If the Moon landings were faked, then one question that naturally arises is: why would any government go to such extreme lengths to mount such an elaborate hoax?
The most obvious answer (and the one most frequently cited by skeptics) is to reclaim a sense of national pride that had been stripped away by America’s having played follow-the-leader with the Soviets for an entire decade. While this undoubtedly played a large role, there are other factors as well – factors that haven’t been as fully explored. But before we look at those, we must first deal with the question of whether it would have even been possible to pull off such an enormous hoax.
Could so many people have really been duped into believing such an outrageous lie, if that in fact was what it was? To answer that question, we have to keep in mind that we are talking about the summer of 1969 here. Those old enough to have been there will recall that they – along with the vast majority of politically active people in the country – spent that particular period of time primarily engaged in tripping on some really good acid (most likely from the lab of Mr. Owsley).
How hard then would it really have been to fool most of you? I probably could have stuck a fish bowl on my head, wrapped myself in aluminum foil, and then filmed myself high-stepping across my backyard and most of you would have believed that I was Moonwalking. Some of you couldn’t entirely rule out the possibility that everyone was walking on the Moon.
In truth, not everyone was fooled by the alleged Moon landings. Though it is rarely discussed these days, a significant number of people gave NASA’s television productions a thumbs-down. As Wired magazine has reported, “when Knight Newspapers polled 1,721 US residents one year after the first moon landing, it found that more than 30 percent of respondents were suspicious of NASA’s trips to the moon.” Given that overall trust in government was considerably higher in those pre-Watergate days, the fact that nearly a third of Americans doubted what they were ‘witnessing’ through their television sets is rather remarkable.
When Fox ran a special on the Moon landings some years back and reported that 1-in-5 Americans had doubts about the Apollo missions, various ‘debunking’ websites cried foul and claimed that the actual percentage was much lower. BadAstronomy.com, for example, claims that the actual figure is about 6%, and that roughly that many people will agree “with almost any question that is asked of them.” Hence, there are only a relative handful of kooks who don’t believe that we’ve ever been to the Moon.
All of those websites fail to mention, of course, that among the people who experienced the events as they were occurring, nearly 1-in-3 had doubts, a number considerably higher than the number that Fox used. And, needless to say, the ‘debunkers’ also failed to mention that 1-in-4 young Americans, a number also higher than the figure Fox used, have doubts about the Moon landings.
Returning then to the question of why such a ruse would be perpetrated, we must transport ourselves back to the year 1969. Richard Nixon has just been inaugurated as our brand new president, and his ascension to the throne is in part due to his promises to the American people that he will disengage from the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. But Tricky Dick has a bit of a problem on his hands in that he has absolutely no intention of ending the war. In fact, he would really, really like to escalate the conflict as much as possible. But to do so, he needs to set up a diversion – some means of stoking the patriotic fervor of the American people so that they will blindly rally behind him.
In short, he needs to wag the dog.
On September 7th, 2001 I was on a business trip to New York as an employee of Sprint. It was a beautiful blue-sky day, and I recall standing in a skyscraper on Times Square and looking down Broadway towards Lower Manhattan and the Twin Towers. Four days later I was hiking in Zion National Park when the world exploded into madness.
For years I had no reason to question the official narrative of that day, and accepted it without question. I was aware of “conspiracy theories” and alternative views, but I saw them as fringe and unimportant. My life revolved around professional advancement, small children, and personal dislocations.
The illegal and illegitimate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan gave me pause for thought. I remember giving Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt over the Iraq war, and dismissing the case made by peace protestors that the WMD pretext was fabricated. Clearly, I was wrong, and had been fooled.
Around the year 2010 I returned to the story of 9/11, and began to dig into these challenges to the widely accepted account. The more I looked, the greater was my concern. I could not be sure what had happened, or who really was behind the attacks, or what the real motive was. But I could not reconcile the hard data with the standard explanation given.
To believe the official version, you had to overlook a lot of very hard-to-ignore anomalies. The Twin Towers had free-fall collapsed, turning to dust on the way down, and leaving minimal piles of rubble (compared to their size) heaped upon molten rock that took months to cool. The suggested progressive collapse process breaks the law of conservation of momentum.
WTC7 also implausibly collapsed on itself due to “office fires”, with it being announced by the BBC before it happened. A secret engineering model was used to justify this unlikely and unique event. WTC6 had its core disappear, but that can be overlooked as unimportant. All the crime scene debris was hauled off to China for disposal rather than kept.
