Back to HappierAbroad Article
Index???????????????? Back to SCEPCOP Article
Index
Conspiracy
Trilogy Report:
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
Contents
Conspiracy
Arguments and Evidence
Section
I: The Apollo Moon Hoax ? Valid reasons to doubt NASA?s historic manned lunar
landings
1.
NASA?s inability to send men to the moon today means they could not have in
1969
Only
time in history where technology went backward by an extreme magnitude
Clear
signs of fakery in Apollo moon photos and videos ? Smoking gun evidence
2.
Shadow anomalies indicate secondary artificial light sources
3.
Astronauts lit up in shadows by multiple light sources
4.
Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder
5.
Indications of artificial backdrops used in Apollo images
Distinct
visible line separating foreground from background
White
carpet layer placed over dirt behind astronaut ? New discovery!
Stereoscopic
parallax technique reveals stationary backdrop at close proximity
6.
Identical backdrops with different foregrounds and vanishing LEM
7.
Scotchlite glass screen visible in moon images after adjustment of gamma and
contrast
8.
Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image
9.
Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side
10.
Fake looking moon from orbit with giant shadow from command module
11. Wires
visible above Apollo astronauts in NASA footage
12.
Bootprints cannot be made in dirt or dust without moisture
13.
American flag fluttering on moon with no air or atmosphere
14.
No blast crater under lunar landers
15.
Slow motion movements and low jumps in 1/6 Earth gravity
16.
Van Allen Radiation Belts and solar flares would have been lethal to astronauts
17.
Smoking gun footage of Apollo astronauts faking a shot of being halfway to the
moon
18.
Apollo space suits and cameras had no protective ability against extreme heat
and cold
19.
Discrepancies about seeing stars from lunar surface by Armstrong and Collins
20.
Live video footage from Apollo contained cuts, jumps and edits
21.
Implausibility of docking with command module moving at 4000mph in orbit
22.
Nothing new in technology works right the first time
23.
NASA director suspiciously quit just before Apollo program began
24.
NASA gave up just before they made it to the moon?
25.
Suspicious death of NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron
26.
Observatory telescopes theoretically able to see Apollo lunar artifacts but
strangely silent
27.
Apollo 11 astronauts looked guilty, sad and reluctant during Post-Flight Press
Conference
Apollo
One tragedy may have been a warning to the astronauts
28.
Neil Armstrong?s string of bizarre behaviors since Apollo
29.
Other miscellaneous anomalies
30.
Why laser reflectors are not proof of manned lunar landings
31.
Why moon rocks are not hard evidence of manned lunar landings
Giant
impact theory contradicts moon rock evidence
32.
Why ham radio trackers do not constitute independent verification
33. Why
LRO images do not prove the Apollo lunar landings
34.
NASA claims to have lost its telemetry tapes of Apollo 11
35.
No real proof of astronauts landing on moon ? only emotion, patriotic pride and
religious faith
Common
questions and objections
How
could so many people be in on a moon hoax conspiracy?
Damning
admission by Apollo Mission Control Flight Director
Why don?t
more scientists recognize the moon hoax or speak out about it?
Why
didn?t the Russians call us out on the moon hoax?
Conclusion
? The moon hoax is highly probable and likely
Why
the Apollo moon hoax matters today
Why
patriotic pride is a fallacy
Section
II: The JFK Assassination ? Voluminous proof of a Coup D?Etat
1. Zapruder
film proves the fatal head shot came from the front and right
Has
the Zapruder film been altered?
2.
Faked official autopsy photos contradict 100 percent of testimonials from
doctors and nurses
3.
Implausibility of Oswald?s alleged three shot miracle
4.
No solid evidence for Oswald being the lone assassin
Was
James Files the shooter on the grassy knoll?
Alleged
photo of Oswald in the doorway when President Kennedy was shot
5.
Fingerprint of LBJ?s hitman Malcolm Wallace found at crime scene
6.
