are the odds that it all went right the first time without casualties?
Bill Kaysing, author of "We Never Went to the Moon" was an engineer at Rocketdyne, the company that built NASA?s rockets, and remarked that he was told that the chances of going to the moon and back safely was close to zero percent. There were way too many obstacles that could not be overcome back then, and even today.
Thus, it makes sense that rather than send three men to their deaths in space for the world to see, which would have been disastrous for them, it was better for them to fake it. After all, NASA had invested too much, did not want it to be all for nothing, and needed a reason to continue procuring funding and public support of their programs. Plus, they knew that the American people needed something to be proud of amidst the turmoil of the time with the Vietnam War, civil unrest, race riots, multiple assassinations of loved leaders (JFK, RFK, MLK) and the Cold War.
Socrates in Plato's ?The Republic? said that the state must concoct fables and myths because people need them as inspiration to boost morale. So that's what our elites do.
The director of NASA, James Webb, quit just days before the Apollo Program began, which is very suspicious. If you were the NASA director, would you quit just before the biggest moment of your career ? unless of course something was going on that you didn't like and didn't want to be a part of. Gotta make you wonder.
A year before the Apollo Moon Landings, after a series of failures and disasters, the Apollo program was in shambles. NASA pretty much gave up and said that they weren't going to make it to the moon after all. Then suddenly a year later, viola! They get there with no problem? What the blazes? Is that conspicuous or what? It's very possible that they decided that rather than admit total failure, or letting the world see 3 of their astronauts die while trying to get to the moon in vain, they decided to fake it.
Further, during the space race, the Soviet Union was ahead of the US. They were the first to send a man into space, and theoretically should have been the first to reach the moon. But they gave up after realizing that it was just not possible to make it to the moon. So then what are the odds that NASA suddenly achieved it ahead of them for no reason? Not good obviously. Also, why didn't the Soviet Union land men on the moon after NASA did? Why did they let all the time and resources they invested into their space program go to waste? And moreover, why didn?t any other nation land a man on the moon since then, or even try? The whole thing smells awfully fishy and doesn't add up.
Thomas Baron, a NASA safety inspector, testified before Congress that there were many critical problems with the Apollo Space Program, which was in shambles, and may have posed a threat to ending it by convincing Congress to halt the Apollo program. A week after testifying, he was found dead in a car with his wife and stepdaughter, which had been hit by a train on the train tracks. It was ruled a suicide. But isn't that odd and too convenient? Why would a man commit suicide with his family by parking on a train track, just as he was posing a threat to NASA?s interests? Isn't that just a little too convenient? Also, the report he compiled disappeared and was never found. Gee, I wonder why. Nothing suspicious there, right? (sarcastic)
Astronomers at observatories have said that adaptive optics can be installed into the most powerful telescopes on Earth that would allow one on Earth to see the Apollo lunar landers on the surface of the Moon. Joss Hawthorn of the Anglo-Australian Observatory stated this in an interview with moon hoax researcher Jarrah White. Yet after these adaptive optics were installed, none of them have commented further on it. Why not? Have they failed to find any lunar artifacts and are afraid to speak out about it? Are they afraid of ending up in a precarious position between having to lie to keep the cover up vs. telling the truth and ruining their career?
Furthermore, the excuse given by NASA paid apologists, such as Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com, about the Hubble Telescope, the world?s most powerful, not being powerful enough to see the Apollo artifacts left on the surface of the moon, simply doesn't hold water, and sounds more like a convenient copout excuse.
During the Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference (which you can see on YouTube), the three astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, all look uncomfortable with sad reluctant looks on their faces, as if they had been forced to do something against their will. Armstrong especially looked like he wanted to cry deep down. Watch his face during his introductory statements at the beginning of it. It was very odd for three people who just survived the trip of their lives being the first ever to step on the moon. In that position, I would have been ecstatic, wouldn't you? Yet they were anything but. They act as though they were being forced to lie and go along with a hoax under enormous threat and pressure against their will. Something is definitely not right about their demeanor. It just doesn?t make sense.
You can see this for yourself. Go to YouTube and type ?Apollo 11 Press Conference?. There are multiple copies of it uploaded. Also search for ?Neil Armstrong guilt? to see various clips of Armstrong?s guilty facial expressions which further corroborate this. Here is a video still of their gloomy expressions during the Press Conference:
Moon hoax conspiracists say that the Apollo 11 astronauts were probably under immense fear and coercion after the Apollo One fire tragedy in 1967, which took the lives of three astronauts ? Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffe ? who were slated to become the first to land on the moon. This unexplained tragedy, dubbed by NASA as an ?accident?, probably sent the other astronauts an unofficial message about the consequences of dissention.
The story goes that Grissom was reputedly an outspoken critic of the Apollo program and was too honest to cooperate in a hoax. A few weeks before he was killed, he called a press conference, told reporters that the Apollo program wasn?t going to the moon for at least 10 more years, and hung a lemon over the command module. So to silence him and send a message to the others, NASA put him and his team in a command module during a pre-launch test simulation and filled it with 100 percent pure oxygen so that a fire could easily engulf them all, which it did.
NASA has never been able to logically explain the Apollo One tragedy, or prove that it was an unintended accident. The incident simply made no sense. How can a fire start by itself? And even if it did, why would the astronauts be locked inside? Shouldn?t there have been an emergency release button for them to eject out of there during emergencies, or at least to open the hatch? Why were their remains found strapped to their seats during the fire? All of this is highly suspicious and smacks of foul play.
Moon hoax expert Bart Sibrel investigated this matter, spoke on the phone to both Scott and Betty Grissom and even obtained the official 500 report investigation of the Apollo One fire. After reviewing it, he found that according to the report, cyanide was placed in the capsule just before the fire. So the astronauts were likely killed before the fire started, and that?s why they didn?t get out. And the fire was set to cover up the homicide by cyanide. In fact, just before the fire started, the three astronauts were having trouble with their communication systems, which is why Grissom?s last words were ?How are we going to go to the moon if we can?t talk between three towers?? Could their communications have been deliberately jammed so no one could hear what was going on?
All of this is highly suspicious and appears to be deliberately planned, which is very disturbing. Grissom?s son, Scott as well as his wife Betty, have investigated the incident thoroughly and are certain that the fire was deliberately set off to murder the three astronauts. Upon investigating the capsule where the Apollo One fire occurred, Scott Grissom found a metal plate shoved behind a switch which caused the fire.
Further, if NASA could not even keep three astronauts from dying on Earth in a test simulation inside a stationary capsule on the launch pad, then how could it have kept astronauts safe on lunar missions 240,000 miles away? You gotta wonder.
For an indepth analysis of the Apollo One tragedy and its discrepancies, see Jarrah White?s documentary series ?Moonfaker Apollo One? on YouTube. Also see the 1978 fictional movie ?Capricorn One? (currently available on YouTube) about how NASA staged a fake landing on Mars. In it, the astronauts under coercion are shown with reluctant expressions on their faces when they are on TV, which is eerily similar to the expressions on the Apollo 11 astronauts during the press conference. The film?s producer, Paul Lazarus, said in the Fox Special ?Did we land on the moon?? that the film?s plot could be more fact than fiction in that the Apollo moon landings could very well have been faked in that manner.
Also see the James Bond film ?Diamonds are Forever?. In one clip, he enters a television studio where a moon landing is being staged, and drives a vehicle through the wall outside. You can see it on YouTube by searching for ?James Bond moon hoax?. It?s been said that the director, Ian Flemming, may have been trying to whistleblow the Apollo moon hoax in that film indirectly.
Neil Armstrong, the first man to step on the moon, has acted in a number of bizarre and peculiar ways since Apollo which are highly suspicious:
? He has rarely given any interviews since his 1969 walk on the moon. It's like he is not proud of it for some reason. Wouldn't you be proud if you were the first man to land on the moon? It doesn't add up and doesn't make sense and is awfully suspicious. He acts like he's ashamed of the whole event. Likewise, Michael Collins also refuses to give any interviews too. This means that 2 out of the 3 astronauts on the first moon mission refuse to be interviewed about it! What could be more suspicious than that?!
? In a rare 2004 interview on 60 minutes, he said that ever since he walked on the moon, he has never dreamed about it or even thought about it since then. Isn't that disturbing and downright creepy? He acts like the event was the worst moment of his life and wants to forget it. If you were the first man to walk on the moon, would you never give it another thought afterward?
? There are no photos of Armstrong on the moon. He refused to have any taken of him. Isn't that odd? Anyone who has reached the top of Mt. Everest is glad to have their photo taken to celebrate the achievement. So how can being the first to walk on the moon make a man not want a photo of him to commemorate? It's as if he sees this whole thing as a highly negative memory rather than a positive one. Doesn't make sense at all. You can't deny that.
? In a 1994 speech at the White House, he made a cryptic remark about "breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". It was a very odd thing to say and didn't fit the context at all. What are these "protective layers" covering up the truth that he's referring to? Was he trying to tell us something?
? When Bart Sibrel confronted him and asked him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon, he refused and tried to change the subject by saying "Knowing you, that's probably not even a real Bible". That was a weird thing to say and sounded like something that someone carrying fear and guilt would say. There was no valid reason to suspect that Bart Sibrel was carrying a fake Bible, since anyone can get a real Bible.
? On video, his face shows signs of guilt. If you go to YouTube and type in "Neil Armstrong Guilt" you will see a number of them, including the 1969 Apollo 11 Press Conference one.
? When a Aron Ranen, a guy paid by the state of Ohio to make a pro-Apollo documentary went to Neil Armstrong's hometown in Ohio to try to interview those who knew him, he was met with coldness as if everyone wanted him to leave. It was very bizarre and creepy, as if everyone knew a dark secret that they were trying to cover up, like something out of a Twilight Zone episode. Why would that be?! You can see this in Aron Ranen's film "Did We Go?" available on YouTube by doing a search for his name. You can also order his film here: http://www.moonhoax.com
? He said in the 1969 Apollo 11 Press Conference that they were not able to see stars from the moon's surface. Yet every astronomer knows that you can see the stars from the moon's surface more vividly than you can on Earth. This discrepancy has never been explained. Did he screw up when he said that? Furthermore, Michael Collins, who concurred with Armstrong during the press conference that he did not see stars, later contradicted himself in his book ?Carrying the Fire?, where he said that the stars he saw were very bright.
? Oddly, Armstrong and Aldrin have both stated that their memory seems to go blank when they try to remember what it was like being on the moon. This is very strange indeed. Some theorize that these astronauts may have been subject to covert mind control and hypnosis techniques similar to that of the CIA?s MK-ULTRA. If that?s so, then they may genuinely think that they?ve gone to the moon after all.
? Why can you hear the astronauts voices as the lunar lander descended? Its roaring thrusters at high decibels should have made their voices inaudible.
? The video footage was very grainy and low quality. Why use such bad quality video for the most historic event of the 20th century? Unless of course, you have something to hide. NASA claims that the footage was grainy because it was shot off a TV screen. But why? Why not stream the video to the public directly? Also, why didn't Apollo 11 use color video?
? How did the small LEM, which is about the size of a car or two, have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and back? If it glided through non-resistant gravity, then how did they navigate it so accurately, with computers having the capability of a pocket calculator only? If they navigated it manually, then wouldn't the slightest degree off have gotten them lost?
? NASA's chief scientist Wernher Von Braun said in his book ?Conquest of the Moon? that a rocket ship the size of the Empire State Building would have been required to get to the moon and back, yet the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo astronauts were a lot smaller than that.
? How did the Apollo 17 astronauts launch off from the surface of the moon in the ascent module, while being filmed at the same time? Who was outside panning the camera up as it ascended? And how was that film retrieved and sent back to Earth? If the next Apollo mission retrieved it, then why wasn't it damaged from the extreme temperatures (250F) on the moon? Further, why was there no jet exhaust gas emanating from it when it took off?
? How is it that the LEM was unstable in Earth's atmosphere and kept crashing to the ground during tests, yet worked flawlessly on the moon's surface? You can see video footage of it crashing on Earth just before Neil Armstrong ejects to safety.
? How come NASA's technical drawings show a blast crater underneath the LEM, yet the moon landing photos show no such crater? Did they goof up during the production?
