Disambiguating Religion, Science and Psychological Warfare Operations
Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
May 24, 2014 at 4:24 PM | Last Updated June 10, 2014 | Documentary video confirming this analysis added as Appendix June 16, 2018
In an extempore letter to friends, activists, scientists and engineers, I wrote of my consternation:
It is the work of William Cooper, author of that incredible book: Behold_a_Pale_Horse, which I had read a while back, but now, based on all that I have learnt over the years, I might read again. The PDF of the book can be downloaded from that website as well. Behold a Pale Horse had confirmed to me many things which earlier authors whom I quote from often had written about, including Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's professor at Georgetown whom the incoming President after winning the elections in 1992, or was it after winning the Primaries at the Democratic Convention I forget, had credited as having influenced him greatly in his political development, etc. Carroll Quigley, part of the establishment and most respected teacher of generations of American diplomats groomed at Georgetown University's famous School of Foreign Service ( http://sfs.georgetown.edu/how-carroll-quigley-came-to-georgetown/ ), had blown the lid of the drive towards world government in his 1966 twelve hundred page book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, which I have read.
The disturbing thing here is that what some of us have discovered on our own based on our own due diligence from source materials, and our own forensic analysis commonsensically putting it all together, is not only substantiated to some extent, but what this article indicates is that we have barely scratched the surface of how deep the rabbit hole goes --- a lot of the stuff in here I have no idea is true or false.
The article covers a very vast canvass. If anything is known to be false in it, please let me know. Note that it is always harder to prove things true, but far easier to falsify. Basic fact-checks can often reveal falsehoods easily, for instance. But truth is often difficult to "prove". This philosophical fact of the matter even forms the basis of the famous Occam's razor principle in science to construct what is called the scientific process. It is used to formulate the bare minimum and simplest possible axioms necessary for theorizing empiricism; assumptions or statements which cannot be proved to be true, but are presumed to be true with the possibility of falsification. The scientific axioms in the scientific process are held to be true until shown to be false. Precisely because proving the “truth” on fundamental fronts is always harder and often borders on beliefs.
The difference between that and religion is singular – religion permits no falsification of its axioms, but scientific axioms are in fact contingent on their being falsifiable. And once deemed false, the axioms are abandoned, or circumscribed to their applicable limits as warranted. So far, everything I have punched into Google, or wikipedia from this article bears out that very point out --- that the “truth” of the matter cannot easily be proved on the topic at hand: the scientific evidence of America's landing of man on the moon in 1969 has not been preserved for any third party to adjudicate the claims of the United States Government as underwritten by its organization NASA (see below). Therefore, in its absence, the claims can only be falsified, unless that claim borders on religious faith! Is the belief in America's manned mission to moon in Apollo 11 a religion? And conversely, is disbelief in that narrative another religion? For a scientist passionate about his search for truth and inquiry, neither of these can be true.
Thus we, as passionate scientists, both as hard scientists of physical sciences, and as social scientists fully cognizant of all modalities of social engineering, proceed in examining the available empirical evidence with the fewest possible axioms none of which must hinge upon faith and belief in officialdom, or in its detractors' atheism. And therein the real difficulty commences:
- What is empirical data on which we make observations – how do we define data?
- Is it data that is born from official narratives?
- Is it data that is recovered from declassified documents?
- Is it the data that is easily accessible to scientists so that the scientific method can be applied to it?
At some point in that process of defining what is data, and specifically when data is not directly generated by the observing scientist, nor directly accessible to him, nor directly reproducible by him, axioms must come into play. Axioms that are reasonable assumptions and falsifiable. When this data impinges on social engineering however, a fuzzy “trust” factor gets coupled to the construction of the axiom, such as trust in government, trust in its institutions, trust in its authority figures that they don't lie, all of which have the tendency to induce group-think which is more akin to religious beliefs than to falsifiable scientific axioms.
For instance, on the CIA memo reproduced by Cooper which speaks of using UFO/Aliens mantra for psychological warfare, a topic which I have analyzed and written about and reached exactly the same conclusions as independently reached by the article and confirmed by that CIA memo, I wondered who this Walter B. Smith, Director of CIA was. And O boy, wikipedia has a very intriguing bio such that the memo signed by him is entirely believable. But did General Walter Bedell Smith of the United States Army, as the Director of CIA between 1950 and 1953, indeed write such a memo which bears his name for secret communication or for later public consumption as a limited hangout? If the former, why on earth was it ever declassified and released to the public? This memo directly substantiates, for instance, all that I analyzed and concluded here a few years ago:
Caption CIA Document on using Flying Saucers phenomena for psychological operations (via hourofthetime.com). Full Text:
Memorandum To: Director, Psychological Strategy Board
Subject: Flying Saucers
1. I am today transmitting to the National Security Council a proposal (TAB A) in which it is concluded that the problems connected with unidentified flying objects appear to have implications for psychological warfare as well as for intelligence and operations.
2. The background for this view is presented in some detail in TAB B.
3. I suggest that we discuss at an early board meeting the possible offensive or defensive utilization of these phenomena for psychological warfare purposes.
Walter B. Smith
What the CIA memo's careful wording does not say is admit that the intelligence apparatus is itself constructing the flying saucers phenomena. But we already know even that to be true from the images of experimental flying aircraft built by NASA to look like UFOs and bearing US Air Force insignia from my aforementioned report.