Over 50 witnesses testify to shots coming from the grassy knoll
7.
Massive cover up attempt logically proves a conspiracy
Top
secret assassination files locked away that even active Presidents are not
privy to
8.
Mysterious deaths of witnesses and leads with crucial information
9.
Warren Commission investigation was unscientific, agenda-driven and whitewashed
Fabrication
of the single bullet theory through alteration of data
Altered
testimony of eyewitnesses
10.
Last official government investigation by HSCA concluded that a conspiracy
existed
11.
Suspicious actions by the Secret Service and limo driver
12.
Lee Oswald had no motive or gain in JFK Assassination
Oswald?s
girlfriend claims he was innocent and framed as patsy
13.
Jack Ruby had no motive or gain in killing Oswald
14.
Oswald?s connections to the CIA
15.
Following the money ? Who had the means, motive and opportunity?
Motives
for killing JFK: Powerful Interests vs. Lee Oswald
The
Military Industrial Complex
The
Federal Reserve and Banking Elite
16.
Immediate after effects of the assassination reveal the intentions
17.
Power and authority in orchestrating the cover up
Why
Lyndon Johnson had to be in on it
How
could so many be in on it? Wouldn?t someone have talked?
18. Whistleblowers
and confessions from insiders
E
Howard Hunt, CIA operative for Nixon and Watergate conspirator
Gerald
Ford, former US President and Warren Commission member
Colonel
E. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations
Madeleine
Duncan Brown, mistress of LBJ
Barr
McClellan, attorney for LBJ
Billie
Sol Estes, legendary Texas wheeler dealer
Judyth
Vary Baker, girlfriend of Lee Oswald
19.
Assassination of Robert Kennedy for the same motives further corroborates them
20.
No subsequent US President has dared to challenge the power network thereafter
Exposing
lone nut propagandists and their modus operandi
Fallacies
and false assumptions of conspiracy debunkers
Why
the controlled major media cannot admit to the truth
Conclusion
? The conspiracy is a proven fact, not a theory
Government
denial does not turn fact into theory.
Implications:
The end of the US Presidency and Democratic Republic ? Why it matters today
Section
III: 9/11 Truth ? A giant puzzle of discrepancies and implausibilities
1.
Skyscrapers cannot collapse asymmetrically from fire at near free fall velocity
2.
Collapse of Building 7 ? A huge smoking gun
Larry
Silverstein?s ?pull it? statement and insurance scam
3.
Office fires not hot enough to melt steel
Black
smoke indicates oxygen-deprived fire dying out
Fire
deforms a building gradually and unevenly
4.
Hundreds of witnesses reported hearing explosions at the WTC prior to collapse
William
Rodriguez - Basement explosions pushing upward
Barry
Jennings - key witness, death and disappearance of
Etienne
Sauret?s tripod video of ground shaking prior to collapse
5.
Thermite and molten metal found in WTC rubble ? Scientific forensic evidence
Thermal
images from satellites showed heat spots for two weeks
6.
WTC debris hauled away to Asia before it could be scientifically examined
7.
Proponents of official story have all failed to explain the collapse features
Official
fire collapse theory explains 0 out of 10 features
The
Achilles heel of the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers
2
Questions that will blow away any 9/11 conspiracy denier
Debunking
Popular Mechanics? defense of the official conspiracy theory
Modus
operandi, red herrings, false claims and pseudoskeptic tactics
Alternate
theories on the collapse
Dr. Judy
Wood ? Directed high energy beams
Dimitri
Khalezov, former KGB ? Nuclear detonation explanation
8.
Aluminum planes cannot penetrate through steel frames
9.
Foreknowledge of Building 7 collapse by BBC and CNN
10. Mysterious power down in WTC
before 9/11
Testimony
of WTC employees Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett
11. George
Bush?s brother Marvin in charge of WTC security system
12.
Hijacked planes could not have flown the way they were alleged to
Statements
from veteran professional pilots
13.