? How is it that the LEM on display and in pictures looks like a piece of crap made of tin foil and cardboard, totally incapable of traveling even on the Earth? Yet we are supposed to believe that it got to the moon safely and was reliable? Yeah right. See here:
? Why does a ?C? appear on one moon rock and another ?C? can be seen on the ground below it? Could this have been a marker designating the placement of a stage prop in a movie studio? Further, why was it airbrushed out by NASA in later versions of this photo? If the two C?s in the image were not made by humans, why airbrush it out? What?s there to hide? See Jarrah White?s YouTube video ?Moonfaker Rocks and Crocks?.
The laser reflectors left on the moon's surface, which are touted by Apollo believers are hard evidence of the Apollo Moon Landings, are not. First, lasers were already being bounced off the moon's surface before the Apollo landings were alleged to take place. The Dec 1966 issue of National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT were doing just that. In fact, radio waves were being bounced off the moon as early as the 1950's. Here is a screen shot of the article in that issue describing it: (for some reason, I am not able to embed it below)
Second, laser reflectors were dropped on the moon by unmanned probes by both the US and Soviet Union. Here are two examples of Soviet unmanned probes leaving laser reflectors, as described by Wikipedia:
Thus this argument is not hard evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo Moon Landings. For more info about the laser reflectors, see Jarrah White's FAQ: http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html and his YouTube videos entitled ?Moonfaker laser reflectors?.
The alleged moon rocks are not proof of the Apollo missions, as Apollo believers claim. First, meteorites from the moon have been found in Antarctica, where Dr. Wernher Von Braun went before the Apollo missions. So he could have possibly collected them for NASA, which then could have been passed off as moon rocks. Second, even if the moon rocks we have are really from the moon, we can't rule out that they were collected and retrieved by unmanned probes.
Third, the moon's chemical composition has been found to be not all that different from the Earth?s. In fact, their similarity has led scientists to formulate their "giant impact theory" (aka "whack theory") of how the moon was created out of a planetary or asteroid collision with the Earth. So scientists (or geologists) can't have it both ways. They can't say that the moon rocks are so similar to the Earth's that the moon must have come out of the Earth, while at the same time claim that the moon rocks must have genuinely come from the moon because their chemical composition is distinctly different from that of the Earth. They can't have it both ways by waffling like that. (See the Moonfaker FAQ below and Jarrah White?s YouTube video series about the moon rocks by searching for ?Moonfaker moon rocks?.)
Further, when the European Space Agency?s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals it kicked up were different from that of the Apollo moon rocks.
Also, since NASA does not allow any scientist who wants to examine their moon rocks to just come and take them, how can there be much independent verification of them?
In fact, the moon rock that the Armstrong and Aldrin gave to the Dutch Prime Minister turned out to be a piece of petrified wood. See these news articles about that:
This incident has never been explained. Why would the Apollo astronauts give a fake moon rock to Holland? Or was it somehow switched in Holland? And if the moon rocks are fake, what does that say about the whole mission?
Moon hoax researcher and filmmaker Jarrah White asked Buzz Aldrin about the fake moon rock sent to Holland, but Aldrin had no explanation except that maybe they were switched. You can see this on YouTube by searching for ?Jarrah White meets Buzz Aldrin?.
Jarrah White?s Moonfaker FAQ goes into more scientific detail about the alleged Apollo moon rocks:
?Q: How were the moon rocks faked?
A: Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [Fig-4]. The same is true for the mineralogy: ?The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils (Figure 5). The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts.? Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth (DaG 872 being a good example [Fig-5, 6]).
The three groups of rock are as identical as three of a kind.
Additionally, some scientists such as John O?Keefe have also noticed similarities between lunar glasses and tektites, leading to theories that tektites are lunar in origin, not terrestrial13 (Table 3 & 4).
Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth. All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet had a eucritic composition14.
Clearly, NASA?s Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks. Things like ?zap pits? (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind penetrates a few millimetres into the rock? not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim. And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock, these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent body.
Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?
A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites are the same as NASA?s samples. Yet when the European Space Agency?s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.
Likewise, although most ?lunar meteorites? can be closely matched with Eucrites, there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being ?distinct from? or ?unlike any basalt from Apollo or Luna? ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.
Further evidence that the samples are faked can be found even without comparing them to the real stuff. Contrary to what NASA and propagandists claim, the rocks contain water within the same ranges as their terrestrial cousins [Fig-11, 12]. * Any water deposited in the equatorial region of moon by comets or solar wind, or any water not vaporised by the alleged giant impact, should have been vaporised in the vacuum of space and >100C daylight temperatures. They also contain water or air induced minerals and secondary oxides that would only have been present if the samples were exposed to an atmosphere [Fig-13]. These include ferric iron oxides [Fig-14]. Sample 66095 is only one notorious example of such oxidation. The majority of Apollo 16 rocks also contain abundant rust. Other samples show ferric iron to total iron ratios that are comparable to terrestrial rocks that underwent two days of heat treatment in evacuated quartz tubes [Fig-15]. Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it ? attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination!
* The range for water in terrestrial basalts is between 150-10,000ppm (see 13 & 15), Fig-11 & Fig-12 together clearly illustrate water contents for lunar rocks within those ranges. Alberto Saal recently confirmed the presence of around 46ppm of water in lunar glass spherules, and estimated that they contain contents within the terrestrial rane of 240-750ppm.?
The argument that ham radio operators were tracking the Apollo missions all the way to the moon and back isn't what it seems either. These independent trackers have admitted that they were not able to track them all the way. Most of them were only able to receive whatever NASA transmitted to them anyway. And further, they did not have the technical capability to track the Apollo craft all the way out for 240,000 miles. For more on this, see Jarrah White's YouTube video series ?Moonfaker Apollo Ham Sandwich?.
MoonMovie.com?s FAQ on this issue explains:
?What about tracking the Apollo spacecraft?
No individual or group, other than the U.S. Government, can attest to having tracked the Apollo spacecrafts all the way to the moon and back. Apollo claims to have communicated on radio frequencies not allocated to radio hams. Was this done simply for national security, or to totally minimize any independent verification by a curious public? At best, the few radio hams who claim to have picked up Apollo transmissions can only attest to having picked up signals whilst the craft was on or near the moon, and if they were lucky a handful of signals on the return trip home ? but nothing that can't be pulled off with an unmanned craft and in some cases "moon relay (bounce)".
One such Ham operator, Paul Wilson, was quoted to saying: ?The moon is always in view of ...NASA's primary tracking stations... , but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!? If that weren't enough, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively policed what these individuals could and could not reveal to the public. ?Important! FCC regulations prohibit disclosure of the content of communications not intended for the public. Thus, it is illegal to inform the press or any other third party of the content of any information directly received from the Apollo communications link.? How can radio hams be regarded as independent verification when the FFC restricts what little of their data they can release to the public??
The LRO (Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter) photographs showing pixels and dots which NASA claim are of the Apollo lander, rover and tracks, and hailed by Apollo believers as proof of the Apollo Moon Landings, are not proof of anything. Anyone can fake a few dots and lines in an image. Come on now. To cite that as proof is a desperate grasp at straws.
Take a look at a few of the LRO images yourself. Here are some links to them:
Gee I guess that?s all the proof I need to believe that the Apollo missions were real (sarcastic). Not! Come on now. Do you honestly see any ?proof? in the images above? Anyone can draw grey lines, even with a pencil, or create dots and pixels on an image using even the cheapest photo editing program. You can even do it in the free Paint program that comes with Microsoft Windows.
Furthermore, since NASA has already faked so many Apollo moon photos (as conclusively shown earlier), why wouldn?t it hesitate to fake a few dots and pixels in the LRO images, which anyone with a computer could do? If someone has engaged in mass fraud and hoaxes before, the likelihood of them doing it again is very high of course.
For a detailed meticulous point by point analysis of them, see Jarrah White's YouTube video series called ?Moonfaker LRO?. Here is some of his analysis on the LRO images on his FAQ page:
?Q: What about the Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter photographs which show the lander, rover and tracks?
A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them. In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].
There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by NASA?s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA?s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images showed what they described as a bright ?halo? within a 150metre radius around the landing site. This ?halo? was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the ?halo? was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45]. The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the ?artefacts? were added into the LRO image.
Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it. Why encrypt a picture of something that isn?t secret? NASA then holds on to the images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For some reason NASA doesn?t want any 3rd party to view a live transmission.
Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail ? assuming that it?s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo?s authenticity.?
Believe it or not, NASA officially claims to have lost the Apollo telemetry tapes too, which were contained in 700 boxes. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
When Ron Howard wanted to make an IMAX film about going to the moon, he asked NASA for the original telemetry tapes so that he could make high quality versions of them for the IMAX screen. That?s when NASA claimed to have lost them. After an alleged search, NASA announced that they had been erased.
How could NASA lose 700 boxes of important tapes of mankind?s greatest alleged achievement? It?s more likely a lie or excuse. Anyone can tell you that something is "lost" if they don't want you to see it. Obviously, they didn?t want to people seeing that footage at high resolution on a big screen, because fakery would have been more visible.
Apollo defenders claim that this is due to government incompetence (since to them, the most unlikely explanation is better than accepting any conspiracy or cover up). However, if they were that incompetent, then how could they have achieved the extraordinary difficult task of going to the moon? They can?t have it both ways.
What reason is there to believe that we went to the moon anyway? If you think about it, there?s simply no way at all that you can know if the moon landings were real, unless you?ve been there yourself. If you believe it, you are taking it on FAITH. Yet in spite of this, people treat this issue like a sacred religion that is taboo to question. It?s purely emotional and faith-based, not logical.
The fact is, we really don't have any real proof that we went to the moon, but we do have a lot of evidence to the contrary, as given above. There is no independent corroboration of it other than from NASA. All the alleged evidence by NASA has been refuted and shown to not be proof after all. The only reason people believe it is because they were told to believe it, and because everyone else believes it, and of course due to patriotic pride of America being the first to land a man on the moon. But of course, authority does not equal truth, and neither do official announcements, so this is not a reason to believe. Nothing that Apollo defenders bring up stands up under scrutiny, as we've seen. Thus, the reasons for believing in the Apollo missions are emotional, not logical. Without real evidence that stands up to scrutiny, belief in the moon landings becomes a religious faith,? not one based on evidence, facts or logic.
See the FAQ pages linked after the conclusion section for answers to more arguments that Apollo believers commonly bring up. Below, I will go over a few of the common questions and objections that people often bring up.
Now in case you are wondering the typical newbie question: "The Apollo program involved 400,000 people. How could so many people be in on a conspiracy? Wouldn't someone have talked or blown the whistle?" The answer to that is simple, and addressed in many moon hoax FAQ pages (see conclusion section for a list). I will put the answer in my own words:
First, not a lot of people needed to be in on it, only a few at the top. Most people working for any large organization do not know all the agendas and secrets that are going on. The whole project was very compartmentalized. Everyone was on a need to know basis, and assigned to do a specialized task. The parts and pieces they were working on could have been used for any classified project beyond their knowing. Only the few at the top would see the big picture and be privy to what's going on.
Second, large numbers of people can keep a secret. For example, the Manhattan Project that developed the Atomic Bomb involved over 100,000 people who all kept it a secret before it was publicized. And the Secret Soviet Space program, which has now been declassified, involved thousands of people who all kept it a secret as well. And as you might know, the CIA and NSA contain thousands of operatives and staff who all keep their agency's activities a secret. Large numbers of people can be controlled by fear of imprisonment, death, and guilt for betraying their associates. History has proven this, so it is possible.
Even groups of civilians have been known to lie in collusion. For example, in 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America", who was the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time. It was later uncovered that the contestant had been receiving the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, during a grand jury investigation, 120 contestants and staff even swore on the Bible that the show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known that they all lied. So, if all these people were willing to lie to cover up something as simple as a game show, then it is plausible that people would do the same under government orders, alleged interests of national security, threat of punishment, helping to cover for their associates, or in the interests of their career and income.
One of the keys to this conspiracy is that NASA had complete control over the televised coverage feed. There was no independent corroboration of it. The people at Mission Control could only see what was on their screens, and as you know, anything can be produced on a computer screen ? including a pre-recorded simulation of the mission. In fact, in the documentary ?Failure Is Not An Option?, Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz was quoted as saying: ?The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.? In other words, the personnel at Mission Control cannot tell the difference between a simulation and real mission! That's quite a bold and revealing statement coming from the man in charge of Mission Control. And it means that pulling off a moon hoax conspiracy would be a lot easier than you might think, since all they'd have to do is get the personnel at Mission Control to think the simulation they saw on the screen was the real thing, which the director himself inadvertently admitted was quite easy.