Indeed, the long departed Director of CIA confirmed my analysis by writing this memo and the United States government again confirmed it by releasing it, as does this article by Cooper. But Cooper confirming it is one thing. Why would that intelligence agency want to lend confirmation to the world of what the skeptics have argued time and again that a mind-fck is in progress and also identified exactly its purpose, to cement world government? The fact that they are so full of hubris, that even smart people putting 2+2=4 together cannot really bother their cause, just like Carroll Quigley stated, that nothing can derail the drive to world government because a lot of it is already in place long before it was unveiled, but, even when it can matter, they can easily put anyone to sleep with the fishes --- William Cooper was shot to death by the cops in an "encounter"!
Who is to formally define for a society who is a bigger patriot: those who challenge the abuse of power or those who assist in that abuse? It is as convenient today to dehumanize, marginalize, and idiotisize the inconvenient patriot in order to get rid of him as yesterday. And to ensure that his memory also remains soiled among the masses, as a friend responding to this letter observed: “Interesting to note that the Wikipedia page on Cooper is grossly misleading in that it majors on his alleged belief in UFO's and extra-terrestrials as a reality, with no mention of the fact – as evidenced in this article – that he regards the phenomena are major tools in a vast hidden reality perception/mind control program. The page is protected and it is not possible to edit it without obtaining permission from its gatekeepers – why was I not surprised?”
Wikispooks, an alternative to Wikipedia for topics where the latter lends more sympathetic treatment to establishment's narratives and marginalizes the detractors, has a page dedicated to this topic with enough study links to keep insomniacs busy for quite a while (and it has sure taken up many hours of my leisure time on this most patriotic of weekends, the Memorial Day holiday in the United States of America): https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax
Similarly, the discussion of moon-landing in Cooper's article is interesting in that same context, of principally enabling and legitimizing the story of Aliens can land on earth .... It had not ever occurred to me to think that way that moon landing could be faked, and I used to dismiss all these flat-earth society skeptics of "small step for man, giant leap for mankind” bit as fringe lunatics --- but based on my meagre understanding of physics, which isn't beyond college level taught in electrical engineering at MIT in course 8 and course 6, even if I could remember any of it, I cannot immediately see the flaw in the commonsense presentation by William Cooper of the thermodynamics of the Apollo space suit. Can you? In the sunlight and shadow areas on the moon surface, the temperature differential was confirmed by the NASA environmental systems test engineer for the Apollo mission in the documentary Moon Machines (see Dave McGowan below, cited in part-9): “You can go from +250° F down to -250° F, and it can happen just as you cross the line of a shadow … so you can instantaneously go from one extreme to the other and have like a 500° F change.”
How did NASA ever engineer the space suit thermodynamics to handle that 500° F instant temperature differential on the moon surface with the 1960s technology? This is clearly an easily falsifiable proposition even today.
But what is more disturbing is that such a Big Lie, if it is so, like 9/11, can stand among the world's physicists!
So I am sure this explanation must be wrong --- please show me where it is wrong... my mind stopped practicing physics beyond 9th-10th grade level after 9/11 when "bad Muslims" broke all the laws of physics with their terrorism of taking out the WTC towers.
A well known electrical engineer, Phil Karn, KA9Q, debunker extraordinaire of the skeptics of moon landing, ( see Debunking crackpot science, http://ka9q.net/crackpots/ ) has the following statement on the front-page of his website as the Quote of the Day to express the same suspension of the laws of physics, but in both cases: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. --Victor J. Stenger”. But the bearer of this famous call sign KA9Q, for those of us in electrical engineering and not unfamiliar with that name, is hardly a dunce. As he describes himself: “Space telecommunications was one of the things that inspired me to get into ham radio (I was first licensed in 1971), earn two college degrees in electrical engineering (Cornell University in 1978 and Carnegie Mellon University in 1979), and ultimately a rewarding career in the communications and computer field.” ( See http://ka9q.net/papers/mobility.html and https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970320q.htm ). That brilliant mind of KA9Q, formerly of Bellcore, who subsequently led Qualcomm Inc. in developing the cell phone technologies mankind so loves today, and even advocated for civilian cryptography in a testimony before the US Congress by most eloquently challenging the establishment's drive to squelch it, unfortunately, like most brilliant scholars and scientists of America, also bought into the moon landing narrative. Just as he evidently also bought into the 9/11 narrative (if one judges by his Quote of the Day).
Perhaps KA9Q is still mulling over the latter as he hasn't offered any debunking that I can see of the 9/11 skeptics who equally come in all flavors, noise, red herrings and all, but for the Apollo skeptics however, this talented and passionate engineer was most daring to challenge its most idiotic flat-earth society type useful idiots and the obvious disinfo artists who make unsubstantiated claims of free energy, UFO technology, etc. In legitimately debunking this crowd of conspiracy theorists who are pre-designed to exist in America's free society in order to lend cover to its Plausible Deniability (NSC 10/2) Executive Order (and its still classified successors) – and who, as useful idiots, as Machiavellianly advocated by Cass Sunstein, president Obama's information tzar and former academic of Harvard university, in his social sciences paper titled Conspiracy Theory, introduce “beneficial cognitive diversity” into the empire's narrative space with meaningless but plausible sounding gibberish to diabolically defocus attention from the handful of real intelligent skeptics who might forensically question and unravel empire's criminal covert-ops and big lies before its shelf-life was over – Mr. KA9Q easily dismissed all skepticism of the topic by arguing his imposing credentials in radio engineering.
Unfortunately, like in the brilliant Nazi Third Reich in yesteryear, the American scientists, engineers, technicians, scholars, artists, poets and playwrights et. al. today, right alongside hoi polloi who are known to be easily amenable to propaganda, also United We Stand with their own empire by the demonstrated absence of any forensic thinking and skepticism to the narratives of their ruling power. This despite making great claims to possessing superlative brains and technical genius. I wonder how KA9Q might explain William Cooper's most basic observations on the astronaut suit and counter my proof, which I am willing to argue in any court of law and before any legal body that will hear it, on 9/11 being a Big Lie (see last link below)? I hope KA9Q will gladly lend his phenomenal brains here because mine is stumped on this moon landing question.