No visible debris of any planes at all four crash sites
Pentagon
crash site anomalies and discrepancies.
Hole
in Pentagon was too small
No
precedent for airline crash leaving no debris
Disintegrated
plane can?t leave holes in the inner rings
Whole
plane disintegrated yet left fingerprints?
86
cameras around the Pentagon showed no plane
Discrepancies
from eyewitnesses
Impenetrable
airspace above Pentagon
Unnecessary
acrobatic loop to cover up 2.3 trillion missing dollars?
Shanksville
crash site anomalies and discrepancies.
Reporters
said they saw nothing but a hole in the ground
Government
keeps changing their story
Eyewitnesses
who saw missiles and scattered wreckage over miles
14.
Cell phone calls from hijacked planes not technically possible at flight
altitude
15. Impossible
failure of NORAD four times on one day indicates stand down order
16.
9/11 Commission was a cover up, whitewash and failure
17.
Insider trading prior to 9/11 indicates foreknowledge of the event
18.
Following the money ? Who had the means, motive and opportunity?
Who
benefitted from 9/11? After effects reveal intentions
Motives,
Means and Power: Osama Bin Laden vs. The Neo Cons
PNAC
expressed the Neo Cons? desire for a ?New Pearl Harbor?
Historical
precedent for staging false flag attacks and starting wars for profit
Understanding
the mentality of the globalist power elites
Why
governments resort to lying in order to control people
19.
Problems and discrepancies with the 19 Arab hijackers story
Some
of the alleged hijackers reported to be alive
Airport
security video show alleged hijackers at wrong airport
Behavior
of hijackers inconsistent with fanatical Muslims
Hijacker
passports found in incinerated plane?.
Implausibility
of hijacking airlines with box cutters.
20.
Problems and discrepancies with the Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda fable
FBI admitted
that there was no evidence to link Bin Laden to 9/11
Bin
Laden denied involvement in 9/11
Bin
Laden confession tapes are suspicious and likely faked
Al
Qaeda does not exist as a terrorist group
Close
ties between the Bush family and Bin Laden family
Conclusion
? 9/11 could only have been an inside job
A
new independent investigation of 9/11?.
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: https://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?tleave 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?tmake 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:
http://werinctrl.com/tag/bart-sibrel/
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel-14Sep2006.mp3
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/bart-sibrel.html
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:
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/14lightsource.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lightdirsurveyor.jpg
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?teven
have a shadow at all! WTF?
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11noflagshadow.jpg
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:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg
http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/apollo/as11405868c.jpg
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:
http://www.buckledcranium.com/images/articles/apollo/003.jpg
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.
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11wronglighting.jpg
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:
http://www.clavius.org/img/bootspot.jpg?????????????????? ??????????????????http://www.clavius.org/img/bootspot-cu.jpg
??
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
http://www.universetoday.com/19981/moon-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:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000013.jpg
Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up
for the Lunar Surface Journal to hide the discrepancy:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
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.
http://www.spacewallpapers.net/wallpapers/albums/Apollo/normal_A15FlagSalute.jpg
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!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Scott_Gives_Salute_-_GPN-2000-001114.jpg
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.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS15-82-11057HR.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS15-82-11082HR.jpg
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:
?
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/as12sunbulbrevise.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11_14sunsetonmoon.jpg
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.
Examples:
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/tracklessrover.jpg
http://www.buckledcranium.com/images/articles/apollo/008.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo15LunarRover.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo_17_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle.jpg
This is an image of an astronaut with no footprints leading
up to him or away from him:
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12conradsdance.jpg
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:
http://www.apfn.org/images/command%20module.jpg
Could this the moon replica models used in the Apollo photos
and footage?
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/%20apolloplaster.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/1%20plastershot.jpg
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:
http://i56.tinypic.com/25gdsow.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/535ys1.jpg
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:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/midres/a11_h_40_5878.gif
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/25/article-2193587-14B12791000005DC-36_634x513.jpg
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?tneed to be an expert in anything to see this, as it
is self evident. So don?tlet 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:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jt5048adbf.jpg
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:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg
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:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
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?ttow 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:
http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html?