There was evidence of pre-planted explosives, and you could even see some going off prematurely on floors below the one that was failing. Multiple eyewitness reports also gave evidence of explosions before the collapse. The alleged aircraft flew implausible flight paths only to leave negligible debris. The towers were explicitly designed to withstand such an impact, yet both failed in exactly the same way.
Meanwhile at the Pentagon, another “aircraft” magically skimmed the grass only to disappear into a hold in the wall smaller than its fuselage, with no trace of impact of wings or engines. That wall just happened to have the audit team for the theft of trillions of dollars that had been announced the day before. The “crash” in Pennsylvania also (coincidentally I am sure) left no visible aircraft debris.
Speaking of money, the evidence of massive insurance fraud was self-evidently irrelevant. So was all the insider dealing in the stock market that presaged what was to come. All common sense questions about money and military matters could be overlooked, especially anything to do with the Saudis. Meanwhile, all this happened while the military stood down and no planes were scrambled. And just by coincidence (again) the CCTV cameras were all turned off at the Pentagon so there was no evidence to contradict the official version. Why so?
The biased and under-resourced investigation committee ignored reams of objections from military, pilots, architects, engineers, and first responders (who perplexingly seemed to be dying from conditions more associated with radiation poisoning). The patsy offered immediately and unquestioningly at the outset was accepted as the perpetrator. No alternative theories were entertained.
Nobody should ever consider this a pre-planned event, especially given decades of foreshadowing in the mass media. Indeed, the occult symbolism all over it — George Bush reading “My Pet Goat” for instance — is of no relevance whatsoever. We should automatically agree that the two wars and millions of dead that flowed from the official story are a price worth paying for our freedom.
Looking back it is hard to see how anyone can believe the official story, it is so ridiculous and full of holes. But a decade ago I still doubted myself, because to reject it raised two profound issues. The first was that our collective sense of reality was wrong, and our system of government was corrupt and criminal to its core, yet most people believed in it somehow. The second was why there was no objection from honest military people and no obvious counter-movement to depose these criminals from power.
These lingering questions meant I kept my views to myself and didn’t discuss them in my professional or public spheres. In the years that followed my first accepted “conspiracy theory”, I was involved in paradigm-busting and pioneering telecoms work. My expert colleagues were well versed in seeing through the nonsense of the mainstream ideology. Yet one day I suggested that the Apollo story was a bit off, and they looked at me as if I had lost my mind.
If you want to dig into the moon landing story, I suggest the wonderful essay series “Wagging the Moondoggie” by (the sadly departed) Dave McGowan. It is fabulous writing, and exceptionally funny once you dig into it. If the 9/11 story is tragically absurd, the Apollo one is astronomically comical. I cannot imagine any reasonable and rational person coming away from reading this and still having no questions about the offered version of events.
NASA is extending its target date for sending astronauts back to the moon to 2025 at the earliest, the U.S. space agency’s chief said on Tuesday, stretching out by at least a year the timeline pronounced under former President Donald Trump.
Trump’s administration had set the aggressive goal of returning humans to the lunar surface by 2024, an initiative named Artemis intended as a stepping stone toward the even-more-ambitious objective of sending astronauts to Mars.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson cited delays from legal wrangling over the SpaceX contract to build the Artemis lunar landing vehicle as a major reason for extending the target date.
“We lost nearly seven months in litigation, and that likely has pushed the first human landing likely to no earlier than 2025,” Nelson told a news conference. “We are estimating no earlier than 2025 for Artemis 3, which would be the human lander on the first demonstration landing.”
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA, announced this week the award of five contracts for $146 million to U.S. companies, including Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, to design lunar landers.
As reported by Forbes, these private companies will work over the next 15 months on various projects for the development of the Artemis program to ensure the return of humanity to the moon in 2024.
Contracts are well distributed, according to the statement from NASA:
- SpaceX: $9.4 million
- Blue Origin: $25.6 million
- Dynetics: $40.8 million
- Lockheed Martin: $35.2 million
- Northrop Grumman: $34.8 million
The idea is that the five companies develop sustainable models of landing modules to regularly transport astronauts to the moon. Much of what is designed for Earth’s satellite will apply to future missions to Mars.