Note: Allegedly, James Irwin, the Apollo 15 astronaut, was going to confess to Bill Kaysing, author of "We Never Went to the Moon", that the moon landings were faked. According to Kaysing, Irwin called him out of the blue and said that he had just become a born again Christian and wanted to talk to him in person about his moon hoax book. But unfortunately, Irwin suddenly died of a heart attack before he could meet with Kaysing.
The lesson here is that if Irwin was somehow ?silenced? before he could confess, then whistleblowers need to know that before they ?blow the whistle? on a government conspiracy or hoax, they should not use the phone to tip off their intentions, in case their phones are tapped or they are being watched and monitored.?
You might also be wondering why more scientists don't speak up about the moon hoax if it's so obvious. Well it's simple. First, most people (including scientists) don't question things that they are told by their establishment. They are not objective toward events that are considered "established facts" and thus will merely take them on faith, similar to how religious people believe in their dogmas without objectivity. They are biased and just don't think or question what they are told. Most people are like that. Second, in this world, one cannot just "speak out" against established dogma without consequences. This is especially true if you are employed or receive funding, like career scientists do. Every scientist knows deep down that if they stray from the accepted established views, that their careers will be in jeopardy. Politicians and reporters/journalists in the mainstream media also know that they must never endorse any "conspiracy theories" (no matter what their personal beliefs actually are) but oppose them publicly, otherwise the "power network" that runs the country will not let them continue on in their careers. Do the research and find out what happens to dissidents in science or the media, and you will understand why. This also explains of course, why retired people tend to speak out more than employed people do (especially those employed in government-related occupations) ? they no longer have a job or career to lose.
Moreover, most people have a psychological need to be accepted by others, especially in their field, so they follow the herd and adopt their views. Not many people can afford to be dissidents and speak their mind without fear of consequences. That's the reality of the world we live in. This is why misfits are more likely to believe in conspiracies than conformists are. It's because misfits don't care what others think of them, have less of a need to be accepted by the crowd, and so will place truth and independent freethought above conformity and acceptance. Thus they are more liberated to think freely.
Besides, most scientists have probably not investigated the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings anyway. The belief in this event is so pridefully ingrained in our culture that it isn?t even questioned. Even if some scientists did have doubts about it, they would not dare verbalize them lest they be ostracized as lunatics and jeopardize their careers. Remember also that people wear two masks ? one they show the world and the one that is their true self. Thus, there are likely many closet believers in conspiracies that do not dare go public with them for fear of the consequences.
Remember also that back in the 60?s and 70?s, critical thinking was not as widespread as it is now. Life was simpler and people believed what they were told without thinking about it. There was no free flow of information on the internet as there is today. So people were not privy to alternative viewpoints. The only source of information on conspiracies was in books. But of course, most people didn?t read them (and still don?t). Most people prefer newspapers, magazines and TV news, so if it's not covered there, they didn?t know about it. Nowadays however, more and more people are beginning to believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoaxed event, according to polls by the major media.
Another question commonly asked is: ?Why didn?t the Russians call us out on the Apollo Moon Hoax?? That?s a very good question. Based on my research, here is the explanation:
First, how do you know that the Russians fell for it? Did you read Russian newspapers in 1969? Remember that you only know what the US media told you about this, so if they don?t tell you that the Russians thought it was a hoax, then you won?t know about it. Most whistleblowers of the JFK assassination and 9/11 are ignored by the mainstream media, even when they have earth shattering evidence that will expose a conspiracy; the US media just don?t want to hear about it.
According to a poll by the Russian Public Opinion Fund, 28 percent of Russians surveyed did not believe that American astronauts landed on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups. That?s a sizeable percentage. You can see a press release about it in Russian here: http://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/sci_sci/kosmos/of001605
Second, remember that you do not know what really goes on between two countries. All you know is what you hear in the media. The truth is, most diplomatic negotiations between nations is done behind closed doors and is not reported to the public. This means that there are many secret deals between nations that go on all the time that you don?t know about, including between the US and Russia. Such deals may include covering each other?s asses, not exposing each other?s crimes in exchange for favors, etc.
Bart Sibrel explained that if the Soviets knew about the moon hoax, they would use it as a bargaining chip. (see his interviews linked below) Rather than expose the US, which would gain them nothing, they would more likely use it to blackmail the US to gain advantages or favors. Plus, if they accused NASA of fraud, then the US may expose dirty secrets of the Soviets in return, so that it would turn into a pissing match. The point is, you simply don?t know the true relation between the US and the Soviets. The whole space race could have been a public charade, for all you know. Or the US and Russia could have been ?partners in crime?. Also, at the time, Russia depended on America for wheat, which they got at below market prices, so they needed to maintain a good trading relationship.
If you want to know what the Russians really thought of going to the moon, the fact that they gave up and said it was not technologically possible, even though they were ahead of us in the space race, speaks for itself. According to the book ?Journey To Tranquility? in 1963 Sir Bernard Lovell was given a tour of Soviet observatories and space facilities. He was then instructed by the Soviets to pass on the following message to NASA deputy administrator Hugh Dryden: ?The Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation.?
Well I hope I've convinced you that I'm not crazy after all. :) Hopefully, you can see that the total logical arguments, reasons and facts above cumulatively constitute a valid case to doubt the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings. Taken separately, each one may raise an eyebrow, but taken all together they constitute a strong case that either:
A. The moon landings were a hoax and we never went there.
B. We did go to the moon but there is a dark secret surrounding it that caused us not to go back and led to the faking of at least some of the videos and photos of the moon.
All the evidence, fake photos, logic and common sense, point to the hoax explanation. On the other hand, the argument that we did go to the moon is scanty, shady, nonsensical, and mostly based on religious faith and pride rather than anything provable. Thus the weight of the evidence and data lean more heavily on the hoax side. On a balance of scales, the evidence for the moon hoax would win by a landslide.
What?s more, the fact that NASA refuses to answer many of the questions above, acting as if it had something to hide, further confirms suspicions about it. If it had no secrets, then why all the secrecy and avoidance of critical questions? This is why NASA critics, including the New York Times, have dubbed it as ?Never A Straight Answer?.
Now I'm not saying that I have all the answers. All I'm saying is that the reasons above constitute a legitimate basis for suspicion and skepticism of the authenticity of the Apollo Moon Landings. Thus, the Moon Hoax believers are not as crazy as you might think, since the reasons for skepticism are valid. Whatever the case, we must remember to not stop questioning authority, for authority does not equal truth, and in order to be free, we must develop a thinking mind.
Although only a minority believe that the Apollo missions were a hoax, that number is growing, due to the rise of freethinking and free flow of information on the internet, whereas in previous generations, people simply believed whatever they were told. This means that the Apollo defenders have not been successful in attempting to squash the moon landing hoax arguments, which is not surprising, since after all, they cannot win against the truth.
What?s very telling is that there tends to be a direct correlation between the amount of time one researches this assassination, and the tendency for that person to conclude that there was a conspiracy and cover up behind the event and that we were lied to. This speaks volumes.
As more people learn to think for themselves, it makes sense why NASA would fake the moon landings. Rather than send three men to their deaths in space for the world to see, which would have been disastrous for them, it was better for them to fake it. After all, NASA had invested too much, did not want it to be all for nothing, and needed a reason to continue procuring funding and public support of their programs. Plus, they knew that the American people needed something to be proud of amidst the turmoil of the time with the Vietnam War, civil unrest, race riots, multiple assassinations of beloved leaders (President Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) and the Cold War.
The great philosopher Socrates in Plato's ?The Republic? said that the state must concoct fables and myths because people need them as inspiration to boost morale. So that's what our elites do. And it works in that most people are convinced. We must wake up as a nation and be ready to embrace the truth rather than lies. Otherwise, we will never be truly free.
Now, you may be wondering why this issue matters, or what difference it makes whether the Apollo Moon Landings were real or not. Well moon hoax expert Bart Sibrel explains why in this informative interview with Jim Fetzer: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/bart-sibrel.html
To paraphrase what he said: ?If you steal a million dollars and get away with it, what will happen next time? You will steal another million dollars or maybe more right? Well that?s the case with our government. They lied about going to the moon, and if they get away with it, they will continue to concoct bigger lies. But if the moon hoax is exposed, then they cannot get away with such grandiose lies anymore. People will begin holding their government accountable. That?s when real reform will occur. And that?s why exposing this moon hoax is so important.?
Anyhow, I highly recommend listening to the interview with Sibrel above. It?s very informative and Sibrel is an eloquent speaker who makes a lot of sense.
We must put aside our patriotic pride in America's accomplishments in the name of truth. Patriotic pride is fallacious and clouds your judgment like religion does. Look at what great thinkers and writers have said about the foolishness of patriotic pride:
?Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.? ? George Bernard Shaw
?Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, and conscience, and a slavish enthralment to those in power.? ? Leo Tolstoy
So don't attach your ego to patriotism. Instead, find something more substantive and meaningful to identify with. If you think about it, you don't need to believe in the Apollo Missions. It has no real benefit to humanity and is a mere case of false pride. Besides, America has many other accomplishments to be proud of.
Now, some in the UFO research community have argued that mankind did go to the moon, but found alien artifacts there, or something else they could not show the public, and so had to fake the videos and photos. This is often used as a ?backup explanation? to explain the Apollo fakeries, yet still maintain the pride of America having made it to the moon. Well, I guess anything's possible, and I do have an open mind of course. However, the problem with this theory is that first, there is no real proof that we went to the moon. And second, the images these alien moon theorists show as evidence, consist of ambiguous blurry spots, patches and lines which could be anything and are inconclusive. Many of the alleged "artificial structures" on the moon look like structures I've seen in the desert rock canyons of the American Southwest, which also contain lines and various geometric shapes. Besides, most of their images were taken in orbit by unmanned satellites. So we can't say much either way about this theory at this point.
Anyhow, thanks for reading this section. I hope I've given you some interesting or valid points to consider that will incite you to do more research. I've provided some recommended films, links and books to learn more below.
Discuss the arguments and evidence in this report in the forum at:
To send questions and comments to me, use my contact form at: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/contact.php
http://www.moonfaker.com (Jarrah White's website)
Answers to FAQ's about the Moon Hoax:
Interviews and audio discussions:
Recommended videos: (most are available on YouTube, Google Video or Vimeo)
(Note: I've decided not to post YouTube links since YouTube constantly takes down videos, causing uploaders to re-upload them which changes the URL's. So any links I post may become outdated. Instead, just do a search for them on YouTube for the current version.)
? ?Fox Special: Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon?? ? An exciting one hour summary of the evidence for the Moon Hoax produced by Fox TV.
? ?What Happened on the Moon?? ? At 3+ hours, the best analysis of the Apollo image fakery by experts, very informative and extensive.
? ?Apollo Zero? ? A great easy to understand summary of the reasons why the Apollo Moon Missions was probably a hoax.
? ?Moonfaker? ? Video series by Jarrah White, the leading expert in the Moon Hoax arguments, available on his YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/WhiteJarrah
? ?A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon? ? By Bart Sibrel, the infamous moon hoax researchers who was punched by astronaut Buzz Aldrin. Shows the smoking gun footage of Apollo 11 faking a shot of being halfway to the moon.
? ?Kubrick's Odyssey? ? Shows how director Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings using front screen projection, and left messages and clues in his film "The Shining?. Sounds crazy at first, but becomes convincing after you see the messages.
? ?The Shining Code? ? Ssame as above but gets even deeper.
? ?Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers? by Mary Bennett, David Percy
? ?We Never Went to the Moon? by Bill Kaysing
? ?NASA Mooned America? by Ralph Rene
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ? Edmund Burke
This next conspiracy, the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, is far more accepted by the majority of Americans and does not carry as much ridicule as the previous one does. But that doesn't stop propagandist authors like Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi, John McAdams (internet propagandist) and the mainstream media from ridiculing it, betraying the truth, and shaming the legacy of JFK by trying to defend the Warren Commission's fraudulent lone nut story, which has been discredited and disproven many times over.