?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.
http://werinctrl.com/tag/bart-sibrel/
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel-14Sep2006.mp3
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/bart-sibrel.html
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?tremember 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:
http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
?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?tmake
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:
http://www.american-buddha.com/apollo11.15.jpg
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:
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg
? 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)
http://s9.postimage.org/a10sw4qd9/National_Geographic_December_1966_p876_small.jpg
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
http://phys.org/news171006198.html
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:
http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
?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:
http://moonmovie.com/faq.htm#trackingspacecraft
?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:
http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/397621main_ap17_1st50km_4release.jpg
http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/444024main_apollo15_LRRR_HI.jpg
http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/399165main_lroc_apollo12_1_HI.jpg
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:
http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
?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?twant 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?ttell 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?twant
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?tknow 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?tknow 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:
https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2607
To send questions and comments to me, use my contact form
at: https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/contact.php
Recommended websites:
http://www.moonfaker.com
(Jarrah White's website)
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax#Moon_sceptics_or_.22conspiracy_theorists.22.3F
http://letsrollforums.com/apollo-moon-hoax-wagging-t28489.html
http://letsrollforums.com/apollo-moon-landing-fake-t28578.html
Answers to FAQ's about the Moon Hoax:
http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
Interviews and audio discussions:
http://www.moonfaker.com/interviews.html
http://werinctrl.com/tag/bart-sibrel/
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel-14Sep2006.mp3
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/bart-sibrel.html
http://morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/conspiracyshowmoonhoaxtotal.mp3
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.
Recommended books:
? ?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:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Video_Clips_-_Motorcade_Films
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.)
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/spray.gif
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/move.gif
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:
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/29/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-analysis-and-implications/
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Alteration.html
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/index.html
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:
http://www.jfkmurder.com/knudsen.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html
Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged assassination feat according to
the Warren Commission is extremely implausible, not replicable, 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 obscured 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:
http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-rifle-and-paraffin-tests
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html
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:
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Planted_palm_print.html
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_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:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Why_Tippit_stopped_Oswald.html
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/tip.htm
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:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque7-a.gif
(alleged Oswald in the doorway in the top left corner)
Close up of the alleged Oswald in the doorway:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GrodenAnnot-one-half1.jpg
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:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/jfk-special-3-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/11/jfk-special-4-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque7.1.1.html
?
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 ?out with Bill Shelley in front? 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.
http://vietnamartwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/magigbullet_vector_eps.png
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Magic_Bullet_4768.jpg
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:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451cd3769e201538ece10d9970b-500wi
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:
http://assassinationresearch.com/arindex.html
http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Single_Bullet_Theory
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Ten_reasons.html
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Garrison_on_the_SBT.html
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:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/sibert.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
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:
http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html
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:
http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.tw/2012/02/ten-reasons-why-warren-commission.html
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:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-former-girlfriend-He-was-framed-180258521.html
?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:
http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/oswaldcia.htm
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lhocia.htm
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.
VS.
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:
http://www.masterjules.net/whyjfkhit2.htm
http://history.eserver.org/definitive-jfk-article.txt
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/VietnamCIADrugs.htm
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/01/three-reasons-jfk-was-murdered/
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKSinvestOil.htm
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt#Late_JFK_conspiracy_allegations_and_death
"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.[55] 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.[55][56]
Hunt died on January 23, 2007 in Miami,
Florida of pneumonia[57][58] 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.[59]"
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.
More info:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Confession_of_Howard_Hunt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808231/posts
http://informationliberation.com/?id=21338&comments=0
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?:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
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?.
