Very hard for me to follow because I don't watch sports or "entertainers" and can't read through the stylized names and meanings.
What I did get and agree with is newsom. I believe kamala will be set up or killed. Old joe will pick newsom as VP, then he will have to step down for some reason like being too senile, ushering newsom into the convention. If you saw what bill mahr recently said about newsom being electable without naming a single accomplishment, you can see democrat party thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwAbzMayssU
Yes. Maher's embarrassing display with PBD was a big red alarm for me. It's clear Newsom's got some people working to grease him right into the White House. Maher, Joe Rogan, several people I would not have expected have been going softball on him. The fix is in!
Maher is a Zio-terrorist apologist and has been forever. Rogan just renewed his deal for $250M. That means he has a half billion in signed contracts with them. He is paid more than Sean Hannity, the top paid cable news goon. Maher has been at HBO forever, a Hollywood elitist and industry stooge. He is given a longer leash just to rope in the outer dopes when I/P shows up. Why would you ever expect any integrity from these guys?
Mostly cuz of their behavior during the Covid lockdown/vaxx assault. But Maher's really shown himself to be profoundly uninformed recently. I honestly don't expect Rogan to throw us under the bus until Teh Alienz show up. Maybe earlier, to help Gaping Gavin.
I'm only going to quibble with you on one thing: Shanahan throwing that game. He sucks as a play caller, THEY didn't need him for the fix, they knew he'd screw up the SB, for a third time.
I'm honestly not that familiar with the 49ers, nor NFL at all anymore (tho I used to bleed for professional sports), so I can't speak to the overall qualities of Kyle Shanahan as a coach and will defer to your critical analysis.
Maybe Shanahan just sucks in general! He certainly left his top offensive player hanging for too long, either way. Thank you for your observation!
He's been doing that all year, he calls plays against type.
The Ninrts leveraged their future draft picks on Trey (qb no longer on their team) and McCaffrey. If they don't win next year, they are screwed by a lack of high picks. It could be a fix, I think it is just stupid.
" ... all the lost research explaining how we got there, all the lost video footage, all the fake and missing moon rocks, all the laughably ridiculous video footage, etc., Whether we went to the moon or not, there’s sure been a lot of circumstantial evidence circulated that we did not. True or false, it almost doesn’t matter; the accomplishment has been tarnished."
All the seeming anomalies in the moon landings have been explained perfectly satisfactorily including the video footage of the LEM ascent. All you have to do is look it up. Yes, I know that so much alleged fact-check is complete hokum but when it comes to the moon landings the explanations are perfectly valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K67VIbfVPxY
However, it is very true that they have created doubt about them - clearly evidenced in the cartoonish Bill Kaysing, who - completely against reality - they made Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne (the company who made the rockets to go to the moon) and had spout complete nonsense, eg, a crater so large should have been created that the astronauts couldn't have got out of it. The reason they've done this is to undermine those who tend to reject their narratives Boy Who Cried Wolf style so when they call out the real lies (most things they say) they will be laughed at as silly "conspiracy theorists". And what's interesting is that no rejecter of the reality of moon landings has noticed that Bill Kaysing couldn't possibly be who he is said to be. The propagandists understand us so much better than we understand ourselves.
"Whether or not 9/11 was an “inside job,” the U.S. government has gone out of its way to create ambiguity about the event — all the still-hidden footage of the plane/rocket/missile hitting the Pentagon, the alleged terrorist’s passport discovered mostly unscathed a few blocks from WTC, the collapse of WTC7, ..."
There is no whether or not, there is clearly a yes, inside job, however, where they've led the rejecters of their preposterous narrative astray is having them believe that while the rest of the story is nonsense PEOPLE DIED! All you have to do is say PEOPLE DIED! and people's minds turn to jelly and they believe it and will say HOW DARE YOU! to anyone who suggests, "No they didn't, that's just all part of the lie too." 9/11 was a demolition job ... and what generally happens in demolitions jobs? The buildings and surrounding areas are FULLY EVACUATED. That's what normally happens and it's hard to get your head around how they would have broken protocol on that day. Besides, they tell us loud and clear underneath the many layers of magic propaganda dust that death and injury were staged - not to say that no one died or was injured, I'd say some people at the very least were injured and maybe a few died but in general we can see without a doubt that death and injury were staged which is only to be expected in a psyop where they didn't want to kill and injure people for real. If they wanna kill them, they will but they didn't want to and it would have been highly problematic involving the people they did to go along with real death and injury when it was just a major element of their terror story.