There is simply too much voluminous evidence pointing to a conspiracy in the form of physical forensic evidence, film, documentation, eyewitness testimonies, confessions and whistleblowers, cover up attempts, and larger implications, that only those with an agenda or deep bias, delusion or vested interest would deny them. In freethinking intellectual circles, no one believes that Oswald acted alone. That should tell you something. Let?s go over the evidence and you will understand why.
Let's start with the most conclusive hard evidence ? the Zapruder film. This is the best film we have available of the assassination, which the US government didn't want the American people to see, and was only made public by the subpoena of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, the only man to ever try someone for the Kennedy assassination. In it, anyone can see without a doubt that after the fatal head shot, JFK's head moved to the BACK and LEFT. This can only be if the shot came from the front and to the right, not from the rear like the Warren Commission claimed. This is indisputable conclusive evidence and a smoking gun.
See the Zapruder film here:
Here are short gif clips of the fatal head shot: (Warning: These are graphic and disturbing, so I won?t embed them here, but you can see them at the links below.)
Further, the fact that Jacqueline Kennedy immediately got up after the fatal head shot to retrieve a piece of her husband?s head that flew off into the back of the limo (which can be seen in the Zapruder film) further demonstrates that the shot came from the front. Otherwise, if it had come from the rear, then the head piece would have been blown to the front.
Yet this conclusive proof doesn't stop lone nut propagandists from denying it, since propaganda is their job rather than truth. Peter Jennings, in an ABC special called "Beyond Conspiracy" that tried to support the "Oswald did it alone" claim, said that the way the head moved after the fatal shot says nothing about where the bullet came from (though he was not qualified to make such a statement, being the mere talking puppet that he was).
And Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed" tried to make the ridiculous argument that a bullet hitting an object the size of a head, causes a ricochet which moves the head/object TOWARD the shooter rather than away from it! If that isn't a load of crap, then I don't know what is! Posner has a deceptive way of making absurd claims sound scientific and credible to try to fool people. However, in reality, anyone who's fired a rifle can tell you that this argument is ludicrous and an insult to your intelligence. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit a conclusive smoking gun. Pretty pathetic.
By the way, you can bet your bottom that if the Zapruder film had shown JFK's head move forward after the fatal head shot, Posner would have taken that as evidence that the shot came from behind just the same, since he is clearly agenda-driven, not truth-driven.
Some in the assassination research community say that the Zapruder film has been altered from its original version. They claim to have spotted signs of alterations, edits and removals of frames. This is a highly technical issue, and beyond the scope of this layman?s guide, so I won?t get into it. If you are interested in researching it though, see these articles:
Here is another smoking gun ? the faked autopsy photos of JFK's head wounds. 100 percent of the doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital that examined JFK's body said that there was a massive exit wound in the back of the head. You can see video clips of them testifying to this in JFK assassination documentaries, such as "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" by the History Channel, "Evidence of Revision" and "JFK: The Case for Conspiracy" by Robert Groden. Here is a list of some of the witnesses who examined Kennedy?s body: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm
Yet the official autopsy photos show no exit wound in the back of the head. This can only mean that they were faked or altered. So we have to ask: If the government has nothing to hide, then why did they fake the autopsy photos? Use your common sense here. Even a child can see the obvious here. Truth does not employ deception.
These doctors were also threatened and told that if they spoke out about what they saw, that their careers would be over. If there was no conspiracy, then why the threats? Truth does not need threats to protect it from exposure.
More info on the autopsy and rear exit wound:
Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged assassination feat according to the Warren Commission is extremely implausible, not replicable, and and not credible on multiple counts. First, it is extremely improbable for Oswald to have fired three shots within 6 - 8 seconds from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which takes 2.3 seconds to reload after each shot. He would have had no time to aim and been the luckiest shot in the world. This is especially the case since at the time of the first two shots, the view of the motorcade from the Texas school depository sixth floor window would have been blocked by the big oak tree that was there at the time, based on the positioning derived from the Zapruder film. So even if he could fire three shots in 6 - 8 seconds, there would have been no time to aim, and his view for the first two shots would have been obscurred by a huge oak tree.
Furthermore, without time to aim and given the distance and size of the President's head, Oswald would have had to have been the luckiest shot in the world to hit it without aiming. Even an ace marksman would need many tries before he would be able to hit an object the size of a head from that far back. Yet Oswald only needed one try? Yeah right. It's simply too implausible and incredible. You'd have to believe that angels were helping him pull off such a miraculous feat. (Should we start claiming that angels wanted to kill JFK too?)
What's even more absurd is the "single bullet theory" aka "the magic bullet" that the Warren Commission concocted (with Arlen Specter as the mastermind) to try to explain the multiple wounds on President Kennedy and Governor Connally with just one bullet, which they had to do lest they be forced to conclude that there was a second gunman and thus a conspiracy, which was against their "orders" and mission of course. But what they came up with was absurd and not even believable by a child. For more on that, see the section in this report on the Single Bullet Theory under the Warren Commission chapter.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, a fatal head shot from behind would NOT cause the head to move back and to the left, as seen in the Zapruder film. Only a frontal shot would produce that effect. This is elementary physics.
In fact, all attempts at replicating Oswald's implausible alleged feat have failed. The FBI conducted a number of tests after the assassination, all of which failed. Now, a few media sponsored tests claim to have succeeded, such as the one by the Discovery Channel (which you can find on YouTube). However, that test was fatally flawed, because:
a) The shooters were not able to replicate the head moving backward, as seen in the Zapruder film.
b) The Presidential limo was a moving target, while their test involved a stationary target.
c) The first two shots would have been obscurred by an oak tree, which was not present during the test simulation.
d) Though it was possible to hit the head from that far back, it was not easy for even an experienced marksman and may require several attempts, whereas Oswald would have only had one try.
Thus, these shooters had not truly replicated Oswald's alleged feat. The conditions were not the same and they did not achieve the same result shown in the Zapruder film. Nevertheless, the Discovery Channel was quick to declare success, obviously because their objective was to refute the conspiracy, and so they will use any excuse they can get.
In addition, 90 seconds after the fatal head shot on JFK, Oswald was seen sitting in the book depository lunch room on the second floor calmly drinking a coke. This is not a probable reaction of a man who just assassinated a President 90 seconds earlier. He was not even out of breath after allegedly running down four flights of stairs from the sixth floor to the second floor.
For more info on Oswald's alleged absurd three shot miracle:
The evidence against Oswald isn't very strong and appears planted. For instance, his fingerprints don't appear on the rifle that was allegedly found at the Texas School Book Depository until AFTER he was killed by Jack Ruby. The curator at the morgue reported that FBI and CIA agents had come to examine Oswalds body for some unknown reason. (Gee I wonder why, could it have been to obtain his fingerprints and plant them on the rifle perhaps?) For more details, see the History Channel series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".
It's also never been explained why the Dallas police were looking for Oswald on the day of the assassination. How did they know what he looked like? Who told them to arrest him and why? How did they know he would go to the Texas theater? Are the Dallas police psychic, or did whoever who wanted to frame and ambush Oswald there, inform them?
Why has this never been explained? It also seems that on day one, it was already decided who the assassin was, as conspiracy researcher Mark Lane said in the title of his book and documentary "Rush to Judgment". The police commissioner said that they had their man and were 100 percent certain that he did it. How could they be so certain after a few hours with no investigation or trial? It doesn't make sense. It looks like the patsy was chosen in advance.
More info on the fraudulent case against Oswald:
The shooting of Officer Tippit made no sense either. There was no plausible reason for Tippit to stop Oswald. All he was allegedly given was a broad description of a young white male, 5ft10 and slender, which could have fit any guy in the area. There was no reason for Oswald to shoot Tippit either. Testimonies from witnesses at the scene contain too many ambiguities and discrepancies, as if some obfuscation were at work. See this analysis:
Even if it could somehow be proven that Oswald was in on it, and was part of the assassination plot, it would still be virtually 100 percent impossible to prove that he did it alone and acted on his own, since the evidence and proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming and voluminous.
A man named James Files has confessed to being the shooter on the grassy knoll that fired the fatal head shot to JFK. Although his claims are suspect, he has revealed information that only an insider could know which could not have been learned from any books on the subject. You can read more about his testimony at: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com
In another development, a photo taken by Ike Altgens of President Kennedy while shots were being fired at him, showed a person standing in the doorway that resembled Lee Oswald. This discovery has huge significance because if it turns out to be Oswald, then it would exonerate him from being a shooter in the assassination, since he could not have been in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository firing the shots, as the Warren Commission alleged. See the photo of the doorman below:
(alleged Oswald in the doorway in the top left corner)
Close up of the alleged Oswald in the doorway:
JFK assassination research expert Professor Jim Fetzer, author of "Murder in Dealey Plaza", and others have done extensive analysis into this, comparing the features of the doorman guy with Oswald. They believe that they have a strong case for the doorway man being Oswald based on multiple similarities in clothing and facial features. You can read their articles and photo comparison analysis at the links below:
The Oswald Innocence Campaign, chaired by Jim Fetzer, also has an extensive analysis and comparison of the doorman photo to Oswald on their website: http://www.oswald-innocent.com
As further corroboration, Professor Fetzer learned in 2011 that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the Dallas Homicide Detective who questioned Lee Oswald, which had been released in 2007. Those notes reported that Oswald told Detective Fritz that he had been ? during the assassination. For more info on this, see the links above.
By the way, the fingerprints of Malcolm Wallace, a hitman who killed a number of people for Lyndon Johnson, were found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Depository on boxes at the crime scene where Oswald was accused of having shot President Kennedy from. Nathan Darby, America's foremost and most experienced expert on fingerprint examination, said that the match was a 100 percent certainty. In spite of this, the FBI rejected this critical piece of hard evidence. Does that tell you that the FBI is interested in truth?
For more info on this see here: http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/
Also see episode 9 of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" by the History Channel, available on YouTube.
At least 50 witnesses in Dallas said that they heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. This is on record. See here: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
A number of witnesses also said that they saw mysterious men running from the grassy knoll after the assassination, and others report that many strange men posing as Secret Service agents were in the area keeping people out of the grassy knoll area (perhaps so the backup shooters could do their job without being seen?).
Yet, lone nut propagandists like Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed" claim that they don't exist, and that there were only a few witnesses who claimed this and none of them were credible. This type of hand waving and denial of evidence has been the tendency of lone nut propagandists like Posner. The rule they seem to operate by is "If the facts don't fit the theory, then reject the facts." But in reality, denying a mountain of evidence with words, or simply saying "The evidence doesn't exist" does not change the facts, anymore than me saying that the ocean does not exist makes it so.
Another obvious clear sign of a conspiracy was the overt mass cover up attempt. Simple logic says that if there were nothing to hide, then there would be nothing to cover up. But the FBI and CIA withheld critical info from the Warren Commission, which several members reported, including Gerald Ford before he died. J. Edgar Hoover used his powers as FBI director to thwart the investigation so that only one conclusion was allowed, the lone nut one, to deflect blame on the real perpetrators. After the assassination, JFK's body was taken from doctors and transferred to a military hospital (so they could alter and fake anything they wanted to of course). And of course, many witnesses were threatened and coerced, and even silenced or taken out.
So the key question here is: If there was no conspiracy, then why the cover up, suppression of evidence and threats on witnesses? The government can?t have it both ways. Either they stop covering up the truth and stop blocking an honest investigation, or they stop denying the conspiracy that was carried out. Otherwise, by continuing to cover up and deny the truth, they inadvertently admit to a conspiracy since only a conspiracy would require a cover up. Truth does not need a cover up.
Further, the fact that they locked up the secret government files and documents on the JFK assassination signifies the obvious fact that they have something to hide. Otherwise, why would they need to classify and lock up such files away from public view, if there was nothing to hide? Truth does not need to be locked up.
Reportedly, when Bill Clinton became President, the two things that he wanted to know were: 1) What does the government know about UFO?s and Roswell? 2) Who shot JFK? (his childhood hero) In response, he was told that those things were above his clearance. Geez. If even the President of the United States is not allowed to know what the government knows about this, then it goes without saying that if the official lone nut story were true, why would this info be classified and why would it be above the clearance of the President of the United States? As you can see, the conspiracy to assassinate JFK is one of the most obvious things in the world.
