Part 1
Part 2
Bara copied large swaths of that text into a chapter in his book Ancient Aliens and JFK. It was bizarre, I thought, because the chapter had no justification in a book that pretended to reveal the villains behind the assassination. It was just makeweight, I guess, and I wonder what Bara's co-authors thought about that.
Well, now Bara's one of three frontmen re-hashing that material, just in time for the Apollo 11 50th anniversary, in a six-ep TV series for The Science Channel, Truth Behind The Moon Landing. First ep coming up on June 2nd.
His co-presenters are former NASA astronaut Leland Melvin and former FBI agent Chad Jenkins. The online announcement continues:
Produced by MGM-owned Big Fish Entertainment, the six-episode series tests evidence and applies scientific reasoning to conspiracies.Let's hope this six-parter gets a decent audience. Far too many people now believe the bullshit theory that the spectacular Moon landings of 50 years ago were all a spectacular hoax.
The program will also test claims about how the Apollo 1 fire started; study one of NASA’s last existing Lunar Lander prototypes that Neil Armstrong trained on; gain access to NASA archives to uncover photos and footage never-before-seen by the general public, and more.
Dan Cesareo, Lucilla D’Agostino, Rick Hankey, Ron Bowman and Pat Twist serve as executive producers. Executive producers for Science Channel Caroline Perez and Neil Laird.
P.S. There's that dodgy "never-before-seen" claim again. It was made on behalf of the recent Apollo 11 movie. As a die-hard fan of spaceflight, I loved the movie but I didn't see any film sequences that were totally unfamiliar. The compo included higher-definition film than TV usually shows, but that's a different claim, isn't it? I'll watch Mike Bara's series but I'm not expecting to see anything new. Clavius Moon Base covered all this material very well years ago.
P.P.S. It's been pointed out that many of the shots of the spectators at the launch were original. OK, I guess I have to concede that.
37 comments:
It's depressing to participate on ANY Facebook page from NASA, from astronomy magazines, etc. that runs a story about the moon landings these days. It's hardly up and running before the trolls are out in force, denying, sneering, disparaging NASA and posting the same mindless conspiracy theories that were debunked decades ago. Their numbers are growing, and their nationalities spreading. It used to be disrespectful Americans trashing their own country's achievements for a long time, but now, the trolls are from all over the world, posting in multiple languages. I find it very disheartening to see this level of sheer willful ignorance finding so wide a platform.
Really Trekker, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. What's so ironic is that supposed scientist take it on faith that NASA is honest. I believe that NASA sent men to the Moon, but that the images are fake, so as not to reveal what's actually up there, but then, that's just me.
THE
I'd take the literally hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the project, the lack of claims of "fake" from the Soviets or any other unfriendly nation, as a pretty good indicator that we went. Not to mention all of the science/technology that was a result of ot, that we rely on today. I know that's not what your claiming is faked, but the "dishonest NASA" claim does lean towards it.
So... NASA went to the stagering cost of sending people to the moon, but then faked the images. What, were the originals a bit too foggy, thumb in front of the lens, cheeky alien photo hogs getting in every shot.
In making that ridiculous assertion, Theadora is echoing the opinions of another ill-informed prevaricator, Marcus Allen.
Deniers are a waste of space, and not worth replying to.
Expat, in your link to the blog on Marcus Allen, you state re Hoagland's entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons: "Hoagland's entry says, correctly, that he thinks NASA itself started the Apollo denial ball rolling."
This is not really clear. Do you mean that Hoagland is correct in stating that NASA itself started the denial story, or that the Encyclopedia is correct in stating that it's an accurate claim of Hoagland's? Can you clarify?
The latter. This references one of Hoagland's oft-told yarns from NASA/JPL. He was accredited to Mariner 6, whose closest approach to Mars occurred 11 days after the first manned Moon landing. He observed a man in a greatcoat placing flyers on chairs in the press room, accompanied by Frank Bristow, JPL PAO. The flyers were standard Apollo denial propaganda, and Hoagland has always maintained that because Frank Bristow was present when they were distributed that proves official collusion.
It's completely daft, of course, and proves nothing of the kind. A far more likely explanation is that Bristow was ensuring that "Greatcoat Man" expressed his first amendment rights without bothering members of the accredited media.