More info:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15167
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/1314-presidents.html
http://www.reformation.org/president-lyndon-johnson.html
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:
http://rense.com/general40/thewnk.htm
http://dperry1943.com/guilty.html
http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/290107shadow.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/15/1063624982543.html
Interview with Barr McClellan:
http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20031201/01dec2003174656.html
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:
http://home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/estes.htm
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:
I. Murders
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.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas Caddy
More info:
http://www.thehallofinfamy.org/inductees.php?action=detail&artist=billie_estes
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:
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/liz_smith/item_ymeevc7p3qWQHkltFqRCLJ
http://press.discovery.com/us/dsc/press-releases/2009/did-mob-kill-jfk/
http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/filesv~1.htm
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:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-former-girlfriend-He-was-framed-180258521.html
?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:
http://doctormarysmonkey.com/jvb/documents.htm
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:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Robert_Kennedy_Assassination
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/28/justice/california-rfk-second-gun/
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/teeter.htm
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: https://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:
http://www.assassinationscience.com
http://assassinationresearch.com/arindex.html
http://www.jfkhistory.com/review.html
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.
Be wary also of the mainstream
media. You gotta understand that they are controlled by corporations and the
CIA (according to former CIA director William Colby). They are not paid to tell
you the truth. They are paid to serve as public relations officials for the
establishment and official version of events. Their job is not to get you to
think for yourself. Nor do they have the power to say whatever they want
without consequence. They have no qualifications in science, logic or reason
either, but are mere puppets that tell you whatever the establishment want you
to hear. As such, their job is to uphold the establishment, not expose it,
which makes them "establishment whores". Their function is to get to
you believe that "authority=truth" (which is technically false and
only true in the sense that ?might makes right?) so that you don't put truth
above what the establishment tells you. So don't let them fool you into
thinking that they are bastions of truth.
This is why when Oliver Stone's
brilliant film JFK came out in 1991, the mainstream media immediately attacked
it, calling it a pack of lies and fiction, without ever researching it or
looking into the evidence. In fact, they began attacking it even BEFORE the
film was released. How can they attack a film they haven?t even seen yet? The
reason for this knee jerk reaction was because they were programmed to reject
anything that challenges the view of the establishment, which is their job to
defend, regardless of what the truth is. You see, the corporate media aren?t
interested in truth, facts or evidence, only in parroting whatever the
establishment wants them to say. Furthermore, they were not qualified to attack
it since they have no qualifications, but are mere talking puppet heads who
tell you whatever the establishment wants you to hear. (Would you take puppets
as authority figures, or take what they say on faith?)
Oliver Stone's JFK was a moving
and eloquent masterpiece, and presented a version of events that actually FIT
the data, whereas the Warren Commission's story absolutely did NOT. (If you
haven't seen it, you definitely should to understand what really happened) But
the media didn't care about that. Truth is not their job. They are controlled,
much more than you think. In fact, former CIA director William Colby revealed:
"The
Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major
media."
? Former CIA Director William
Colby
Although a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination has been proven, the corporate controlled media and government
continue in their denial. The late Larry Teeter, lawyer for Sirhan Sirhan, the
patsy arrested in the RFK assassination, explained in an interview why the
powers that be cannot afford to admit to the truth pertaining to JFK?s
assassination:
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/teeter.htm
?Many
in the media would prefer not to stir things up and ask questions. They do not
want to destroy the public's trust in the Government as this causes a lot of
problems for us all. The European media is much more open and objective. I do
not want biased reporting. I only hope for a fair recollection of the facts. In
the duration of this case this has never happened. When Oliver Stone made the
film "JFK" and the public saw it, they began to think about the real
possibility of a CIA cover-up. Which I also believe to really be what happened.
This however is not what the US Government is telling us happened. They cling
to the fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy on his own. The majority
of the people do not believe this, but the Government clings to this stupid,
sick fairytale version of the story like a pitbull. Because when just for a
moment they backdown and admit to a cover-up, the people will also want to know
who was responsible and why they [the Government] have lied to us for so long.