What mistakes is Cooper making in his analysis of why he thinks the lunar landing was faked? I mean this is totally off scale and I am now sitting here feeling stupid, either because I can't tell what's wrong with his accurate description of heat, vacuum, and heat exchange which should have fried the astronauts in those suits to a temperature higher than shish-kabobs (despite going to MIT), or, that why did my mind not try to observe those same things myself and these had to be pointed out to me by someone like Cooper who isn't even a technician?
I am embarrassed. Because, like everyone else, I had just assumed that I was not watching a movie.... even though, I knew, for instance, that Stanley Kubrick was shooting Arthur C. Clarke's book 2001: A Space Odyssey as a movie at the same time and there have been long running rumors that some of the moon-landing images shown to the world on worldwide television were shot on his film set.... similar rumors were tickled by the James Bond movie Diamonds are Forever. I never pay attention to rumors, but I thought I did pay attention to science.... evidently not! It never really struck me to even imagine that the moon landing could be a Big Lie – until now!
While in search of understanding more of these real questions on the moon landing skepticism posed by rational people rather than dismiss it all (as I had previously done) due to the crackpot flat-earth society and other disinfo con-artist graduates of MK ULTRA style mind control programs pitching variations on the aliens/ufo/free-energy themes to discredit all skeptics by association with even the subject of questioning the official narrative, I came across yet another incredible compilation of commonsensical observations. It is: Wagging the Moondoggie, by Dave McGowan, a multi-part forensic and rational examination of the Apollo programme which is not rooted either in flat-earth society or in alien technology: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
Like William Cooper, Dave McGowan also has me stumped on some of his most basic observations,
while some other
stuff he writes is provocatively imaginative and purely speculative.
In fact, on a second careful read of McGowan, there is only excellent
analysis and well argued imaginative skepticism, which really ought
to have come from the men and women of America's science but instead
emanates from the commonsense reasoning skills of an un-indoctrinated
ordinary man in search of truth! Can the men and women of science who
proclaim the same values address his commonsensical observations
which also bother me? And like the Wikispooks page on
Moon_Landings_Hoax where both Dave McGowan and KA9Q are cited as
counterpoints to each other, Dave enlightens us that all 13000 tapes
of the Apollo moon landing mission are missing! There is reportedly
no record of the telemetry data, video transmission data, and other
technical mission data from mankind's historic, one and only, journey
to the moon? See news reports in the Appendix below.
How can one validate the marvelous claims made by NASA and the US government if one cannot examine those raw video footage said to have been beamed from the surface of the moon? In 22-page report titled The Search for the Apollo 11 SSTV Tapes, John M. Sarkissian, Operations Scientist, CSIRO Parkes Observatory, 12 May 2006, states in the Executive Summary ( http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/The_Apollo11_SSTV_Tapes_Search.pdf ):
For the past several years a group of dedicated former Apollo 11 personnel have been searching for the original magnetic data tapes that contain the high quality Slow-Scan TV of the Apollo 11 EVA.
This report is a detailed justification of their efforts to date. In summary, the key points are:
- In July 1969, three tracking stations received the TV signals of the historic Apollo 11 EVA. They were the DSN 64 metre antenna at Goldstone, California, the MSFN 26 metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, and the 64 metre CSIRO Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia.
- The TV signals transmitted from the Moon were high quality Slow-Scan TV (SSTV).
- When received on Earth, they were scan-converted to the commercial TV standards before being broadcast to the public at large.
- The scan-converted TV signals, from each of the three stations, were then relayed via landline, microwave relays and geostationary satellite to Houston before being released to the TV networks for general broadcast.
- The signal, as sent from the Moon, was initially degraded by the scan-conversion process, producing lower resolution images and introducing additional signal noise. Also, the transmission of the scan-converted TV to Houston caused additional signal degradation. This lower quality TV is currently all that is available of the Apollo 11 EVA.
- The SSTV was of superior quality to the scan-converted pictures viewed by the world.
- As the raw SSTV signals were received at the three tracking stations, they were recorded onto 1-inch magnetic data tapes. Following the EVA, procedures required that these tapes be shipped to the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).
- In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
- These missing data tapes include the raw Apollo 11 SSTV tapes. For the past several years, a search for these tapes has been undertaken by several former Apollo 11 personnel. To date, no Apollo 11 SSTV tapes have been found.
- When the tapes are found, it is hoped to recover the original, high quality SSTV of the first lunar EVA and to release it to the public for the first time.
- The Data Evaluation Lab (DEL) at the Goddard Space Flight Center is the only known place that has the equipment and expertise to playback the tapes and to recover the data.
- The DEL is slated for closure in October 2006.
- Efforts are underway to assure the future of the DEL (the critical hardware located in the DEL that would be required for tape evaluation and processing is being removed and retained through the efforts of the former Apollo engineers).
- It is vital that the DEL (or some elements of it) remain open and functional, otherwise none of the Apollo data tapes can ever be played back and the historic information recovered.
- This report details the reasons why the search for the tapes was undertaken, how much better the SSTV was to the scan-converted TV and the progress of the search to date.
How bloody convenient that no one can access this data today!