OK, thanks!
Actually, the false flag tactic is par for The UFO Control System. For instance, typically more UFOs are reported during occasion for auspicious star gazing. The reports are usually discredited as being a meteor shower or the like. However, the reports are of anomalies at the other side of the sky. Is this because UFOs are always up there doing monkey shines, or is it that they mostly perform such antics, during times where there can be the most confusion of various simultaneous aerial phenomenon?
NASA might well have airbrushed in the original Face at Cydonia, having named it, The Face, in order to deny that it's actually what it looks like.
This incongruity is standard operating procedure for The UFO Control System, of which man and possibly others each participate in perpetrating. This has been going on for centuries. While the motive is unclear, the result is a manipulation of human perception, which makes UFOs or wee people, part of the common shared human consciousness, irrespective of what people believe about it all.
I was unaware of Marcus Allen. Perhaps I'd consciously forgotten. See, this is how our opinions can be shaped, whether that's what happened here with me, or not.
I suspect that NASA opens cans of worms, only to call them Spaghetti-Os, to muddy the waters, so that there is no way to deduce either one way or another whatever information it might be that the are unable entirely to conceal. Why the UFOs or ETs, do this would have to be an even much more nefarious reason.
re Your perspective on NASA, I could not disagree more. You seem unaware that there are other sources of information on Mars and the Moon. The Chinese have active rovers on both bodies right now -- the Japs and Indians have been to the Moon, and ESA has been to Mars (even producing a 3D color image of Owen Mesa).
There will never be genuine peer review. You are indeed entitled to your own beliefs. There is no point in this blog, other than to advance the agenda of The UFO Control System.
Furthermore Patrick, as I follow the links from Marcus Allen, your misrepresentation of the so-called, Brookings Report, needs to be addressed. What Dr Mead's observations suggest, is that if Man were to encounter ET, that Earth society would defect to the aliens, as you might seem not to take issue with. However, it's not so much disclosure of ET that would necessarily be the concern, but rather how to desensitize Man as a prophylactic in case of more widespread mass encounters. Thus, the human political leadership's motivation for participating in The UFO Control System, strategy.
Hypothetically, what if a gimongous bollide were to slam into North America, or there were to be an event which appeared to be an abduction of 80% of the population of the United States, where all those people were to vanish? With the United States effectively destroyed, what would that do to the international economy and World peace?
Then if a European military man were to come forth, with advanced technology to revive the economy and that neutralized all weapons of mass destruction inert, were to introduce his benefactors to the World, as being progenitors of the human race from another Solar system? What if these alien distant cousins were to pledge allegiance to the new benevolent dictator of Earth, as if he somehow were genetically superior to them, as if some sort of royalty which they respect?
Would Earth culture disintegrate and society collapse in that scenario?
« What Dr Mead's observations suggest, is that if Man were to encounter ET, that Earth society would defect to the aliens »
Absolutely NOT. Mead pointed out that when two societies of very different levels of development meet, the more primitive of the two is either subjugated or destroyed, or a mixture of the two.
But you see, Mead was very assuredly citing ACTUAL FACE-TO-FACE meetings. Hoagland, Bara and Morningstar pretend that the same cautions apply to merely finding artifact evidence that a superior civilization once existed. That's just childishly dishonest and I reject it without reservation.
Dr Mead was suggesting that based upon her first hand research and personal contact with primitive, indigenous cultures, that a similar effect would likely result if Man were to encounter ET, during the course of Space exploration.
I'm saying saying that the implications of Brookings are not what either You, Hoagland, Bara, or Morningstar say they are. I'm saying what the planetside effort of The UFO Control System, likely thinks that they are, based upon Mead's contribution to Brookings.
The clamor for disclosure is a red herring. Hoagland moaning about NASA being afraid to make disclosure in light of Brookings, is a canard. If we can't trust NASA to tell the truth in the first place, why should we believe them if they recant and say that ET is here?
Hoagland is an active participant of, The UFO Control System. It's not about Dicksclosure; it's about an apparent, invasion.
Trekker said...
"Deniers are a waste of space, and not worth replying to."