And this is exactly the same for RFK. The Government is afraid to admit a
cover-up because otherwise people will want to know why they have lied for so
many years, who they are protecting and whose orders they have been listening
to. And then people will suddenly start to wake up and ask questions about the
basic nature of our existence. They would ask: hold on a moment, in school we
are taught that we live in a democracy and now we suddenly discover that events
in our lives are being manipulated by dark and secret forces ***. And then
fantastic lies will be created that obscure the truth."
To the government and media
forces who continue to deny the conspiracy and participate in the cover up, I
say this:
?Please grow up and start acting
like mature adults. If you ever hope to restore public trust in government, then
confess to the crime that was committed in assassinating the beloved President
Kennedy in 1963. Everyone already knows what really happened. Continuing to lie
about it only makes yourself look foolish. And continuing to cover up the truth
by contracting authors like Posner and Bugliosi, and having the media produce
more ?lone nut? specials, to obfuscate the truth only makes yourself look more
criminal and nefarious. It also insults the intelligence of the American
people. Just look at yourselves. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of you.
If you ever want us to believe
in our government again, then be honest and stop insulting our intelligence.
Fess up to your crimes, and punish the perpetrators accordingly. That?s what an
honest good mature adult would do. Remember that you reap what you sow. So
please start sowing honesty rather than lies, if you want there to be trust
again between the people and their government. You may be above the law, but
you cannot run from your karma. It will catch up with you sooner or later. So
stop making foolish choices and start making right choices.?
Based on all the multiple lines
of evidence and data above, it is painfully obvious that there was a conspiracy
concocted in high places to kill President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
Nothing could be more obvious by now. By all the rules and standards of science
and logic, this verdict is conclusive. With all the evidence in the form of
physical forensic evidence, ballistics evidence, circumstantial evidence, video
evidence, documentation, eyewitness testimonies, confessions, whistleblowers,
cover up attempts, motives and resulting effects afterward, we can conclude
without a doubt that the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy is a PROVEN FACT,
not some ?conspiracy theory?. The evidence is so overwhelming, in fact, that
anyone can see it. The only ones who deny it are shills, operatives and puppets
of the controlled major media.
In addition to the evidence, the
massive cover up itself and falsification of evidence speaks volumes, since
only a conspiracy would require a cover up, otherwise there would be nothing to
cover up (duh). In contrast, the official lone nut theory doesn't hold water or
even make any sense. There was no motive for a lone assassin like Oswald, no
gain, and no ability to cover it up. In the final analysis, all the evidence
for a conspiracy vastly outweighs evidence to the contrary. There?s simply no
comparison.
Thus, it can be said that the
conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy has been proven many times over and
is beyond dispute. In fact, it was proven long ago. I don?tknow anyone who
thinks that Oswald acted alone. The only people that do are disinfo shills,
operatives and those in the controlled major media - all of which have a vested
interest and agenda of course. In doing so, they make themselves look foolish
and silly in continuing to try to cover up something that is too obvious. They
also insult our intelligence and disgrace the legacy of President Kennedy and
what he stood for. But what do you expect? Their job is not truth, but disinfo
propaganda and control. And their master is not truth, but in defense of
establishment interests.
What you've got to understand is
that just because the government refuses to admit to a proven conspiracy (as in
the JFK case), does not mean that the conspiracy is still just a
"conspiracy theory". Truth is determined by logic, science and evidence,
not by government officials. Conspiracy debunkers and lone nut apologists fail
to grasp this, because their agenda is not truth. Instead, they operate under
the fallacy that if the US government refuses to acknowledge a conspiracy, then
it remains an unproven theory. In other words, a conspiracy theory only becomes
fact when the government admits to it. This line of thinking is patently absurd
of course, and nonsensical. But it becomes understandable when you realize that
truth is NOT the agenda of conspiracy debunkers.
