Thank you. Such an informative article. As a recently returned member of the U. S. Armed Forces from Southeast Asia in 1968 I was also unimpressed with the ‘Look Over There’ tactics. The hypnotic power of suggestion and the entire playbook of ‘mind control’, from “How to Win Friends and Influence People” to “2001 Space Odyssey” and beyond has been with us (within us) forever.
I am always trying to get people to read “The Cultural Cold War” by Frances Stoner Saunders, subtitled ‘The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters’……”How long has has this been going on?”….As long as we’ve been singing songs of love and betrayal.
I think that it is relevant to note that the currency was being shifted to fiat over this period as well, starting with the “Beans and Bullets” of the sixties, and the fallout that led to Nixon closing the gold window, and the eventual floating of the currency.
There was at home economic pain to distract from as well.
One of my favorite points from McGowan is how the mainstream narrative gets more tenous every year. We now have the Artemis missions that are years behind schedule to put the first woman on the moon. And in 2025 we have difficulty returning astronauts from low earth orbit let alone lunar orbit. It will be pretty tough to defend the Apollo missions when they are still unreplicated on their 100th anniversary.
...not to mention how difficult it will be to defend the so-called Mars missions. Hopefully they'll have sufficient AI generating powers to again convince a large chunk of people that it's real. After all, it's the story that counts for the masses. As for myself, I don't even think it's an object upon which you can land, but that's another tale. God won't be mocked much longer.
Russia was ahead of the US in space exploration but never attempted a moon landing, perhaps because Soviet scientists saw no way to send astronauts safely to the moon and bring them back.
The main barrier, perhaps, would have been the Van Allen belts that blanket the earth in radiation fatal to humans.
Or maybe they saw no point in even attempting a manned mission when an unmanned craft could do just as well in acquiring whatever scientific information there was to be gathered on the moon.
First massive mistake was quoting the journalist who claimed Nixon made the landings happen. He didn't. I could rail on and on about technical details, but nah, been down that road. I felt that you only really touched upon the tv aspect, the surreality thereof.
If you believe the moon landing was fake, well, it's good for an essay that could have been punched up a little. I would have thought maybe taking a prose approach like, say, combining William S. Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson. Or perhaps getting really really drunk and writing it and then no editing. If I'm going to read a theory that can neither be proven or disproven, then I shall indeed look for creativity. If not creativity then perhaps some wild off the cuff style.
Why yes, I am critiquing. If your going to be wrong, do so spectacularly. If your right, do so even more spectacularly. Punch hard. And Kubrick won't do it, everyone and their pet monkey quotes Kubrick as the go to guy who helped fake the moon landings.
I suggest you go and get drunk, write your own article and show us all how it's done.
Thank you. Such an informative article. As a recently returned member of the U. S. Armed Forces from Southeast Asia in 1968 I was also unimpressed with the ‘Look Over There’ tactics. The hypnotic power of suggestion and the entire playbook of ‘mind control’, from “How to Win Friends and Influence People” to “2001 Space Odyssey” and beyond has been with us (within us) forever.
I am always trying to get people to read “The Cultural Cold War” by Frances Stoner Saunders, subtitled ‘The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters’……”How long has has this been going on?”….As long as we’ve been singing songs of love and betrayal.
Capricorn One.. probably the only film you need to watch
I think that it is relevant to note that the currency was being shifted to fiat over this period as well, starting with the “Beans and Bullets” of the sixties, and the fallout that led to Nixon closing the gold window, and the eventual floating of the currency.
There was at home economic pain to distract from as well.
One of my favorite points from McGowan is how the mainstream narrative gets more tenous every year. We now have the Artemis missions that are years behind schedule to put the first woman on the moon. And in 2025 we have difficulty returning astronauts from low earth orbit let alone lunar orbit. It will be pretty tough to defend the Apollo missions when they are still unreplicated on their 100th anniversary.
...not to mention how difficult it will be to defend the so-called Mars missions. Hopefully they'll have sufficient AI generating powers to again convince a large chunk of people that it's real. After all, it's the story that counts for the masses. As for myself, I don't even think it's an object upon which you can land, but that's another tale. God won't be mocked much longer.
Russia was ahead of the US in space exploration but never attempted a moon landing, perhaps because Soviet scientists saw no way to send astronauts safely to the moon and bring them back.
The main barrier, perhaps, would have been the Van Allen belts that blanket the earth in radiation fatal to humans.
Or maybe they saw no point in even attempting a manned mission when an unmanned craft could do just as well in acquiring whatever scientific information there was to be gathered on the moon.
First massive mistake was quoting the journalist who claimed Nixon made the landings happen. He didn't. I could rail on and on about technical details, but nah, been down that road. I felt that you only really touched upon the tv aspect, the surreality thereof.
If you believe the moon landing was fake, well, it's good for an essay that could have been punched up a little. I would have thought maybe taking a prose approach like, say, combining William S. Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson. Or perhaps getting really really drunk and writing it and then no editing. If I'm going to read a theory that can neither be proven or disproven, then I shall indeed look for creativity. If not creativity then perhaps some wild off the cuff style.
Why yes, I am critiquing. If your going to be wrong, do so spectacularly. If your right, do so even more spectacularly. Punch hard. And Kubrick won't do it, everyone and their pet monkey quotes Kubrick as the go to guy who helped fake the moon landings.