Reporters outside hospitals report no injured, firefighter testimonies full of nonsensicality, images of injured perfectly consistent with drill injured, a number of alleged victims made-up people ... there is not a single skerrick of evidence that favours the real death and injury hypothesis ... and I challenge anyone to present it.
Their psyops are always done Hidden in Plain Sight - they TELL us ... moreover, they never fake a piece of evidence so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. We must give them that.
Ann, I'm afraid David McGowan is/was controlled opposition - like so very many.
When I first started to look at the moon landings Wagging the Moondoggie was my first reference point and I found it pretty compelling. However, when I consulted the evidence myself I started to see things differently.
On this page I've put links to various debunkings including that of Wagging the Moondoggie.
Thank you for your comment, Petra. The part that most jumps out at me is "was/is." What are you suggesting? The possibility Dave McGowan is still alive? If so, what do you base that suggestion upon? If that's not what you're saying, could you explain the "controlled opposition" accusation?
Beyond those questions, there is much I disagree with in your debunking. Use of words "perhaps," "possibly," "implies," "I'd argue that...", "Maybe...?" "Arguably..." and so on throughout the piece undermines the points you are trying to make.
Additionally, there are numerous issues raised in Dave McGowan's long investigative report that are not addressed in your debunking. Too many to list here, but the 30% enlarged moon lander combined with the 75% scale astronauts displayed in the Smithsonian was always a glaring one to me.
As I've said before, I remain unsure about the veracity of the moon landing, and, with all due respect, your debunking of the "hoax" did nothing to assuage my suspicions. Thank you again for your comment!
I think it's common for agents to have a lifespan in public and when that lifespan's finished they supposedly die so that's the reason I put was/is. He could have genuinely died of cancer, I don't know, but he is/was definitely an agent.
Just to say it is not my debunking posted (which is not of Wagging the Moondoggie but the film, American Moon) but "Sensible Site's" that I reposted. The post also has a link to a debunking of Wagging the Moondoggie by Sensible Site but it is incomplete (actually I see now it is only to Part 1 of the 14-part book) as is his debunking of American Moon, however, others have responded to all 42 questions raised in that film which I put links to in my post.
Sensible Site is not an astronaut himself and the use of those terms isn't in the actual debunking, for example, he uses "arguably" in positing that landing was more delicate than lift-off in response to AM's claim that lift-off was "possibly the most delicate moment of the entire mission". The argument isn't about which one is more delicate it's about the playing of music during lift-off for which he gives a reasonable explanation so "arguably" is perfectly appropriate in the situation and, in fact, I'd agree, wouldn't you that landing is a more delicate operation than lift-off?
I just asked ChatGPT about the 30% larger LEM and it came back with the answer that no LEMs in the Smithsonian were 30% larger than the real thing - https://chat.openai.com/c/c78dc0cf-7041-4a2a-95cc-627ee53d437a so can you point to evidence of the larger LEMs, smaller astronaut models?
Unless you have a solid argument, I state without fear of contradiction that all 42 seeming anomalies raised in American Moon have all been responded to satisfactorily and the responses to the claims made in Part 1 of Wagging the Moondoggie are valid. While the debunking of WTMD is only of Part 1, I think it exposes not so much error in Dave McGowan's argument but dishonesty. It's worth reading and obviously not very long as it's only to Part 1.
Just to add that it is not these debunkings which convinced me of the moon landings, it was:
First: feeling that the evidence was authentic - the hours of audio recordings of the conversation between the astronauts and mission control (completely alien to the way they do things in psyops), the imagery so alien to earth in that you have a very brightly lit lunar surface against a black sky
Second: checking every claim made by disbelievers to see if there was a response and there is to virtually every one ... these debunkings came very far down that line.