We have already demonstrated by
all the rules and standards of logic and science, that the conspiracy to
assassinate JFK is indeed a proven FACT. So the fact that the government
continues to deny it does not change that fact. It merely means that they are
still trying to cover their asses so as to not open a can of worms. However,
since most people already know that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, a
government admission would not surprise anyone or change much. What it would do
though, is give people an official platform to demand justice and a new
investigation to catch and punish the real culprits, which go very high up. The
perpetrators can't have that, and that's most likely the real reason why the
government cannot admit to it.
The assassination of President
Kennedy was not only a tragic event that resulted in the loss of one of
America's greatest Presidents and its last real President, it was also a
pivotal turning point in US history because it marks the time when the American
people began distrusting their government and lost faith in it, and justifiably
so, since it was obvious that there was a conspiracy and cover up rather than a
search for truth and justice, which had disturbing implications.
Besides the evidence, people
could sense instinctively that something dark and sinister was going on, that
something evil had taken over and was lying to them everyday. The American
people realized that a Coup D'Etat had taken place, and could feel it on a
subconscious level.
The tragedy of the Kennedy
brothers assassinations goes beyond the deaths of two beloved politicians. It
was about the end of the US Presidency itself, which became a puppet office afterward,
as well as the end of the democratic republic of the United States. (Hence why
JFK is known as America?s last real President) From thereon, no President could
truly serve the American people again, as the Founders of America had intended.
Therein lies the great tragedy of the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers,
and why it matters today.
America had been hijacked by a
criminal syndicate network which only served its own greedy self-interests for
power, conquest and control, while usurping the US Constitution and power of
the American people, which still continues to this day. If the Founding Fathers
could see what has happened, they would roll over in their graves.
The American people have a right
to know the truth about their own history. America belongs to them after all.
It is up to them to take back their country. The true power rests in the hands
of the American people. The ruling elite know that the true power lies in the
base of the pyramid, not the tip of it. So they?ve had to use fear, propaganda
and lies to maintain their control. It is up to us to wake up from this and
stop complying with their lies and terrorization of us and the world.
Together, we need to send a
message to the conspirators that they have not truly gotten away with their
crime. By sending this report to everyone you know that cares for truth, you
will be sending an indirect message to the perpetrators that they have not
truly gotten away with their crime. The nature of the universe is fractal,
which means that every small part affects the whole. So don?tthink that what
you do doesn?tmake a difference. It does. Together, we make that difference.
See the book "JFK and the
Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass.
The conspirators behind the JFK
assassination may have gotten away with their crime, and may be above the law,
but they have not escaped exposure of the truth. Nothing can defeat truth over
time, not even the power elite. They have been exposed and the forces of karma
will catch up to them sooner or later. As more and more truth is getting out,
their ability to fool others becomes diminished. So please spread this report
around to help bring awareness and hasten the demise of the lies and crimes of
this criminal power network.
Thanks for reading.
Below I've provided some
recommended films, links and books to learn more.
Discuss the arguments and evidence in this report in the
forum at:
https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2607
To send questions and comments to me, use my contact form
at: https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/contact.php
Recommended films about the JFK
Assassination: (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.)
? ?JFK (1991)? - Hollywood
blockbuster by Oliver Stone. A 3 hour brilliant masterpiece, eloquent and
moving, must see!
? ?JFK: The Case for Conspiracy?
- By Robert Groden. The best JFK documentary, very logical and persuasive, must
see!
? ?The Men Who Killed Kennedy? -
9 episode series produced by the History Channel, very informative containing
lots of evidence, later banned due to pressure.
? ?Evidence of Revision? - Long
documentary series, 9 hours, deals with the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and
more.
? ?Conspiracy Theory? with Jesse
Ventura, see the excellent episode on the JFK assassination
Recommended websites:
http://www.assassinationscience.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com
http://www.jfklancer.com/JFK2.html
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
Recommended books:
? ?Crossfire: The Plot That Killed
Kennedy? by Jim Marrs
? ?High Treason? by Robert
Groden
? ?JFK and the Unspeakable: Why
He Died and Why It Matters? by James Douglass
? ?Murder in Dealey Plaza: What
We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then? by James H. Fetzer
? ?American Conspiracies: Lies,
Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us? by Jesse Ventura and
Dick Russell
? ?JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the
Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy? by Fletcher Prouty
? ?Last Word: My Indictment of
the CIA in the Murder of JFK? by Mark Lane
"If
you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
"In
war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus
Of these major conspiracies, the
attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people carry the most
emotional blockage due to the traumatic nature of the event on the nation.