The world is invited to take it on faith alone that this data ever existed. And the photographs provided by NASA to foster that belief, as is noted in my second letter in the Appendix below, of these pictures having been taken on the moon surface, have the unmistakable artifacts of studio lighting. From a photographer's eye, which I do have a technical eye for if not a wholly aesthetic one that I admire in the most talented photographers, it is impossible to light some of these scenes without secondary lighting assist, active and passive. So what real evidence is left behind for man's journey to the moon if the photos cannot be authenticated to the level necessary to stand as evidence in a court room? The “moon dust”? And the “moon rocks”? The evidence is surely inconclusive based on just these two artifacts. These could have been salvaged from meteorite showers on earth someplace ---- how can a scientist know for sure, apart from religious faith in empire which hands these out? The scientist who first predicted the presence of moon dust, the late professor Thomas Gold at Cornell university, was evidently given a sample of it for examination. He isn't here with us today for me to go ask him these questions. See letter to Dave McGowan in Appendix.
This missing Apollo mission evidence that now precludes forensic examination of the tallest claim of man to have reached the heavens, which I presume, were it available, could have been authenticated as coming from 234,000 miles away from the moon surface and not synthetically generated from simulation on the earth's surface (as an aside, even while being only an ordinary engineer, I understand this domain of simulation to the level of being a professional for which corporations paid me good monies to ensure that even the most complex chips actually functioned as specified, and I can therefore speak as an expert witness on this subject of the intractability of separating simulated data from empirical data if one wanted to deceive as in a Big Lie), is exactly similar to how all the 9/11 evidence was quickly removed and destroyed, the air traffic controller tapes erased, and the melted steel and other concrete debris from the WTC crime scene immediately carted away to China and other remote places for permanent disposal, which similarly precludes forensic examination of the greatest crime scene in man's recorded history.
With no hard evidence preserved from the WTC crime scene for forensic analysis as is the norm for crime scenes, or preserved from the Apollo mission as would be expected of such a monumental achievement for posterity to examine, to analyze, to learn from, and to marvel at, just like the Apollo mock-ups are preserved in the Smithsonian museum to awe future generations, how can technical investigators and scientists today, and in the future when the American empire no longer wields its fiat of absolute power and hungry historians congregate to either dismantle or eulogize its achievements, adjudicate the claims on either of these two most monumental events in American and world history? That will remain the victor's history once again – a history fashioned in my own lifetime.
I guess the dilemma is best summed up by a slight modification to the Quote of the Day used by KA9Q on his website: “Mind control flies you to the moon, or into buildings, as needed for patriotism. -- Zahir Ebrahim”. And in its juxtaposition to the original version: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. --Victor J. Stenger”
Which one of the two empirically captures the reality at hand in its entirety?
How can it be validated, or disproved, with the consistency of empiricism and logic, and outside the parameters of faith, religion, public relations, and name-calling? There is no hard scientific data left to examine in either case. So the examination must be, both in its big picture as well in its details, entirely forensic, logic driven, and holistic, such that 2+2 equal 4 on all fronts along all axes with the consistency of empirical observations that we each can make today. And for that to happen in any practical way, one needs to understand one's own axioms and presuppositions first. These can often be subconscious. If one starts with faith in empire, then like faith in one's religion that one grows up in, even the most diligent study will often culminate in renewing faith in empire and its holy narratives in the best example of incestuous self-reinforcement [confirmation bias]. If one starts as an agnostic however, and permits one's own discoveries to inform one's judgment, perhaps that is really the only honest pursuit of truth discovery, forensic analysis, and objective science. Is that method really practiced however, or even feasible in order to be successful as a scientist, engineer, scholar, or any technician of empire who is funded and honored by the establishment? A pursuit which remains cognizant of, and is not impervious to, the social sciences and human control under which it functions, of engineering consent, of making the public mind, of what is funded and what isn't, of what is rewarded and what isn't, of what is self-policed in expectations of continuing in the profession and what is silenced by contract, of how Machiavelli and self-interests actually work together to create both social acceptance and funded projects, is yet to be seen in modernity.
Recall Plato's Myth of the Cave. It was, after all, the evil scientists who, under orders from evil controllers outside the cave, were projecting the images on the inside walls of the underground cave to manipulate and control the public watching the scenes. As Plato argued 2500 years ago, and his argument still stands today, it is studied across the social science spectrum in as many languages throughout the world, that no one in the audience can figure out the truth or falsity of what is projected on the screen to the five senses, without ascending to the level outside the cave! I suppose a pragmatic approach to this conundrum for detectives of integrity and honesty of purpose is to start as an agnostic. That is necessary, but not sufficient initial condition. A lot more has to come into play in order to go against the grain --- which is what must happen when systems of control which fund and seek predetermined outcomes are in place, and you as the detective wants to figure out what that control fabric is. The fabric is usually transparent for normal pursuits. But when orchestrating a Big Lie, as we can all immediately grasp from the CIA memo admitting of covert psychological operations upon the public mind in secrecy, surely only the masterminds can fully understand all of its sub components and the complex inter-relationships among them, making it an uphill battle for the forensic detective.
Under this reality space of the history of the Mighty Wurlitzer playing the world for a fool (see below), the genuine patriot, uninfected by misplaced faith in his government and its perception managers, must now be more like Sherlock Holmes in seeing and quantifying the unseen forces in order to unravel the whole reality of the matter, rather than like the daft Dr. Watson in eloquently expounding merely what is already visible and presupposing it all to be true.