I'm not sure continuing this exchange is a good use of my time, but I'll press on a bit further.
1- "He [Dave McGowan] is/was definitely an agent." How/Why do you say that?
I actually knew Dave McGowan. I was helping him with PR for WEIRD SCENES INSIDE THE CANYON book when he did his exposé on the Boston Marathon bombing, was mocked about his smoking habit and how he could get cancer if he didn't watch out in a strange comment on an interview he did with the "Caravan to Midnight" podcast about the Boston bombing, then he got cancer and died. Dave was a prolific smoker, bigger than Bogart. Maybe he got cancer, maybe he was given cancer, but I don't think he faked getting cancer.
2- The size of the Smithsonian display is chronicled in McGowan's piece. ChatGPT has notoriously been caught fabricating "facts" repeatedly. I remember seeing that Smithsonian exhibit when I lived in D.C., before I questioned the moon landing, and thinking "Wow, I had no idea the astronauts were so short!"
The section on the module's size are in Part II of "Wagging the Moondoggie," though Dave does not go into exact percentages.
3- You are cherry-picking the ambiguous words behind the debunking. The "arguably" could be considered legit, but not all the "perhaps," "possibly," "implies," "I'd argue that...", "Maybe...?" and so on.
Finally, after all your paragraphs supporting the debunkings, you negate it all by saying "[I]t is not these debunkings which convinced me of the moon landings, it was... feeling that the evidence was authentic."
This isn't about feelings. There were a lot of people who felt they could trust the government about a lot of things and were wrong. Fealty to "Feelings" over "Facts" is what got us in the dire situation we currently find ourselves. "Feelings" fall far below even "Instincts" in my worldview.
Thank you for your comment. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Very hard for me to follow because I don't watch sports or "entertainers" and can't read through the stylized names and meanings.
What I did get and agree with is newsom. I believe kamala will be set up or killed. Old joe will pick newsom as VP, then he will have to step down for some reason like being too senile, ushering newsom into the convention. If you saw what bill mahr recently said about newsom being electable without naming a single accomplishment, you can see democrat party thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwAbzMayssU
Besides, look at this moronic fake performance from newsom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cucX-S2t-0c
It's all in the cards.
Yes. Maher's embarrassing display with PBD was a big red alarm for me. It's clear Newsom's got some people working to grease him right into the White House. Maher, Joe Rogan, several people I would not have expected have been going softball on him. The fix is in!
Maher is a Zio-terrorist apologist and has been forever. Rogan just renewed his deal for $250M. That means he has a half billion in signed contracts with them. He is paid more than Sean Hannity, the top paid cable news goon. Maher has been at HBO forever, a Hollywood elitist and industry stooge. He is given a longer leash just to rope in the outer dopes when I/P shows up. Why would you ever expect any integrity from these guys?
Mostly cuz of their behavior during the Covid lockdown/vaxx assault. But Maher's really shown himself to be profoundly uninformed recently. I honestly don't expect Rogan to throw us under the bus until Teh Alienz show up. Maybe earlier, to help Gaping Gavin.
Thank you for your comment!
I'm only going to quibble with you on one thing: Shanahan throwing that game. He sucks as a play caller, THEY didn't need him for the fix, they knew he'd screw up the SB, for a third time.
I'm honestly not that familiar with the 49ers, nor NFL at all anymore (tho I used to bleed for professional sports), so I can't speak to the overall qualities of Kyle Shanahan as a coach and will defer to your critical analysis.
Maybe Shanahan just sucks in general! He certainly left his top offensive player hanging for too long, either way. Thank you for your observation!
He's been doing that all year, he calls plays against type.
The Ninrts leveraged their future draft picks on Trey (qb no longer on their team) and McCaffrey. If they don't win next year, they are screwed by a lack of high picks. It could be a fix, I think it is just stupid.
Whether or not ... ?