Back when I browsed the 'chans', I came across a thread of Apollo deniers. Some troll was posting pictures from Anthony Young's book "Lunar and Planetary Rovers" that I had recognized. The pictures he chose were of the rover mock-ups with rubber tires in the desert training area. He then ran some photoshop filters to make it look like there were rovers with rubber tires on the moon, apparently. So, I took a little time to post the originals to that thread. It was funny. I got some ad hominems, but I never seen the phonies ever posted again, or at least the times when I was there.
Fridtjof
« If we can't trust NASA to tell the truth in the first place... »
Who says we can't trust NASA? Hoagland? He has his own personal reasons for his bizarre hatred of the agency, they have nothing to do with anyone else. Bara? He had to go along with Hoagland, as the co-author of a flagrantly anti-NASA book. Morningstar? I'm not so sure about him. He wrote "To really understand the official NASA non-disclosure policy, ... we must first remember an important historical point. NASA internal policy prohibits disclosure by command and control mechanisms engineered and implemented after the Brookings Institution 1960's report on "Peaceful Uses of Outer Space"[sic - wrong title]. That's just wrong, like almost everything this knuckle-walker writes about spaceflight.
So, Theadora, don't run away with the idea that NASA hatred is officially blessed by the space community.
The so called, "Space Community" makes it's living by kissing ass; unless, of course, you refer to ET. The point is that without genuine peer review, we just have to take the word of all the agencies from all the countries with treaties with the United States, suppressing data about UFOs. Disclosure was made to me directly by The Orbs. I'm not asking to be bullshited by NASA, the DoD, or any other biased agency.
« The so called, "Space Community" makes it's living by kissing ass »
Rubbish. You really have some strange ideas, Thea.
Expat,
I was concerned about the problems Gil Levin has regarding the Mars Labelled Release Experiment. Hearing him and his co-investigator talk shows some weird problems going on at NASA. These scientists are pretty credible. I don' think it is merely the clash of sides of a scientific argument. It seems like there is an official desire to not look for life on Mars based on their statements. The Space Show has a good recent interview. What do you think?
What I think is that there are no weird problems at NASA. It so happens that I was accredited to the Viking missions so I was right there at JPL when the biological results came in. I had very good relations with Gerry Soffen and Chuck Klein so I got pretty much the inside story. It was a real dilemma for both of them. The other two biology experiments were generally negative. It's not that they disregarded the LR results, but the fact that a second dose of nutrient didn't do anything was important, as was the firm result from the GCMS, "no organics".
I realise that Gil LevÃn claims that the GCMS wasn't sensitive enough. I think he's made some good points over the years, but at the time Soffen and Klein's decision was quite correct IMHO. I also want to note that the claim that LevÃn's science has been suppressed is without foundation. He's published something like 6 papers on the topic, plus one entire book.
The problem is, the results have been more-or-less duplicated with superoxides. The Phoenix lander definitely detected perchlorates, and this is a problem for LevÃn.
I wrote about this a long time ago—actually in the very first month of this blog's existence.
People are indeed entitled to their own beliefs, but as has been said many times they are not entitled to their own facts. When people's beliefs are demonstrably, provably false those beliefs are simply wrong. Every single hoax claim made about Apollo has been reviewed by its peers and found to be utter crap, they do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny and rely on the stupidity of the gullible to be perpetuated. Apollo's data has been peer reviewed. Just because some people don't like the outcome doesn't mean that they aren't genuine. Where's the peer review of claims about UFOs being revealed by orbs? Where can I find the scientific papers on that?
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. On the other hand, Patrick wants to order us what to believe. I was eightysixed from University for having proven two professors of different courses to be fraudulent. I completed all of the assignments, participated in most discussions, and attended every class. What I didn't do was to kiss ass. That's the most important lesson taught today. Other than that, there is an general dumbing down. IQs are dropping in the United States. American exceptionalism is being reversed to enable immigrants from the third World an advantage over citizens. This is because they have no concept such as The Bill of Rights, or even the Magna Carta. Therefore, they will do as they are told, without question, and the World will become free to be a, Global Totalitarian prison planet.
You can contradict me, block my comments, belittle my views, and slander me with innuendo all you want. What you can't do is make me believe NASA instead of my first hand, inter-dimensional contacts, and you can't fire me, either.
For twenty million dollars, I am willing to share the applied technology of Quantum Bilocation, however.
There may appear to be four to eleven dimensions, but that's just our imagination struggling with a lack of data.