While the moon hoax simply incites ridicule, and the JFK assassination conspiracy
is widely accepted, this one carries severe emotional trauma with it, which
makes it difficult for many people to be objective and rational about it.
But once you overcome this
hurdle and look at the evidence with an unbiased mindset, you will see that any
cursory analysis reveals more holes in the official version of the event than
Swiss cheese, as well as multiple impossibilities that defy science, physics,
and common sense, revealing a pack of government lies. All of this is very
disturbing of course, but true, and points to nothing other than an inside job.
Let?s go over the evidence.
The most obvious and biggest
argument is that skyscrapers and high rise buildings, such as the World Trade
Center (WTC) DO NOT collapse asymmetrically from fire, especially at virtual
free fall speed with zero resistance. That cannot happen and has never
happened. It defies the basic laws of physics and common sense. Yet on 9/11, we
are expected to believe that it happened 3 times on the same day?
A collapse at free fall speed
means that there was zero resistance. But buildings don't have zero resistance,
otherwise the roof above you would collapse on you right now. Burning office
fires cannot cause a building to have zero resistance, plain and simple. So the
official story cannot be true.
Frank DeMartini, the engineer
who designed the WTC (who died during its collapse), said in a History Channel
documentary before 9/11 that the WTC was designed to take the impact of a
Boeing 707 and in fact could withstand multiple jet impacts. He said that
planes crashing into the WTC would be like sticking pencils through a screen
door.
To learn more about why
skyscrapers and steel framed high rises cannot collapse from fire, visit
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at http://www.ae911truth.org
AE911Truth.org is the most credible
source in the 9/11 Truth movement with many qualified experts and professionals
in architect design and engineering. They have produced two must see films that
you can find on YouTube called ?9/11 Blueprint for Truth? and ?9/11 Explosive
Evidence - Experts Speak Out?.
This fantastic site contains
statements from many professional experienced and credentialed Architects and
Engineers about why the official explanation of the WTC collapse cannot be true
and why a new independent investigation of 9/11 is needed:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
For scientific papers and
articles on the WTC collapse, see these links:
http://www.journalof911studies.com
http://ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles
http://scientistsfor911truth.us/papers.html
The smoking gun in this is the
third tower that fell on 9/11, Building 7, which was NOT even hit by a plane.
Made of the best quality materials, it collapsed in 6 seconds at near free fall
velocity. All videos of its collapse look like a controlled demolition. The
simple explanation for that is because it was
a controlled demolition. Even a child can see that. Only those with an agenda
would try to obfuscate something so simple and obvious. A controlled demolition
takes months of planning in advance. It can?t just happen on the spot. This
means that its demolition, as well as the 9/11 event itself, must have been
planned in advance by insiders.
But the government would have
you believe that its collapse was due to structural damage from fire ignited by
debris from the WTC collapse. Yeah right. That is the worst and most
nonsensical explanation ever given, and technically impossible as well. A well
designed steel high rise does not collapse symmetrically from fire. You'd have
to simultaneously implode all core columns of the building to cause such an
asymmetrical collapse. The collapse of Building 7 was so inexplicable in fact,
that the 9/11 Commission Report didn?t even mention it.
NIST (National Institute of
Standards and Technology), the government agency appointed to investigate the
collapse of Building 7, admitted that Building 7 collapsed at free fall
velocity, but could not explain it. Instead, they resorted to fraud in their
report to try to prove the fire collapse theory, which was exposed by
whistleblower Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratory (contracted by NIST to do
testing). This is all fully documented on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth website: http://www.ae911truth.org