" ... all the lost research explaining how we got there, all the lost video footage, all the fake and missing moon rocks, all the laughably ridiculous video footage, etc., Whether we went to the moon or not, there’s sure been a lot of circumstantial evidence circulated that we did not. True or false, it almost doesn’t matter; the accomplishment has been tarnished."
All the seeming anomalies in the moon landings have been explained perfectly satisfactorily including the video footage of the LEM ascent. All you have to do is look it up. Yes, I know that so much alleged fact-check is complete hokum but when it comes to the moon landings the explanations are perfectly valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K67VIbfVPxY
However, it is very true that they have created doubt about them - clearly evidenced in the cartoonish Bill Kaysing, who - completely against reality - they made Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne (the company who made the rockets to go to the moon) and had spout complete nonsense, eg, a crater so large should have been created that the astronauts couldn't have got out of it. The reason they've done this is to undermine those who tend to reject their narratives Boy Who Cried Wolf style so when they call out the real lies (most things they say) they will be laughed at as silly "conspiracy theorists". And what's interesting is that no rejecter of the reality of moon landings has noticed that Bill Kaysing couldn't possibly be who he is said to be. The propagandists understand us so much better than we understand ourselves.
"Whether or not 9/11 was an “inside job,” the U.S. government has gone out of its way to create ambiguity about the event — all the still-hidden footage of the plane/rocket/missile hitting the Pentagon, the alleged terrorist’s passport discovered mostly unscathed a few blocks from WTC, the collapse of WTC7, ..."
There is no whether or not, there is clearly a yes, inside job, however, where they've led the rejecters of their preposterous narrative astray is having them believe that while the rest of the story is nonsense PEOPLE DIED! All you have to do is say PEOPLE DIED! and people's minds turn to jelly and they believe it and will say HOW DARE YOU! to anyone who suggests, "No they didn't, that's just all part of the lie too." 9/11 was a demolition job ... and what generally happens in demolitions jobs? The buildings and surrounding areas are FULLY EVACUATED. That's what normally happens and it's hard to get your head around how they would have broken protocol on that day. Besides, they tell us loud and clear underneath the many layers of magic propaganda dust that death and injury were staged - not to say that no one died or was injured, I'd say some people at the very least were injured and maybe a few died but in general we can see without a doubt that death and injury were staged which is only to be expected in a psyop where they didn't want to kill and injure people for real. If they wanna kill them, they will but they didn't want to and it would have been highly problematic involving the people they did to go along with real death and injury when it was just a major element of their terror story.
Reporters outside hospitals report no injured, firefighter testimonies full of nonsensicality, images of injured perfectly consistent with drill injured, a number of alleged victims made-up people ... there is not a single skerrick of evidence that favours the real death and injury hypothesis ... and I challenge anyone to present it.
Their psyops are always done Hidden in Plain Sight - they TELL us ... moreover, they never fake a piece of evidence so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. We must give them that.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-false-dilemma-propaganda
The late, great Dave McGowan makes a persuasive case here, as well: https://archive.org/details/WaggingMoondoggieDavidMcgowan_201903
He gives 9 1 1 the same treatment, too.
Ann, I'm afraid David McGowan is/was controlled opposition - like so very many.
When I first started to look at the moon landings Wagging the Moondoggie was my first reference point and I found it pretty compelling. However, when I consulted the evidence myself I started to see things differently.
On this page I've put links to various debunkings including that of Wagging the Moondoggie.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
Thank you for your comment, Petra. The part that most jumps out at me is "was/is." What are you suggesting? The possibility Dave McGowan is still alive? If so, what do you base that suggestion upon? If that's not what you're saying, could you explain the "controlled opposition" accusation?
Beyond those questions, there is much I disagree with in your debunking. Use of words "perhaps," "possibly," "implies," "I'd argue that...", "Maybe...?" "Arguably..." and so on throughout the piece undermines the points you are trying to make.
Additionally, there are numerous issues raised in Dave McGowan's long investigative report that are not addressed in your debunking. Too many to list here, but the 30% enlarged moon lander combined with the 75% scale astronauts displayed in the Smithsonian was always a glaring one to me.