Unfortunately, the challenges besetting today's Sherlock Holmes are a tad more formidable than in the nineteenth century. Apart from official narratives of the crime and the crime scene, there is not much of any actual evidence preserved for forensic examination. Furthermore, to continue with that detective analogy, the police hierarchy, as part of empire's officialdom, are inimical to any investigation which might unmask the true culprits or lead to conclusions identifying any other culprit from the officialdom's version, and run copious interference by laying out false clues, propaganda systems, conspiracy theories, and adverse press marginalizing any skepticism of authority. Even the field of psychiatry is enlisted to define a new mental illness in the latest release of classification of mental illnesses and their treatments called DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders): “oppositional defiant disorder” exhibiting a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures” and therefore, a threat to themselves and to society, and consequently to be put away as a potential “domestic terrorist”. Under these adverse conditions, today's Sherlock Holmes not only has to make forensic sense of the matter, but in order to do so with any degree of confidence in the scientistic method, must first adjudicate what is real evidence and what are baseless clues and deliberate red herrings. Referring back to 9/11 to illustrate the point, we already know that no debris of 9/11 demolitions is preserved to send for forensic examination to check for “gun powder” residues and other fingerprints which might reveal who might have had access to such “gun powder”. And lend clues to how it was carried out with that “gun powder” thus leading to a narrowing down of the list of suspects who may have had the expertise, the means, and the opportunity, to execute such feats of destructive engineering as was witnessed for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 on September 11, 2001.
Evidently, the same travesty magically transpired for the manned mission to the moon --- all real evidence of the transformative feel-good one-upmanship event during the height of America's barbaric Vietnam War, itself is destroyed leaving behind only pious narratives. In a previous analysis of 9/11 evidence by its prominent skeptics offering alternate theories, I had highlighted the intractable epistemological problem of defining what is real evidence and what are false clues, red herrings, and unauthenticated plausible sounding narratives claimed as evidence, when such evidence intersects with the construction of the Big Lie. See excerpt below.
Few hard scientists, to my great chagrin, and to the world's much greater loss, actually understand the real art and science that underwrites the making of the public mind with the Big Lie; the price paid for narrow-gauge over-specialization into niche fields by experts, or fast-talking broad generalization as in the journalism profession with no depth and understanding of any matter. Self-interest and “United We Stand” to authority easily follow in its wake, easily accomplishing Shakespearean self-deceit which evidently succeeds more readily in the reality of imperial funded science, academic and social respectability, lucrative membership in academies, and Nobel prizes, than in the idealistic fable of Lady MacBeth's overly troubled conscience. There is evidently no troubled conscience in any empire. This was demonstrated most persuasively both by Operation Paperclip in 1945 which brought the Nazi scientists over to the new American empire; and by Hannah Arendt in 1963 in trying to explain the Banality of Evil which caused six million Jews to be so easily burned to ashes and grounded into soap ingredient by the most sophisticated civilization of Nazi Germany, the torch bearers then of the Hellenic Civilization, in a Holocaust so unparalleled, that the founding director of the Holocaust remembrance museum in Washington DC likened it to “when something was revealed in the Sinai”; the cataclysmic event now untouchably trademarked by the Jews which is why I have capitalized its spelling as a proper noun.
Well, here (see excerpt below) is the fundamental problem of defining evidence when the evidence no longer exists; it applies as much to the HolocaustTM, as to 9/11TM, as to ApolloTM, as to any monumental and cataclysmic event, past, present, and future, that is axiomatically used to create an “industry” and “religion” around it which is diabolically harvested for mobilizing public opinion for political purposes. All three listed events fall in that category! In fact, the shrewd historians and academics will immediately see, whether or not they will admit it, that many moving historical events have been packaged in precisely that way by the villainy of ruling power that is able to pen and pass on the dominant narratives. The sanctioning of mainstream Christianity by Roman emperor Constantine which still underwrites all available books of the New Testament regardless of denomination and sect; to the sanctioning of mainstream Sunni version of Islam by the Muslim emperors of Abbasside Caliphate; to the sanctioning of Shia version of Islam by the prodigious Shia clergy which tolerates dissent with its axioms even less than the Sunni clergy; to the sanctioning of the Holocaust narrative which even has legal entitlement for dissenting view to state hospitality centers in most of Europe and Canada, and minimally, marginalization and loss of livelihood in the United States; to the latter day narrative of 9/11: all fall on that same distorted contour of social engineering. The impact of such sanctioning of narratives, without exaggeration, remains unparalleled in society in contrast to all other forces of making the public mind. Not only is an individual's rational and logical skepticism both politically and socially forbidden in the group-think where these narratives wield real social and political power --- it does not look good on one's resume, nor helps in one's career --- but its pernicious impact on fabricating a living reality of false and misconstrued history which irrevocably feeds both the ethos and the scholarship of endless generations to come, is unsurpassed. The truth of this self-evident sociological phenomena is examined in: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/sanctification-of-911-narrative-zahir.html
I received a few replies in response to the earlier version of this letter that tried to dissuade me from pursuing this investigation further. A fellow Jewish activist compatriot who runs a very popular alternate news website even wrote me: “This crap is planted by the government on the internet to make us all look like idiots.” Unfortunately, I am really like the inquisitive child when asked not to do something, and never having fully grown up to obey authority figures or observe political correctness, I make it a point to do precisely that. The sociologist par excellence, Hannah Arendt, even in her grave, would surely smile at me --- I would save six million Jews from certain annihilation by not being like Adolf Eichmann who famously proclaimed at his trial in Jerusalem in his own defence for his “United We Stand” with the axioms of the Third Reich: “I was only following orders”. So surely will my cognitive science professor of psychology at MIT, Steve Chorover, who introduced me to Hannah Arendt in his class on behavior control in course 9 ( https://web.archive.org/web/2010/http://bcs.mit.edu/people/chorover.html ), also be proud of me for endeavoring to overcome my own Banality of Evil by not staying silent in the face of absurdities upon absurdities being foisted on the public mind. Of all the diverse education I received at MIT, I have Steve Chorover to thank the most for my fearless disobedience to gratuitous authority despite the recent modifications to the DSM manual of psychiatry. Professor Chorover was surely not consulted for that update.