That's enough random noise from you Theadora/Misti/Orbs. You're maxed on this thread unless what you post is absolutely on topic and SENSIBLE.
Regarding Levin, listening to him and his co-investigator and other people who show up from time to time on the Space Show podcast, the suggestion is that NASA does not want to discover life on Mars. He says the only reason he could think of was that finding life on Mars would jeopardize sending manned missions there. Not sure this makes sense but it fits his observations of lack of life detection experiments in post-Viking. I am just a listener with no special expertise in the area so it is hard for me to judge his authority. As you state, he has a number of published peer reviewed articles and a book. He is no charlatan. I don't think he claims to be "suppressed" via publishing, at least I cannot remember this. I just recall his being rejected/dismissed without review for proposing life detection experiments on post-Viking landers. You would think he would have enough prestige to get closer to the front of the line. He also makes claims about Curiosity not doing some wet chemistry stuff that would help address this life question.
Since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, if there is life on Mars, do you think it could be dangerous to humans? I don't mean ray gun wielding aliens, but microbe sized things.
Thanks for an interesting comment.
No, LevÃn himself doesn't protest that he's been suppressed, but Hoagland & Bara make that claim strongly.
« What most people do not remember is that the Lander tests for life both came back positive. NASA, however, quickly moved to suppress this news and present an 'alternative' view. »
--Dark Mission, p.514 2nd edn.
That phrase "both came back positive" is highly deceptive, and I think deliberately so. The factual way to state it is "One of the three tests for life came back positive at both landing sites."
I think the accusation that NASA has been weak on Mars life-detection since Viking has some merit. They do seem to be pussy-footing it a bit. As for Mars microbes being dangerous, quite possibly yes.
You really ought to start critiquing, The Martian Revelation, podcast. Esteemed host, Gary Leggiere has recently interviewed Dr Levin, who described his fervent efforts to convince NASA of the veracity of his experiment, to no avail. Nor would NASA conduct the above mentioned experiment to address NASAss' bogus dismissal of the proofs which in fact did result from the original test.
Dr Gil Levin Labeled Release Experiment Scientific Details That Proved Life On Mars
Monkey: I'm aware of that podcast, and my colleague James Concannon has commented on it. Personally I just can't stand Gary's voice, I think he's quite unsuited for podcasting or any other kind of 'casting.
I've always been sympathetic to Gary because of the treatment he got from Hoagland and Falkov. However, I've told him I think he's barking up entirely the wrong tree in his obsession with "The Faces of Mars".
Why did Hoagland and Falkov treat Gary the way as you allude?
Here's pretty much the full story.
Thank you expat.
https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/conspiracy-theories/2011/1427830.html
"...follow the data to show Hoagland’s intent and purpose. It’s not far fetched to see that Hoagland and Robin obviously set Gary up from getting us the truth about Mars!"
ExPat... You said... "Personally I just can't stand Gary's voice, I think he's quite unsuited for podcasting or any other kind of 'casting."
LOL... YET MY NUMBERS GROW & THE FUTURE FATE I AM HELPING TO MAKE TAKES ROOT!!
Also, I do NOT Podcast.. I AINT A PUSSY. I do LIVE BROADCAST.
Unless & if & when I need to do recorded shows.
Thanks for your empathy however to my situation. It was & IS seriously fucked up!!!
Thanks also for showing a link to where some chunk of this case can be brought forth. ;-)
I fight for the TRUTH & that is all that matters.
No offense, Mr Leggiere. It was I who first started referring to your program as a podcast in this here thread. I admit that I don't really understand the difference between a podcast and a broadcast. You are my hero. When I get to the future, I intend to predict what you've been saying all along. Then everybody will know the truth.
Does Bara mention this?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/mysterious-unexplained-flashes-light-spotted-moon-9768936/
Mysterious flashes of light observed on the moon’s surface
author imageJasper HamillFriday 31 May 2019 5:41 pm
‘The so-called transient lunar phenomena have been known since the 1950s, but they have not been sufficiently systematically and long-term observed,’ said Hakan Kayal, professor of space technology.
The TLPs are meteoric impacts. One was actually seen during the lunar eclipse in January of this year. https://www.space.com/meteorite-hits-moon-during-2019-lunar-eclipse.html
Post a Comment