As I've said before, I remain unsure about the veracity of the moon landing, and, with all due respect, your debunking of the "hoax" did nothing to assuage my suspicions. Thank you again for your comment!
I think it's common for agents to have a lifespan in public and when that lifespan's finished they supposedly die so that's the reason I put was/is. He could have genuinely died of cancer, I don't know, but he is/was definitely an agent.
Just to say it is not my debunking posted (which is not of Wagging the Moondoggie but the film, American Moon) but "Sensible Site's" that I reposted. The post also has a link to a debunking of Wagging the Moondoggie by Sensible Site but it is incomplete (actually I see now it is only to Part 1 of the 14-part book) as is his debunking of American Moon, however, others have responded to all 42 questions raised in that film which I put links to in my post.
Sensible Site is not an astronaut himself and the use of those terms isn't in the actual debunking, for example, he uses "arguably" in positing that landing was more delicate than lift-off in response to AM's claim that lift-off was "possibly the most delicate moment of the entire mission". The argument isn't about which one is more delicate it's about the playing of music during lift-off for which he gives a reasonable explanation so "arguably" is perfectly appropriate in the situation and, in fact, I'd agree, wouldn't you that landing is a more delicate operation than lift-off?
I just asked ChatGPT about the 30% larger LEM and it came back with the answer that no LEMs in the Smithsonian were 30% larger than the real thing - https://chat.openai.com/c/c78dc0cf-7041-4a2a-95cc-627ee53d437a so can you point to evidence of the larger LEMs, smaller astronaut models?
Unless you have a solid argument, I state without fear of contradiction that all 42 seeming anomalies raised in American Moon have all been responded to satisfactorily and the responses to the claims made in Part 1 of Wagging the Moondoggie are valid. While the debunking of WTMD is only of Part 1, I think it exposes not so much error in Dave McGowan's argument but dishonesty. It's worth reading and obviously not very long as it's only to Part 1.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/
Just to add that it is not these debunkings which convinced me of the moon landings, it was:
First: feeling that the evidence was authentic - the hours of audio recordings of the conversation between the astronauts and mission control (completely alien to the way they do things in psyops), the imagery so alien to earth in that you have a very brightly lit lunar surface against a black sky
Second: checking every claim made by disbelievers to see if there was a response and there is to virtually every one ... these debunkings came very far down that line.
I'm not sure continuing this exchange is a good use of my time, but I'll press on a bit further.
1- "He [Dave McGowan] is/was definitely an agent." How/Why do you say that?
I actually knew Dave McGowan. I was helping him with PR for WEIRD SCENES INSIDE THE CANYON book when he did his exposé on the Boston Marathon bombing, was mocked about his smoking habit and how he could get cancer if he didn't watch out in a strange comment on an interview he did with the "Caravan to Midnight" podcast about the Boston bombing, then he got cancer and died. Dave was a prolific smoker, bigger than Bogart. Maybe he got cancer, maybe he was given cancer, but I don't think he faked getting cancer.
2- The size of the Smithsonian display is chronicled in McGowan's piece. ChatGPT has notoriously been caught fabricating "facts" repeatedly. I remember seeing that Smithsonian exhibit when I lived in D.C., before I questioned the moon landing, and thinking "Wow, I had no idea the astronauts were so short!"
The section on the module's size are in Part II of "Wagging the Moondoggie," though Dave does not go into exact percentages.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-2/
3- You are cherry-picking the ambiguous words behind the debunking. The "arguably" could be considered legit, but not all the "perhaps," "possibly," "implies," "I'd argue that...", "Maybe...?" and so on.
Finally, after all your paragraphs supporting the debunkings, you negate it all by saying "[I]t is not these debunkings which convinced me of the moon landings, it was... feeling that the evidence was authentic."
This isn't about feelings. There were a lot of people who felt they could trust the government about a lot of things and were wrong. Fealty to "Feelings" over "Facts" is what got us in the dire situation we currently find ourselves. "Feelings" fall far below even "Instincts" in my worldview.
Thank you for your comment. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.