Many witnesses and leads pertaining to the Kennedy Assassination were silenced and killed, resulting in "mysterious deaths" made to look like a suicide. Any JFK conspiracy book (see the conclusion section for a list) can name many examples. Many had critical evidence that they were going to come out with, and then suddenly were found dead and suicided. Now, I don't know about you, but when someone is about to expose a conspiracy committed by powerful people, and ends up dead and looking like a suicide, it's easy to put 2 and 2 together don't you think? Truth does not need to silence witnesses or threaten and intimidate them.
For example, one of Jim Garrison's key witnesses, David Ferrie, died under mysterious circumstances before he could testify at Clay Shaw's trial, which greatly hurt Garrison's case. While Jack Ruby was in prison, Dorthy Kilgallen actually did a long interview with him and talked about ?blowing the case wide open?. Not long thereafter, she was found dead of an overdose and a close friend, whom she would have been expected to have confided in, was also dead within days. None of Kilgallen?s research materials or notes from her interview were ever found. Gee, what a coincidence. Not! Why would they kill someone with key evidence like that if there were no conspiracy?
For a long list of "mysterious deaths" involving the JFK assassination, see here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html
The Warren Commission's investigation was totally unscientific and agenda-driven. They started with the pre-determined conclusion that Oswald did it alone and then worked to fit all the facts into this pre-determined conclusion. They used omissions and distortions and fact-altering to accomplish this.
This is not scientific at all. In science, one is supposed to examine the facts and evidence and form a hypothesis that fits the data. But the Warren Commission did the opposite ? they started with a pre-determined conclusion and worked backward to fit all data into it. This means they were totally agenda-driven, and that their agenda was definitely not truth. It was their job and mission to conclude that only a lone nut (patsy) killed JFK and that there was no one else involved to pursue. And that's exactly what they did.
The prime example of the Warren Commission?s falsification of data is the infamous "single bullet theory", aka the "magic bullet", concocted by Arlen Specter. The Commission could not explain the multiple shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connolly at the same time without positing that there were multiple shooters. But their job was to find Oswald alone guilty, so they could not allow that truth into their report. So they had to find a way to fit the data into their assigned single shooter theory. They could only do so by altering the raw facts to make it more plausible, and thus created their notorious ?single bullet theory?.
First, they repositioned JFK and Connolly's positions in the limo to line them up with the trajectory of the single bullet. Then they moved the bullet wounds. The bullet wound in JFK?s back was moved up to the base of the neck to line up with the throat wound (which doctors said was an entry wound), which was then falsely labeled as an exit wound. Otherwise, the single bullet would have been said to move UPWARDS from the back to the throat and then zig zag while hitting Governor Connally, which would have looked silly to anyone. All of this was so that the data would appear to match a more linear looking trajectory of the "single bullet" so that their concocted theory could look plausible.
Here is the original trajectory of what the single bullet theory would have alleged. As you can see, the twists, turns and zig zags would have looked too ridiculous to take seriously.
After the alteration and falsification of sitting positions and location of bullet wounds, this became the new arc trajectory that was fabricated to look more linear and thus believable:
The important thing to note is that lone nut propagandists such as Posner, Bugliosi and McAdams, take the fabricated/altered trajectory as fact and cite it as the real trajectory of the single bullet, when in fact it is a fabrication. To understand this requires more research, depth and detail that is beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, I will provide links below for further research. Also see the book "High Treason" by Robert Groden and his film "JFK: The Case for Conspiracy" for a more in-depth analysis of the single bullet fraud.
Anyhow, as you can see, the trajectory of the single bullet according to the data would have been too cartoonish and silly to be believed, so they had to alter the positions and bullet wounds to create a more linear trajectory to make it more believable. It was a straight up fraud, and sadly, the lone nut propagandists (Posner, Bugliosi, McAdams) parrot it as fact. Even media stooges like Peter Jennings on the ABC Special "Beyond Conspiracy" parroted this forged and altered data as fact.
More info on the single bullet theory fraud:
Before Commission member Gerald Ford died, he confessed to moving the bullet wound in the back up to the base of the neck in order to line up with the trajectory of the single bullet theory. In other words, he admitted to falsifying data to fit the pre-determined conclusion they were assigned to arrive at. See here:
Ford also confessed in his autobiography book "A Presidential Legacy and The Warren Commission" that the CIA withheld critical information from the Commission pertaining to the JFK assassination, which was an obvious sign of collusion. See here: http://crimemagazine.com/former-president-ford-admits-cia-compromised-warren-commissions-probe-jfk-assassination
Many eyewitnesses to the assassination also said that the Commission ALTERED their testimonies because it contradicted the lone nut hypothesis. For example, witnesses who said that they heard shots coming from the grassy knoll, suspicious individuals running from that area, and impostors posing as Secret Service agents, all had their testimonies edit to omit such data. Additionally, many witnesses with important information that contradicted the lone nut hypothesis were not allowed to take the stand, obviously because the Commission didn't want evidence that refuted their pre-determined conclusion. Obviously, if the Commission was set up to find the truth, why would they need to alter testimonies? Truth does not need alteration.
Example of altered testimony:
In short, the Commission was a farce and whitewash, not a real investigation. Any rational person knows that this is no way to conduct an investigation to find the truth. Rather, it is a way to cover the asses of conspirators in high places. See the History Channel documentary "The Warren Commission" for background information on the political reasons (besides the conspiratorial ones) why the Commission was set up to assure the American public of the lone assassin story, as instructed by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.
See these 10 reason why the Warren Commission failed:
The last official government investigation into the Kennedy Assassination, conducted by the House Select Committee of Assassinations, concluded after years of investigation in 1978 that "President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy". See their report here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/
This speaks volumes, but unfortunately, this conspiracy was carried out by people in the highest places, who are above the law, so there was nothing this government appointed committee could do. It was a sad testament to America being an oligarchy or plutocracy, rather than any democracy of rule by the people.
How can the US be a democracy when the people have no power and only the elite do? That defeats the definition of a "democracy" which is rule by the majority. If the majority have no control over US policy or US actions or over the US government, then there is no "rule by the majority" and no democracy plain and simple. What people need to do is stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, which are both controlled by the same interests, and start voting for independent candidates instead. And stop listening to what the major media tells you.
As one can see in the Zapruder film, while the shots were being fired at President Kennedy, the limo driver William Greer slowed down when he should have done the opposite and sped up to try to get away. He didn't speed up until the fatal head shot which killed JFK. In fact, many eyewitnesses (59 according to assassination researcher Jim Fetzer) reported that they saw the limo come to a complete stop before the fatal head shot, which suggests that the Zapruder film may have been altered to hide this fact.
Further, the Secret Service lowered their protection that day for some reason. They did not guard the President in the usual manner, or follow standard security procedures, making the President more of an open target to snipers. By whose order this happened is not clear. Also, Kennedy?s motorcade route through Dallas was changed for some reason ? possibly so that the shooters would be better able to triangulate their shot? All of this may be speculative and circumstantial, but suspicious nonetheless.
Lee Harvey Oswald had no motive or reason to want to kill President Kennedy. The official "He wanted to be somebody" doesn't make sense or hold water. Many people want to be somebody, but they don't commit a crime just to be famous. What would be the point of becoming famous if doing so would get you in jail forever or getting the death penalty? You wouldn't be able to enjoy your fame afterward. It's simply not plausible, and not how the human mind works. And even if he did want to become famous by killing someone, why such a beloved president like Kennedy, whom he did not even dislike? Why not a movie star or rock star? Why did it have to be someone who plans to stop the Vietnam War and strip the Federal Reserve of its abuse of power? Isn't that just a little too convenient? Without a motive, there is no reason and nothing to gain.
For a book that proves unequivocally that there is no case against Lee Harvey Oswald, see ?Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald? by Barry Krusch, which offers a $25,000 reward for anyone who can prove that Oswald is guilty of being the assassin. The book?s Amazon.com page contains the details: http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Case-Against-Harvey-Oswald/dp/0962098140/ref=la_B001KCC3DE_1_1?ie=UTF8
A lady named Judyth Vary Baker came out publicly in 2003 and revealed herself to be Lee Oswald?s mistress. She testified that Oswald loved Kennedy, that both she and Oswald worked for US intelligence, and that he was framed. According to KomoNews:
?I can assure you that Lee Harvey Oswald loved
President Kennedy," said Judyth Vary Baker, who dated Oswald. "He
wasn't the president's assassin."
Baker was just 19-years old and working on cancer research when she met and fell in love with Oswald.
"We were immediately attracted to each other," she said. "He was only 23."
Baker said they soon became lovers, and later she learned the cancer project she was working on was to develop a biological weapon to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.
She claims Oswald confided in her.
"I learned that he was a spy in Russia for the U.S.," she said.
Now 70 years old, Baker is in Seattle to promote her new book, called "Me and Lee: How I came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald."
In the book, she describes bonding with Oswald over chess and a love of Russian literature.
She insists Oswald entered an assassination group trying to kill Castro and encountered elements that loathed America's president as much as Cuba's.
She said Oswald called her 37 hours before the Kennedy assassination, suggesting he was going to be framed.
"He said, 'I'm afraid I've told you too much and your life might be in danger,'" she said.
Two days later, Baker said she watched her lover gunned down on television.
"I wanted to kill myself," she said.
Baker said she's not a conspiracy theorist and insists she's paid a price for sharing her past.?
Baker wrote a widely-acclaimed moving book about her relationship with Oswald called ?Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald? which you can get on Amazon.com or her website: http://www.meandlee.com or her blog: http://judythbaker.blogspot.com
Incidentally, Oswald?s wife Marina also now believes that he was innocent, after examining the evidence.
Jack Ruby also had no motive for gunning down Oswald. Even if he wanted to avenge JFK's death, at the time it had not been proven that Oswald was the assassin. He would have known that. And if he truly loved Kennedy, wouldn't he have wanted a trial of Oswald to get to the bottom of it all, and to find out if there were any more conspirators? Ruby's explanation that he wanted to save Jacqueline Kennedy from going to trial doesn't make sense. Why would anyone go to jail long term just to save a woman he doesn't even know from a trial? No one would do that. His second explanation that he wanted to prove that "Jews have guts" doesn't make sense either. There are many ways of proving that you have guts without having to kill someone for no reason.
All in all, there is simply no motive, therefore the claim of there being two lone nut assassins is too hard to swallow, hence why the American public became suspicious of the event and still is today, justifiably so. During his years in jail, before he died mysterious of cancer (as he predicted), no one even interviewed Ruby seriously to find out his motive and who set him up, which is odd as well as a big missed opportunity and stupid mistake. All there is, is a short video clip about him asking to be transferred to a Washington jail and making cryptic remarks about "a whole new government is taking over". It would seem that he got that one right at least. To read more transcripts of what Jack Ruby said while in jail, see here: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm
A number of witnesses reported seeing Ruby and Oswald together at a Dallas nightclub ? including LBJ?s mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown ? which suggests that they knew each other before the assassination, which the Warren Commission denied of course, because it didn't fit into their pre-determined lone nut hypothesis.
Evidence from documents and witnesses suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald had connections to the CIA and likely worked for them. He was reputed to have a CIA handler named George de Mohrenschildt and later framed CIA director David Atllee Philips. If he was under the control of the CIA, then he would have been easily manipulated into becoming a patsy. I doubt though that he would have been willing to be set up as a patsy in the murder of John Kennedy. See "Oswald and the CIA" by John M. Newman.
More info on Oswald and the CIA:
Oswald?s time in the Soviet Union reflects this too. When he defected there, he renounced his US citizenship and willing gave the KGB classified information about the US Marines. Then, when he returned to the US, he got his Russian wife Marina into America without any problem (which was unusual) and got his US passport back with no trouble too. All of this suggests that he had help in high places, and that he may have been some sort of "double agent" for the CIA or US intelligence. Also, when he was in the US Marines, he was taught to be speak Russian fluently, which was unusual, unless of course, he was being prepared for intelligence work in Russia.