But in my continuing education in America, though mostly imperfect, I have also learnt a great deal from the sobriquet of the State of Missouri, the “Show-Me” state. Missouri legend attributes the phrase to Missouri's U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1897 to 1903. While a member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs, Vandiver attended an 1899 naval banquet in Philadelphia. In a speech there, he declared, “I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.” -- as noted in the Missouri state's history archives:
[The question of] evidence, and the separation of real evidence from the attendant noise, some of it deliberately fabricated noise as red herrings. This point about evidence and false clues being fabricated and put in place to mislead real investigators requires some elaboration.
There is a fundamental issue here, namely, that of layers of deception to mask both the methods and the culprits of 9/11. Deceptions in who dunnit is already obvious.  Deception in the method of executing 9/11 by the perpetrators; deceptively removing the crime scene and destroying all evidence in the name of cleanup before any forensic study could be performed or evidence preserved for later forensic examination; deception in the myriad cover stories to mask how it was done; deception in misleading and/or concocting any and all investigations spanning the gamut from the official 9/11 Commission and the official NIST studies to the so called private investigators from the academe and from among the activists; have all muddied up the waters by each insisting that their evidence-set and their explanations are the most accurate 'truth'. And what's the best way to obfuscate even honest thinking civilians looking at whatever is available from the photographic evidence and the dust field? Fabricate evidence and leave a whole string of false clues behind.
In this maze of layered deceptions, it is not always obvious what is real evidence, what is cover story, and what is the deception-spin by the Mighty Wurlitzer's agents and assets (see A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer - Anatomy of Modern Propaganda Techniques ). Anyone can write anything. Anyone can publish a book. Anyone can doctor photographs. And anyone can publish a scientific paper on Bentham Open for $800 in the name of “peer review”. I had checked this out myself a while back. Which peer reviewed publication asks for money? Heck, anyone can publish even junk science, from false theories to utter rubbish, in respectable peer reviewed science journals (see Reflections on Science in the Service of Empire ). And of course, Galileo was not published in his time – meaning, real truth which goes against the ruling interests is a rare commodity in public discourses. Especially, when it pertains to such a crime as the New Pearl Harbor the unraveling of which goes against the state's agendas. Such truths, for one thing, cannot be easily ferreted out, and for another, cannot be easily vented without systematic demonization, and ultimately, assassination.
Therefore, it is easy to suggest look at evidence. But when the Mighty Wurlitzer and his minions in the academe, media, and in “truth” investigations teams are at work, just to figure out what is evidence and what are false clues can be a formidable challenge for genuine detectives. And when the pursuit is taken over by faux detectives whose only purpose is to mislead real detectives by introducing what Cass Sunstein called “beneficial cognitive diversity”, the problem is compounded. Perhaps even made intractable and unamenable to a solution in a time frame that is meaningful to preventing faits accomplis. 150 years later, just as today even sixth graders learn how the natives were exterminated from the America's with biowarfare and smallpox, our progeny may also study how 9/11 was executed in their junior-high history books with a clarity that is unavailable to the best detective today.
Therefore, for those attempting to study 9/11, it is primarily a forensic case for a Sherlock Holmes and a Hercule Poirot who can draw on expert opinions as pertinent and set aside other expert opinions as false, rather than some simplistic noble minded (and Nobel minded ) scientists and self-ascribed scholars of truth assuming that the only thing false about 9/11 was the false-flag operation of demolishing the towers, but everything else is straightforward including the “evidence”. Nothing is straightforward. A criminal mind that can plan and execute the 9/11 as 'Operation Canned Goods' for creating the pretext for “imperial mobilization” is certainly also diabolically smart enough to realize that it also would require cover stories and the subsequent spins, including leaving a trail of enticing red herrings right at the crime scene. If an overzealous detective picks up one or more of these red herrings as if they are real clues, and creates his erudite analysis on this “evidence”, you know where he ends up – in the woods! No pun intended.
Having accurate evidence to base subsequent rational analysis on, is the sine qua non of getting useful and real scientific results which are un-biased, un-agendist. Therefore, keeping in mind that if one is interested in fabricating conclusions for hidden motivations, always, almost always, faulty evidence has to be employed and passed off as real evidence, followed by faulty logic and specious reasoning to reach the pre-determined conclusion. Therefore, the emphasis on acquiring un-tempered and genuine data followed by correct reasoning process cannot be over emphasized. Those employing the former used to be called “sophists” in ancient Greece, but today, I'll just straightforwardly call them prostituting for empire to cause them maximum offense.
Anyone with a half-decent criminal mind possessing even an iota of understanding of the forensics of criminal investigations and how not to get caught, would have done precisely what is described above, removed the evidence and replaced it with false clues and copious plausible sounding bullshit narratives. More so if the criminal minds also wielded the benefit of the fiat of absolute power to: decide what is fact and what isn't, controlled all agencies and investigative bodies with access to the crime scene to affect disposal and obliteration of actual evidence, plant new evidence, and orchestrated all government funded scientific bodies such as NIST, news agencies, and supra-national agencies like the UN, to tow the establishment's line on the definition of what is evidence and what is conspiracy theory. The precise modality, of how it actually transpires easily pulling in well-intentioned functionaries of empire right alongside the mercenaries of empire, is detailed in my report on The Mighty Wurlitzer:
Similarly, returning to Cooper's analysis, some of the embedded links in Cooper's article lead to even more incredible information, as for instance, on ADL. I had never known that history of the founding of B'nai B'rith, the parent of the Anti Defamation League. And there is a lot more. Today, how can one ever confirm any of those facts which Cooper brings forth, as a forensic detective hired to do so? Who has the time and the patience for due diligence to read all those books which Cooper evidently read? I can personally attest to the time and energy it takes to undertake these studies based on my own effort over the past several years. It is simply enormous.