Around 2003, a woman claiming to be Oswald's mistress also came forward. Her name is Judyth Vary Baker, and has told her story in interviews and books. She revealed that both she and Oswald did work for the Office of US Naval Intelligence, and were involved in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, which failed. She has only come forward now because she was threatened into silence by Oswald's CIA handler and seen how many witnesses mysteriously died, so she kept quiet about it for many years. But now she feels she has nothing left to lose, so has boldly come out with this, she says. You can see her interviews on YouTube or get her widely praised book ?Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald? on Amazon.com or at her website: http://www.meandlee.com or her blog: http://judythbaker.blogspot.com
The mainstream media of course, has reported none of this, since their job is to refute conspiracies, not expose or support them. Truth is not their agenda of course. Their agenda is to uphold the establishment and act as its public relations officials. They are there to get you to believe that "authority=truth" even though it's not (though it can be argued in a sense that it is due to the ?might makes right? principle of world affairs).
Besides all the voluminous evidence proving a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, one must look at the motives and reasons, as well as the means and capability to both commit the crime and cover it up. The rule of thumb is to "follow the money" and ask the most important questions: "Who benefitted the most? Who had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime and cover it up?"
In this case, Oswald had no real motive and nothing to gain, but everything to lose. He also had no power or authority to cover up the assassination, especially after he was dead. But on the other hand, many in the powerful interests at the highest national levels did have motives and reasons, both in self-interest and self-defense.
Let?s compare the motives and reasons of the power elite network for getting rid of JFK vs. that of Lee Oswald, and see which is more plausible and makes more sense, shall we? This should help you see the bigger picture.
Being the biggest industry in the world with 60 billion in assets, this gigantic Frankenstein monster that was propped up after WWII and all its subcontractors, had a huge profit interest in the Vietnam War. Before leaving office, President Eisenhower warned about them in his speech. On January 17, 1961, in his farewell address to the nation, Eisenhower spoke to the country, and to his successor, John Kennedy:
"The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
This industry badly wanted the Vietnam War. Huge profits were at stake for them. But Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam and issued orders to begin withdrawing troops. He refused to sell out to the biggest industry in America by starting an unnecessary war for profit that would cost many lives. He had too much of a conscience to do that. Thus he stood in the way of a gigantic monster machine.
LBJ knew that he was going to be dropped from the ticket in the next election and may even be prosecuted for his crimes and scandals. So rather than become President, he would end up in jail. The Kennedys didn?t like him and Robert Kennedy wanted to prosecute him as Attorney General. LBJ was never going get another chance to become President if Kennedy wasn?t out of the way.
His mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown testified that he either knew of the plot or was a part of it, and his lawyer Barr McClellan said he was certain that LBJ was in on the plot, and in fact had a history of having people killed, including his own sister Josefa, who got in his way or threatened to expose him, using his hitman and friend Malcolm Wallace. This was further corroborated by Texas agricultural tycoon Billy Sol Estes. (See the section on whistleblowers)
Thus, if LBJ had others killed in the past, it makes him more likely to do the same with President Kennedy. In short, LBJ had a self-defense motive as well as a benefit in becoming President.
He wanted to be FBI director for life, but Kennedy wanted to fire him because he was corrupt and could not be trusted. Hoover had a file on everyone in government and could use it to blackmail them into doing what he wanted.
Kennedy said that he wanted to ?smash the CIA into a thousand pieces? because they were criminal and out of control. And he planned to do so after the next election. The CIA tried to deceive him into starting a war with Cuba with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. When Kennedy found out, he was furious and fired Allen Dulles and thwarted the CIA?s Bay of Pigs operation. The CIA was furious and decided they had enough of Kennedy. And since Kennedy wanted to destroy them, the CIA had a self-defense motive as well.
The banking elite are the most powerful group in America. On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, which halted the Federal Reserve?s ability to print money out of thin air, backed by nothing, to loan to the Federal government and charge interest on it. Instead, he gave the US Treasury the power to print interest-free currency (silver certificates) backed by silver, which would eventually replace the Federal Reserve notes and eliminate the national debt. This would have usurped the Fed and the banking elite that controlled it. They could not accept this, since in their minds, they owned America by controlling its money supply, and could buy off anyone, except President Kennedy. In their mind ?No one messes with the Fed.? Since then, every President has not dared to mess with them.
In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was probably also taken out for the same reason when he issued interest-free Greenbacks for US currency, which would have also usurped the central banks? power. After that, President Garfield was also assassinated after taking similar steps to stop the government from borrowing money at interest from private central bankers. After the American Revolution, the central bank also attempted to assassinate President Andrew Jackson twice for destroying them, but miraculously failed both times. It would seem that the central banks have no qualms about getting rid of anyone, including the President of the United States, who stands in their way. Could it just be a coincidence that every President who has tried to usurp the Fed and central private banks? control over the economy has met an untimely demise at the hands of a ?lone nut? (except for Andrew Jackson)? You gotta wonder.
The mob had a survival interest in offing Kennedy. They felt betrayed because they contributed greatly to Kennedy?s campaign in 1960 which gave him the edge to win over Nixon. In return, Bobby Kennedy prosecuted them and aimed to end their existence, which Jack Kennedy allowed. With their existence at stake, it became a matter of survival and self-defense for them.
Kennedy wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance, which big oil barons in Texas were using as an unfair tax loophole. It is estimated that the proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen.
In contrast to the above interests, Lee Oswald was not threatened by Kennedy in any way. He did not even dislike Kennedy, but according to his mistress Judyth Baker, liked him (see her testimony in the whistleblower section). And if he wanted justice for Cuba, being an advocate of ?Fair Play for Cuba?, he would have blamed the CIA for attacking Cuba, not President Kennedy for preserving the peace.
Oswald?s only alleged motive, according to his accusers, was that he was tired of being a nobody and wanted to become famous for something ? namely by assassinating the President of the United States. (Why not pick someone you hate instead?) Geez. I guess this motive makes more sense than those of the power network groups above huh? Not! (though Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi and John McAdams would have you believe otherwise) Out of all the ways that one can become famous, including doing something good, he just had to pick that one. And in doing so, he caused the Vietnam War, national debt, made all the powerful groups above happy, and caused the American people to lose trust in their government, while giving the military industrial complex, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and the CIA their lucky break. Geez. How plausible is that?
Well there you have it. Now ask yourself: Which of the motives above is plausible and likely and which isn?t? Which makes more sense? If you can see the obvious big picture, then you gotta wonder: If this is so painfully obvious, why would anyone believe with a religious conviction that only Oswald alone was involved in JFK?s assassination? (Posner, Bugliosi, McAdams) Could it be because they are a shill, operative, have a vested interest, or be part of the controlled media?
In fact, just look at the RESULTS and effects that immediately followed the JFK assassination, and you will see that they reveal the intentions: Four days into office, Lyndon Johnson reversed Kennedy?s order to withdraw from Vietnam and instead escalated a massive buildup of troops for a full scale war, which erupted after the US staged the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which turned out never happened. LBJ also halted Kennedy?s executive order 11110 which was going to strip the power of the Fed, giving full control of currency back to them. He also reinstated the Oil Depletion Allowance to keep the oil industry happy again.
In short, LBJ did what he was supposed to, which was to serve the power elite network, whereas JFK thought he was really the President of the United States, there to serve the people. Since then, no President has dared to usurp the greedy interests of the Fed, military industrial complex, or the CIA. President Bill Clinton tried to be as anti-war as possible, but he was leveraged by the power network using the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which threatened to impeach him, and had to give in by invading Kosovo per their wishes.
The power network has owned the Presidency since, turning it into a puppet office that serves them rather than the American people. The significance of this is that the American people need to wake up and realize that they do not live in a democratic republic, but in an oligarchy and plutocracy ruled by the elite. The American people need to know that only they can take back their country. The power rests in their hands. Every tyrant has known and feared that the true power lies at the base of the pyramid, not at the top of it. That?s why fear and control have been their modus operandi.
Now getting back to the assassination, in order to believe that Lee Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy, you would have to accept that he in effect CAUSED the Vietnam War in that if he hadn?t taken out Kennedy, the war would have been prevented per Kennedy?s order and wishes. This would mean that the senseless act of a madman with no motive led to the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese. Do you really buy that? Do you really believe that Lyndon Johnson and the military industrial complex got their "lucky break" from the act of a lone madman and thanked heaven afterward? Geez. Especially, why should you believe it anyway, since authority is NOT truth?
Furthermore, it would also mean that Oswald caused the national debt, because his deed gave power back to the Fed, which Kennedy stripped it of. And coincidentally, his act made the powerful interests above happy, while causing the American people to lose trust in their government. Do you see how ludicrous that is? Does that make any sense at all? Could one madman with no motive cause such things? You tell me. Once you see the big picture, you realize why the official story is more nonsensical than you imagined.
In the final analysis, the most powerful interests in America had a strong motive, interest and self-defense reason for getting rid of Kennedy. Thus it is far more plausible and probable that elements of these super powerful interests colluded to get rid of President Kennedy, than that one deranged lone nut decided to assassinate Kennedy to become famous with no other motive or gain. Such power elites and conglomerates had the motive, means and power to commit the crime and cover it up afterward, with LBJ able to cover for them all as Kennedy?s successor. These groups controlled the media and law enforcement. They were above the law and could control any investigation.
In stark contrast, a lone nut assassin such as Oswald may be able to obtain a rifle, but he would NOT be able order the Secret Service to stand down, or lure President Kennedy into Dallas. Nor would he be able to cover it up (especially after he's dead). He would NOT be able to alter the bullet wounds on JFK's body, or forge the autopsy photos, or get the Warren Commission to agree to a pre-determined conclusion, or get the FBI and CIA to help cover it up, or threaten and silence witnesses, etc. And neither would the mob acting alone, Castro or the Russians.
That's the bottom line here, and is as simple as basic math. Since the lone nut propagandists can't refute this, all they can do is deny and dismiss it all. So don't let them fool you into believing that 2 + 2 = 100 rather than 4. They will try though, no doubt.
More info on the motives and reasons for the JFK assassination:
Such a conspiracy at high levels would have had to include Lyndon Johnson too. He was the connecting link who could use his new powers as President to protect the conspirators who plotted the assassination and cover it up. A number of whistleblowers claim that he was in on it, including his mistress and lawyer, and the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt (see the whistleblower section below). The fingerprint of LBJ?s hitman Malcolm Wallace was found at the crime scene in the Texas School Depository where Oswald was alleged to have committed the assassination from. After all, one cannot assassinate the President of the United States and get away with it, unless the next President is willing to help cover it up as part of the plot.
Furthermore, LBJ had a vested interest in becoming President and had a history of having people killed, including his own sister, to cover up his crimes and accomplish his ends. He also ran the risk of being caught and prosecuted for his crimes because Kennedy was going to kick him off the Presidential ticket in the next election.
Now you might be wondering: "How could so many conspirators from different factions keep a secret? Wouldn't someone have talked or blown the whistle?" This has been addressed in many JFK conspiracy books (see the conclusion section for a list). I will summarize the answer based on my research.
First, there definitely are whistleblowers and confessions from insiders. (See the whistleblower section below for examples.) Second, not a lot of people have to be in on it, only those at the top of the organizations that must cooperate in the plot. Police and government workers, for instance, follow orders and do what they are told. They are on a need to know basis, and do not know everything that is going on. Third, history has shown that it is possible for large numbers of people to keep a secret. For example, the Manhattan Project that developed the Atomic Bomb involved over 100,000 people who all kept it a secret before it was publicized. And as you might know, the CIA and NSA contain thousands of operatives and staff who all keep their agency's nefarious activities a secret. Large numbers of people can be controlled by fear of imprisonment, death, and guilt for betraying their associates. History has proven this, so it is possible.
Furthermore, even groups of civilians have been known to lie in collusion. For example, in 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America", who was the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time. It was later uncovered that the contestant had been receiving the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, during a grand jury investigation, 120 contestants and staff even swore on the Bible that the show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known that they all lied. So, if all these people were willing to lie to cover up something as simple as a game show, then it is plausible that people would do the same under government orders, alleged interests of national security, threat of punishment, helping to cover for their associates, or in the interests of their career and income.
Here is something that the major media and the powers that be don't want you to know. Over the years, there have been many whistleblowers and confessions from insiders about the JFK Assassination conspiracy who have gone on record. Yet the major media have ignored them as though they don't exist. That should tell you how interested in truth the mainstream media is (not).