What disturbs me the most at this moment is that I cannot find any problem with Cooper's deconstruction of the astronaut suit and why what has been shown to the world simply cannot be true. What am I missing here? Why does it appear accurate? Can you please comment on that part as its driving me up the wall! Keep the definition of the Big Lie given by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf in mind. It is reproduced here: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/faq-prove-that-911-narrative-is-big-lie.html
This letter has been updated from the original version to reflect what I have learnt over the past few weeks of studying what others have written: just more consternation that I cannot sensibly answer the question posed in the title. The many parallels observed with the Big Lie of 9/11 are too uncanny to simply dismiss as “coincidence” for even the best of scientific minds in America's top brand academic institutions and Ivy Leagues who almost always “United We Stand” with their empire in no less, and no different, a measure than the brilliant scientists of the Third Reich, virtually all of whom were brought to America in 1945. As already noted above, Operation Paperclip protected these pious savants from the military war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg under victor's justice. They were offered the opportunity to run America's science and technology in exchange for pardon, and often under new identities. The brilliant scientists of America today, I am sure, look forward to the same compassion to be shown to them under any future victor's justice, now that the great American precedent has been most persuasively set on the point of the bayonet of its military tribunals for all future modernities to follow.
Perhaps that will be a moot point for the duration of one-world government, an endeavor towards which all Western scientists and engineers, professors and scholars, technicians and politicians, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are working assiduously.
That public knowledge evidently bestows no public or private shame on American academe and its bright technological innovators in its vast military-industrial complex who happily continue to build the Technetronic Era boldly treading in the legacy of Wernher von Braun, the “Father of Nazi Rocket Science”, to become the “Father of American Rocket Science” at NASA, and posthumously to become just “Father of Rocket Science”: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?” What does it matter if it is a global police state that these scientists and engineers construct with their passionate commissions and blind omissions which evidently surpass MacBeth's counsel to Lady MacBeth: “Be innocent of the knowledge”? They are each suitably rewarded for their passionate pursuit of science and anointed as the respective “Father of the Rocket”! If this cold observation is hard for American scientists and engineers to digest in their self-righteous indignation, witness this honest American professor, Eric Fossum, the “Father of the CMOS Camera”, defying Shakespearean self-deception and knowingly ushering in Big Brother in The Fable of the Bees and the Seduction of Science and Technology:
Enjoy the disturbing/fascinating read of Cooper's work which will likely confirm your own due diligence on at least some topics, but also send you off into the rabbit hole without a paddle for others. Dave McGowan's Wagging the Moondoggie deserves a wider read among the science officialdom, especially among the men and women of integrity who are not obviously in on the game. Perhaps they are both wrong --- Show-Me under the Falsifiability of Occam's razor principle of having the simplest axioms that are falsifiable by the scientific method of observation, analysis, and prediction. But where the observation and analysis must also include the social science of engineering consent and making the public mind as is examined in this overly verbose missive. As Mark Twain famously stated, paraphrasing: I would have written a much shorter letter, but I didn't have the time.
Appendix Missing Apollo Tapes
Appendix Open Letter
Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Dear friends, colleagues, activists, teachers, professors, scientists, and news editors,
I am sure I will incur the wrath of many of you when I bring this new find to your attention. As I have unflinchingly demonstrated over the years, I am not afraid of adverse public opinion, nor do I seek anyone's approval, and nor do I have any agenda apart from figuring out the reality I live in which is perception managed to the level of a mind-fck, meaning, rape of the public mind. I have already previously demonstrated two Big Lies by the United States government for seeding “doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification” in order to enable and sustain “imperial mobilization”. These are words of Zbigniew Brzezinski from The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.
The first determination of the Big Lie being 9/11, the second being the flying saucers phenomena. The former is conclusively underwritten by the logic which falls out from empiricism. The latter is underwritten by declassified documents. Neither of these two deconstructions require a Ph.D. in nuclear physics to parse and dismantle --- for it takes no more brains, commonsense, and absence of presuppositions and blind faith in the narratives of power than is required of any sensible jury to adjudicate on any complex matter in America's finest legal system. The jury is required to hear both sides of the argument. The state side has spoken. The other side has thus far been replete with red herrings and bullshit which has buried the real analysis under gratuitous labels of kookish conspiracy theory.
Given that I have seen two Big Lies in my own lifetime, I am not shocked entirely to discover that a possible third Big Lie may also exist. But its determination is entirely inconclusive for me. My mind simply cannot get around it, nor my limited skills able to penetrate the thick web of narratives which evidently surround it. I cannot access any original untampered data first hand to analyze and to adjudicate. Photographs can be tampered easily which is why they are not acceptable as evidence in a court room unless accompanied by some proof of authenticity. I can only go by sensible questions that arise from making forensic observations on the prima facie evidence, and the pattern of incongruity that emerges from it is disturbing.
Therefore, I wish to bring this issue to a wider audience who are far more literate, scientific, and analytically skilled than I am. Please take a look at this new possibility of yet another Big Lie hiding in plain-sight --- the Apollo moon landing. Idiots and lunatics pushing free energy, aliens, and other imbecile mantras need not apply.
Some of you received an earlier version of this in email letter. I also wrote to the two scholars who are mentioned in the article, and unfortunately I cannot write to the soul of the one not with us today whose eloquent description has me stumped. Was he just a paranoid delusional militia-man as projected by the mainstream news? May be he was, I don't know, I did not know him. But the observations he brought forth must still have a rational answer in order to reject them, or accept them.
Thank you for your time.
Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM
To: Dave McGowan
Dear Dave, Hello.
I just wanted to write you a personal note to thank you for your analysis in Wagging the Moondoggie which is simply mind blowing. You have me stumped by many of your observations. I don't know how to address them. I just wanted to suggest a few observations of my own:
1) The photographs released by NASA and displayed on your website appear to me to be staged in studio lighting conditions just as you point out. I am also an amateur photographer from my college day[s]. But that isn't necessarily a clincher for studio photography on a set vs. onsite lunar photography, because, as one can reasonably argue, they could have had passive reflectors for lighting off of the main lighting source. Funny why no one has made that argument among the debunkers as yet! I can create many of the lighting artifacts you point out from passive reflectors. That argument is not necessarily conclusive that it is studio photography [or that it is not studio photography, in the absence of authentication]. But I have an explanation of the dark skies which lends additional weight that these are shot not on location on the moon surface, but in studio. That has to do with astronomy.
The constellations in the night sky look different from earth, and from every point on earth, than from the moon. Not having photographed the skies over the moon before [specifically from the geo-location of Apollo 11's landing site], if they were to show the night sky from the earth, it would be the proof sufficient that these images were not shot from the moon surface but from earth surface. There is software available today which you can use to study the constellations and what the skies looked like at any time in the past from any longitude/latitude on earth. The entire [night] sky has been mapped out from earth, including incorporation of precession. This knowledge is not new but ancient, and makes the [night] sky from any location on earth an ABSOLUTE reference point on earth for all time, of where the earth is in its rotation around the sun, and in its precession cycle, and in its wobble cycle of its own axis. Anyway, none of these rocket scientists and social engineers are amateurs, and therefore, if they were making these studio shots to simulate moon surface, for whatever reason, they could not show the night sky from the moon because they don't know what it looks like [Any attempt to show the night sky captured from anywhere on earth as if it was from the moon, I presume, would be the incontrovertible smoking gun that no astronomer could get out of.]
2) One could argue that the photographs were a hedge, and does not necessarily mean that the Apollo mission did not go to the moon. This is where the more technical science part must come in, which is what I am interested in. Specifically, as Cooper has pointed on the thermodynamics of the space suit, and as you have pointed out of the necessity of it being able to cool and heat both, as the astronauts move in and out of sunlight and shadows, for a temperature differential of over 500F, makes me wonder about this myself.
3) So many things you have pointed out along the technical aspects of the journey, from radiation protection to the incredible fact that this feat of journey to the moon with the 1960s technology has not being replicated over the past forty years despite the exponential advances in science and technology, and that NASA itself states it would take three times as long than before to get to the moon, bothers me. I have no satisfactory answers.
4) The link you provided, I think in part-5, to Professor Thomas Gold, the a-biotic oil theory gadfly from Cornell, I traced him down to his obituary:
And it states the following:
"He was right again in 1955 when, as one of the commanding lunar researchers of the era, he suggested that the moon's surface was covered with a fine rock powder, a view opposed by many of his scientific colleagues. He was not vindicated until the first moon landing in 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew brought the first sample of lunar soil back to Earth. Gold was one of the 110 scientists in the United States and abroad to receive the soil for analysis, and the researchers concluded that the soil on the lunar surface is indeed powdery. Its darkness, they said, is explained by a very thin coating of metal on each individual grain, caused by the penetration of the solar wind. (Gold played an important role in Apollo 11 in another respect: He designed the stereo camera carried on the lunar surface by the astronauts.)"
I cannot easily reconcile a gadfly scientist of that calibre to be faking his analysis of the moon-dust. You stated this of him yourself: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-5/
"Before bidding adieu, I have one final note to add: a certain Dr. Thomas Gold was an early skeptic of the feasibility of landing on the Moon. He made headlines prior to the alleged flight of Apollo 11 when he predicted that any attempt at a Moon landing would be disastrous. NASA, of course, purportedly proved the good doctor wrong."
Was he [Dr. Thomas Gold] in on the scam too? Why on earth for? He'd be the first one to scientifically see through the deception if the moon-dust, which he is stated to have examined, was from earth! The obvious epistemological problem here is, how would any scientist know that the artifact brought from the moon is actually from the moon, since there is no reference to compare it to. One would have to assume, as a matter of Occam's razor principle of having the fewest axioms which are assumed true unless falsified, that what is being handed them by the government was indeed from the moon. How could a scientist tell that it not some volcanic ash from some hitherto undisclosed sub-terrain geological find? If one wanted to deceive, then it is easy to do so because of that presupposition!
Dave, thank you again for your rational and logical persistence in seeking out these anomalies.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Confronting the Evidence
Astronauts Gone Wild - Confronting the Astronauts
Thank You Bart Sibrel
Bart wrote back saying: “You might be interested in posting this highly detailed article which I wrote on this subject, linked below.” Ok, here is the link:
Did They Really Walk on the Moon 48 Years Ago on the Very First Attempt? (VIDEO) | The Sleuth Journal
Source URL: https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/05/was-americas-moon-landing-big-lie.html
Faith URL: https://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/06/disambiguating-religion-science-psyops.html
Source PDF: http://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/was-americas-moon-landing-big-lie-zahirebrahim.pdf
First emailed May 24, 2014 at 4:24 PM | Extended May 26, 2014 | Extended-2 June 10, 2014 12:00 pm 10864
Links fixed & Appendix Video added June 16, 2018 11:00 pm | Link added to Appendix video, Galileo quote added in sidebar, June 18, 2018 11223
Was America's Moon Landing a Big Lie? Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org 28/28