Therefore, the lone nut theorist claim that "Someone would have talked?" is invalid because many in fact have "talked". Yet in spite of this, lone nut propagandists such as Vince Bugliosi continue to argue that "someone would have talked" and still publicly declare that there are no whistleblowers or confessions to a conspiracy in the JFK Assassination, which makes him a bald faced LIAR.
Here are many noteworthy examples of whistleblowers and insider confessions that have come out over the years.
E Howard Hunt, a long time intelligence CIA officer who worked for Nixon and orchestrated the Watergate burglary, gave a deathbed confession to his son Saint John, before died about his involvement and knowledge of the JFK assassination and who else was behind it. The confession was taped and can be found on YouTube. It was also featured in Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" in an episode about the JFK assassination, which you can find on YouTube as well.
Wikipedia reports this confession on their website:
"Late JFK conspiracy allegations and death
During the last few years and months of Hunt's life, he made several claims about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, as reported by his son Saint John Hunt. In audio recordings, discussions and writings, Hunt said (according to his son) that he and several others were involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. He said the codename the conspirators gave for the operation was "The Big Event," and that Vice- President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the assassination and assigned Cord Meyer to implement the details. Meyer recruited the people who planned and carried out the killing, including David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, William Harvey, a French gunman, and Lucien Sarti, who worked for the Mafia.
Hunt died on January 23, 2007 in Miami, Florida of pneumonia and is buried in Prospect Lawn Cemetery, Hamburg, New York. Hunt's memoir American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate, and Beyond was published by John Wiley & Sons in March 2007."
The mainstream media didn't like this, so they ignored it and did not report it. And Vince Bugliosi didn't like it either, since it ruins his whole 1600 page book "Reclaiming History" that argued that Oswald did it alone. So he reacted with cognitive dissonance, and accused Hunt's son of fraud, totally ignoring the fact that he had a taped confession from his father. This can only mean that Bugliosi is totally agenda-driven and not interested in truth. Or else too rigid to accept that he is wrong. Either way, Bugliosi is wrong when he claimed that there are no whistleblowers in the JFK assasssination conspiracy.
Saint John Hunt?s website: http://www.saintjohnhunt.com
Former President and Warren Commission member Gerald Ford also made a confession before his death in 2006 that the CIA obstructed their investigation:
?In his final public words, former President Gerald R. Ford said the CIA destroyed or kept from investigators critical secrets connected to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The stunning admission by Ford?a member of the Warren Commission that investigated the JFK assassination?is contained in the foreword to a new edition of the commission's report, ?A Presidential Legacy and The Warren Commission?. Ford died in late 2006 at the age of 93.
In the new book, Ford said the commission's probe put "certain classified and potentially damaging operations in danger of being exposed." The CIA's reaction, he added, ?was to hide or destroy some information, which can easily be misinterpreted as collusion in JFK's assassination.??
Ford also confessed that he played a hand in raising the bullet wound on JFK?s back to the base of his neck, in order to get the trajectory of the single bullet theory to line up. In other words, he admitted to falsifying data to fit into a pre-determined conclusion. See here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html
Colonel E. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, exposed the plot to get rid of Kennedy. He even wrote books about it, such as "The Secret Team" and "JFK, The CIA, Vietnam, And The Plot To Assassinate John F. Kennedy" (available on Amazon.com) In Oliver Stone's film JFK (1991) he was featured as the "Mr. X" character who gives Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) inside info and counsel.
Prouty was an insider at the highest levels. According to his reference site:
?Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first "Focal Point" officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.?
For more info, see the Fletcher Prouty reference site with articles, books and videos:
Free online version of Fletcher Prouty?s book ?The Secret Team?:
Lyndon Johnson's long time mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, reported that on the eve of the assassination, at a party LBJ told her, ?After tomorrow, those Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That?s not a threat. That?s a promise!? This corroborates E Howard Hunt?s confession that LBJ was in on it and a connecting point in the plot. You can hear her testimony on YouTube. She wrote a book about her long time affair with LBJ called ?Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson?.
Barr McClellan, Lyndon Johnson?s attorney, reported that LBJ likely masterminded the plot to kill JFK, and in fact, had a long history of having people killed who were a danger and threat to him, using his friend and hitman Malcolm Wallace. In fact, LBJ even had his sister Josefa killed because she threatened to expose his crimes. McClellan wrote a book about this called "Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK".
In fact, Malcolm Wallace's fingerprints were found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Depository on boxes at the crime scene where Oswald was accused of having shot President Kennedy from. In 1998, Nathan Darby, America's foremost and most experienced expert on fingerprint examination, matched an unknown fingerprint taken at the crime scene with that of Malcolm Wallace?s fingerprint card. Darby said that the 34 point match made it a certainty. When the Dallas police brought this evidence to the FBI, they said nothing for a year and then denied the match. Does that tell you that the FBI is interested in truth?
For more info:
Interview with Barr McClellan:
Also see episode 9 of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" by the History Channel which features McClellan, available on YouTube.
A Texas agriculture millionaire and wheeler dealer named Billie Sol Estes, who had connections to LBJ, testified to LBJ?s long string of murders and hits, which included LBJ?s sister Josefa Johnson and President Kennedy. After being convicted of fraudulent schemes, his lawyer Douglas Caddys stated in a letter that Estes was willing to testify in court about the list of people LBJ ordered killed by his hitman Malcolm Wallace. That letter has now become public record. Here is a copy below:
August 9, 1984
Mr. Stephen S. Trott
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
RE: Mr. Billie Sol Estes
Dear Mr. Trott:
My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter of May 29, 1984. Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson, which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960's. The other two, besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the following criminal offenses:
1. The killing of Henry Marshall
2. The killing of George Krutilek
3. The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary
4. The killing of Harold Orr
5. The killing of Coleman Wade
6. The killing of Josefa Johnson
7. The killing of John Kinser
8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy.
Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes' knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.
In addition, a short time after Mr. Estes was released from prison in 1971, he met with Cliff Carter and they reminisced about what had occurred in the past, including the murders. During their conversation, Carter orally compiled a list of 17 murders which had been committed, some of which Mr. Estes was unfamiliar. A living witness was present at that meeting and should be willing to testify about it. He is Kyle Brown, recently of Houston and now living in Brady, Texas.
Mr. Estes, states that Mac Wallace, whom he describes as a "stone killer" with a communist background, recruited Jack Ruby, who in turn recruited Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Estes says that Cliff Carter told him that Mac Wallace fired a shot from the grassy knoll in Dallas, which hit JFK from the front during the assassination.
Mr. Estes declares that Cliff Carter told him the day Kennedy was killed, Fidel Castro also was supposed to be assassinated and that Robert Kennedy, awaiting word of Castro's death, instead received news of his brother's killing.
Mr. Estes says that the Mafia did not participate in the Kennedy assassination but that itparticipation was discussed prior to the event, but rejected by LBJ, who believed if the Mafia were involved, he would never be out from under its blackmail.
Mr. Estes asserts that Mr. Ronnie Clark, of Wichita, Kansas, has attempted on several occasions to engage him in conversation. Mr. Clark, who is a frequent visitor to Las Vegas, has indicated in these conversations a detailed knowledge corresponding to Mr. Estes' knowledge of the JFK assassination. Mr. Clark claims to have met with Mr. Jack Ruby a few days prior to the assassination, at which time Kennedy's planned murder was discussed.
Mr. Estes declares that discussions were had with Jimmy Hoffa concerning having his aide, Larry Cabell, kill Robert Kennedy while the latter drove around in his convertible.
Mr. Estes has records of his phone calls during the relevant years to key persons mentioned in the foregoing account.
II. The Illegal Cotton Allotments
Mr. Estes desires to discuss the infamous illegal cotten allotment schemes in great detail. He has recordings made at the time of LBJ, Cliff Carter and himself discussing the scheme. These recordings were made with Cliff Carter's knowledge as a means of Carter and Estes protecting them selves should LBJ order their deaths.
Mr. Estes believes these tape recordings and the rumors of other recordings allegedly in his possession are the reason he has not been murdered.
III. Illegal Payoffs
Mr. Estes is willing to disclose illegal payoff schemes, in which he collected and passed on to Cliff Carter and LBJ millions of dollars. Mr. Estes collected payoff money on more than one occasion from George and Herman Brown of Brown and Root, which was delivered to LBJ.
In your letter of May 29, 1984, you request "(1) the information, including the extent of corroborative evidence, that Mr. Estes sources of his information, and (3) the extent of his involvement, if any, in each of those events or any subsequent cover-ups."
In connection with Item # 1, I wish to declare, as Mr. Estes' attorney, that Mr. Estes is prepared without reservation to provide all the information he has. Most of the information contained in this letter I obtained from him yesterday for the first time. While Mr. Estes has been pre-occupied by this knowledge almost every day for the last 22 years, it was not until we began talking yesterday that he could face up to disclosing it to another person. My impression from our conversation yesterday is that Mr. Estes, in the proper setting, will be able to recall and orally recount a criminal matters. It is also my impression that his interrogation in such a setting will elicit additional corroborative evidence as his memory is stimulated.
In connection with your Item #2, Mr. Estes has attempted in this letter to provide his sources of information.
In connection with your Item #3, Mr. Estes states that he never participated in any of the murders. It may be alleged that he participated in subsequent cover-ups. His response to this is that had he conducted himself any differently, he, too, would have been a murder victim.
Mr. Estes wishes to confirm that he will abide by the conditions set forth in your letter and that he plans to act with total honesty and candor in any dealings with the Department of Justice or any federal investigative agency.
In return for his cooperation, Mr. Estes wishes in exchange his being given immunity, his parole restrictions being lifted and favorable consideration being given to recommending his long-standing tax leins being removed and his obtaining a pardon.
Additionally, there are whistleblowers in the mob as well, which were involved in the plot at a lower level, such as mob boss Carlos Marcello, hitman Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana and Charles Nicoletti. (See the History Channel series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".)
James Files, who claims to be one of the shooters on the grassy knoll, has named these mob figures from his jail cell. This site goes into more detail about him: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com
More info on mob confessions:
So you see, the lone nut apologists are wrong when they say that there are no whistleblowers. Of course, the mainstream media have not covered these important whistleblowers, since as mentioned before, their job is not to find the truth, but to uphold whatever the establishment says.
On November 9, 1963, the Miami police taped a conversation between one of their informants, William Somerset and a wealthy right-wing extremist named Joseph Adams Milteer. On the tape, Milteer revealed his knowledge of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy ("in the working") from a "building with a high powered rifle". You can listen to the tape on YouTube, or see a transcript of it at: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Transcript_of_Milteer-Somersett_Tape
Judyth Vary Baker came out publicly in 2003 and revealed herself to be Lee Oswald?s mistress. She testified that Oswald loved Kennedy, that both she and Oswald worked for US intelligence, and that he was framed. According to KomoNews:
?I can assure
you that Lee Harvey Oswald loved President Kennedy," said Judyth Vary
Baker, who dated Oswald. "He wasn't the president's assassin."
Baker was just 19-years old and working on cancer research when she met and fell in love with Oswald.
"We were immediately attracted to each other," she said. "He was only 23."
Baker said they soon became lovers, and later she learned the cancer project she was working on was to develop a biological weapon to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.
She claims Oswald confided in her.
"I learned that he was a spy in Russia for the U.S.," she said.
Now 70 years old, Baker is in Seattle to promote her new book, called "Me and Lee: How I came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald."
In the book, she describes bonding with Oswald over chess and a love of Russian literature.
She insists Oswald entered an assassination group trying to kill Castro and encountered elements that loathed America's president as much as Cuba's.
She said Oswald called her 37 hours before the Kennedy assassination, suggesting he was going to be framed.
"He said, 'I'm afraid I've told you too much and your life might be in danger,'" she said.
Two days later, Baker said she watched her lover gunned down on television.
"I wanted to kill myself," she said.
Baker said she's not a conspiracy theorist and insists she's paid a price for sharing her past.?
Baker wrote a widely-acclaimed book about her relationship with Oswald called ?Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald? which you can get on Amazon.com or her website: http://www.meandlee.com or her blog: http://judythbaker.blogspot.com
More info about her here:
Since then, Baker has been the target of online smear campaigns to discredit her and erase her testimony, which has forced her to live in exile overseas. For more on that, see here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/judyth-vary-baker-living-in-exile.html
The assassination of John Kennedy?s brother, Robert F Kennedy, in 1968 just before he would become the next President, by another alleged lone nut assassin (patsy), with the same cover up, destruction of evidence, CIA involvement, and rush to judgment, only serves to further corroborate the same motives as in the JFK assassination. This event erased any remaining doubt in the minds of the American people about the motives for the JFK assassination, as they began to realize: How could two influential Presidents about to stop the Vietnam War both be assassinated by lone nuts with no motive or gain? It was too much of a coincidence to buy.
RFK was one of the most incorruptible politicians in history. He refused to be bought out or show favoritism to even his family?s friends. He was there to serve the American people and do what was best for them, not the power network. The powers that be realized that if they let RFK become President, he would have ended the Vietnam War and probably enacted the same policies against the Fed, CIA and military industrial complex that JFK had. Further, he probably would have reopened the investigation on his brother's assassination as well, since he likely knew that the official version was baloney. The powers that be could not afford that. So they decided that it was better to take him out before he became President rather than after, which would have been a lot more troublesome and complicated. It was their ?preventive remedy? so to speak.
They realized that another assassination in public view with a hidden shooter again would be too risky and leave too many loose ends and questions. They barely got away with it last time. So this time they decided to have the patsy left standing in full view with the gun in his hand to leave no doubt and make it an open and shut case. They wanted a simpler plot this time. Since no assassin would willingly take the fall and be arrested, they took advantage of the CIA?s MK-ULTRA mind control program. At the time, it had shown to be effective in programming subjects to do whatever the programmers wanted, including carrying out assassinations without having any memory of them, as depicted in the 1962 film ?The Manchurian Candidate?. So they decided to utilize a ?Manchurian Candidate? for this purpose, to take the fall as the patsy, which they found in a Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan.
As such, when Sirhan was arrested, he didn't even have any memory of the event, and has shown all the signs of having been hypnotically programmed, like a "Manchurian Candidate", based on the evaluation of hypnosis experts and psychiatrists. He was found to be easily hypnotized, falling into a trance immediately, as though it had been done to him many times. They even hypnotized him to climb a wall like a monkey, and when he was asked why he did it, he replied that he simply wanted to, not realizing that he had been programmed.
Sirhan?s diary, which was found and used against him, contained the words ?RFK must die? multiple times in his handwriting, as though written in a trance, which he did not even remember writing. Isn?t it convenient that he leaves such notes behind to implicate himself?
As with John Kennedy?s assassination, the police again suppressed evidence and participated in the cover up. The ballistics evidence and bullet wounds from the autopsy by world renowned coroner Thomas Noguchi showed that RFK was hit from behind, not from the front where Sirhan Sirhan was. There were also more bullets heard and bullet holes found in the area than could be accounted for from Sirhan?s revolver. 12-14 shots were heard, yet Sirhan?s revolver only had 8 shots. All of this was suppressed by the LAPD, which appears to have been controlled by the conspirators yet again.
Although the initial FBI report showed additional bullet holes in the wooden pantry door, the LAPD removed that door and destroyed it, claiming that the bullet holes were nail holes. Their excuse for destroying the crucial evidence was that they didn?t have any space to put it in their storage room. Yeah right. (Dumbest excuse in the world. Couldn?t they have thought of something better?) Do you buy that? Why would they destroy important evidence unless they had something to hide?
In addition, a young photographer named Scott Enyard, who took photos of RFK as he was being shot, had his camera confiscated by the LAPD. He never got his film back. This means that his photos must have showed something different than what was in the official story. Again, why remove important photo evidence if it was a simple open and shut case like the authorities claimed?
Witnesses were also coerced. For instance, a witness named Sandra Serrano, who heard people running from the crime scene yelling ?We shot him! We shot Kennedy!? for some odd reason, was coerced by Sergeant Enrique Hernandez of the LAPD to retract her testimony. For some reason, an audio tape of him coercing her and breaking her down exists and was somehow made public (which you can hear on YouTube). Needless to say, there is no logical reason to coerce a witness into retracting her statement, other than to cover up a conspiracy. After all, how could Sergeant Hernandez be 100 percent sure that what Serrano saw and heard was wrong? He is not omniscient. Therefore, he must have had an agenda to enforce the cover up.
The trial of Sirhan was totally compromised. From the get-go, the jury was not allowed to hear the evidence that would have destroyed the prosecution?s case, and Sirhan?s lawyer was leveraged and controlled by the CIA. Everything was controlled so that no conspiracy would be considered, even though all the evidence pointed to one. It was one of the most unfair trials in US history.
So again, as with JFK, you have an assassination, patsy, cover up, destruction of evidence, CIA involvement, whitewashing of discrepancies, coercion of witnesses, and rush for an open and shut case. How can it be that anyone who stands in the way of the military industrial complex, Federal Reserve and other corrupt powers ends up getting taken out by lone nut assassins with no motive? That's way too convenient. Anyone with common sense can see that.
Add to this the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., which occurred a few weeks prior to the RFK assassination, and the truth becomes triple obvious. Anyone of big mass influence who stands in the way of the power network?s ability to make war and control the American people, will be disposed of.
To learn more about the RFK assassination, see the documentary ?Evidence of Revision? and ?RFK Must Die? available on YouTube. Also see the book ?RFK Must Die? by Robert Kaiser. Also see Larry Teeter?s informative presentation about the RFK assassination on YouTube. He was the lawyer who was trying to get a re-trial for Sirhan Sirhan.
Links on the RFK assassination:
The assassinations of both JFK and RFK, sent a clear message to subsequent US Presidents ? that they are to serve the interests of the power network, not the American people. No President since has dared to usurp the power of the Fed and banking elite, CIA or military industrial complex. They all knew what the consequences would be.
This further attests to the plot to assassinate JFK from the highest national levels. Otherwise, if it had been the mere act of a lone nut, then subsequent US Presidents would have had nothing to fear. They would have just enacted the same policies that served the American people as President Kennedy had done, without fear or consequence. But that?s not what happened, as we all know. This is why John Kennedy is considered ?The last real US President? because he served the American people, not the criminal power elite syndicate.
This speaks volumes, and the American people feel it instinctively. This is why they lost faith and trust in their government after the Kennedy assassination. Subconsciously, the American people knew what had happened and what had taken place. Even though the perpetrators escaped prosecution for their crime, they had not escaped exposure to the American people. Being above the law, they escaped prosecution, but they could not escape the light of the truth, which was readily seen by the American people and the rest of the world.
Although most people have come to realize the truth, it doesn't stop the continuing disinfo by the establishment, major media and their propagandists such as Posner, Bugliosi and McAdams. Since they have no logical defense against the overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy and cover up in the assassination, they?ve had to resort to falsification, denial and red herrings. It's their only chance after all. Their modus operandi seems to be "If the facts don't fit the theory, then reject the facts." Their pattern also indicates that when it comes to choosing between a one in a million chance vs. accepting conspiracy evidence, they prefer the former, which indicates an agenda or vested interest in discrediting any notion of conspiracy.
These propagandists resort to the same obfuscation tactics used by pseudoskeptic groups such as JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) and CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, now known as CSI), and famous pseudoskeptics such as Michael Shermer. Thus it is no surprise that the anti-conspiracy crowd is usually allied with the paranormal debunker crowd and often overlapped. To see a list of their obfuscation tactics and fallacies, see here: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php?
This is how lone nut apologists and conspiracy debunkers attempt to discredit the mountainous conspiracy evidence:
First, they commit these logic fallacies and false assumptions:
1) They assume that authority=truth and whatever is official=truth.
2) They claim that conspiracies and cover ups aren't possible because people can't keep secrets.
3) They assume that government lies and falsifications can?t happen.
4) Therefore, all official government data must be correct, and all contrary data incorrect.
These are baseless erroneous beliefs, which have been proven wrong again and again throughout history. Yet like religious fanatics, conspiracy debunkers take the above fallacies as given facts, not to be questioned, as though they were Gospel Truths. They then go on to:
5) Parrot the falsified data created by the cover up as absolute fact. (e.g. fabricated single bullet trajectory, alteration of bullet wounds on Kennedy and Connally, shifted location of their sitting positions, faked autopsy photos, altered eyewitness testimonies, etc.)
6) Declare that no evidence of a conspiracy exists, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
7) Argue that the only reason people believe in a conspiracy is that they can't reconcile a great leader like JFK with a deranged nobody like Oswald, thus they have a psychological need to balance out cause and effect with equal weight. (e.g. a great leader can only be taken out by equally great evil forces)
This is their modus operandi, but as you can see, it is based on totally false assumptions that no objective thinker or truth seeker would make. Thus, they are more like the tactics of propagandists and disinfo operatives with a deliberate intent to deceive. They do this to hide the fact that all the physical evidence, forensic evidence, ballistics evidence, eye witnesses, confessions and whistleblowers proves a conspiracy beyond all doubt, which they can?t deal with. Since the evidence isn?t on their side, they have to try to detract from it. But by spouting such falsehoods, they insult the legacy of President Kennedy by assisting in the cover up of the truth about his assassination.
Conspiracy debunkers are fond of parroting the psychological explanation above, of equally weighted cause and effect, to try to discredit conspiracy beliefs, since they cannot refute them logically. But the truth is, while the need to balance out cause and effect may be a psychological factor in conspiracy belief, it ignores the fact that a huge amount of EVIDENCE from multiple areas and sources exists to prove that a conspiracy was at work in the assassination, which when taken cumulatively, becomes conclusive. So the fact of the matter is: The REAL REASON why most people believe that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy, is because of the overwhelming EVIDENCE that points to both a conspiracy and cover up, not because of a psychological need to believe in one. This is what the lone nut apologists don't want you to know.
So for people like Posner, Bugliosi and McAdams to claim that no evidence exists is akin to claiming that the mountain in front of you that everyone sees isn't there. It's a ludicrous insult to your intelligence. What?s very telling is that there tends to be a direct correlation between the amount of time one researches the assassination, and the tendency for that person to conclude that there was a conspiracy and cover up behind the event and that we were lied to. This speaks volumes.
For great articles refuting the lone nut propaganda books of Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi, see the ones listed at:
Further, Posner has also written other books arguing that the Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations were also the result of a lone nut only. Now what are the odds that a ?truth seeking? investigator could investigate all three assassinations ? JFK, RFK and MLK ? and conclude in all of them that the government's verdict of a lone nut assassin with no motive was the right one, when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary? It's very unlikely that an impartial honest investigator would come to that conclusion. It's more likely that an agenda-driven investigator with a vested interest would do that. Think about it. (For extensive info on the RFK and MLK assassinations, see the film series "Evidence of Revision")
You also gotta understand that Posner is a lawyer and Bugliosi is a prosecuting attorney. Attorneys specialize in prosecution and have a vested interest in it. They do not specialize in being impartial and unbiased, nor in science and logic. This means that they are highly selective in their search for information. To them, any target to be prosecuted is automatically guilty in their eyes.
Further, Bugliosi reveals his bias in his own book, where he constantly uses ad hominem attacks on conspiracy proponents and ridicules them. Whereas he uses the term ?conspiracy theorists? all throughout his book, he never once uses the term ?lone nut theorists?, indicating his belief that his position was fact and the contrary was only ?theory?.
Lone nut apologists also argue that JFK "conspiracy theories" undermine public trust in their government, and are therefore a bad thing. Well on that I would agree, except that this would only be a bad thing if the "conspiracy theories" were not true. But in this case, they are. So what this point neglects to mention is that it is the government's FAULT that "conspiracy theories" are undermining public trust. If they hadn't lied so much to the American people, and hadn't killed JFK and participated in countless other conspiracies, then public trust in government would not be so undermined as it is today. So the fault lies with the government (or those that run things at the highest level), whose crimes, corruption and deceit have resulted in public distrust and paranoia toward their government. Thus, the public's distrust is well deserved.
After all, the American people did not assassinate JFK, those at highest levels of government and power did, according to all the evidence. Thus, it was THEIR fault. The perpetrators are to blame, not the conspiracy researchers who are only after the truth. Are these lone nut propagandists trying to say that restoring public trust in government is more important than the truth itself, even if the trust is based on a lie? If so, then I would disagree with them. No government who lies and commits murder in secret deserves to be trusted by their people.