Toddler Hoaxes

[This page is in near-finished draft form]



Toddler Hoaxes comprise Osama bin Laden and the Apollo Program. A step below Kiddy Hoaxes, but a step above Baby Hoaxes, the Toddler Hoaxes share some similarities with both, and serve as a bridge between the two. Like Baby Hoaxes, the Toddler Hoaxes are primarily media-driven. This was true at the time of their respective premiers, and has remained the case throughout their run. Like Kiddy Hoaxes, the Toddler Hoaxes are discrete, major events/stories; and they act as foundations to the greater Hoaxes on which they are built.

Conspicuously, the prominent YouTube ‘truthers’ who routinely cover the Baby Hoaxes generally pay little attention to the Toddler Hoaxes – some even deny the Toddler Hoaxes altogether. It may be argued that this is because exposure to (and a proper understanding of) the Toddler Hoaxes will naturally lead truth n00bs to investigation of the Kiddy Hoaxes. In this sense, the Toddler Hoaxes serve as a litmus test of would-be truth-tellers on YouTube: if a party seems wise to media fakery, but oblivious or indifferent to bin Laden and/or Apollo fakery, it can be inferred that said party is at best a poor researcher – or worse

The Toddler Two

Osama bin Laden. It is one thing to know that the official story of 9/11 is laughable nonsense. Every truth n00b knows that the ‘Arabs with boxcutters’ story is suspicious at best, and even many normies are willing to question the broader narrative of the events leading up to, on, and following that fateful day. It is another thing altogether to understand that the character known as ‘Osama bin Laden’ (ObL) is nothing but that: a character. The villain of a comically cartoonish fable. One whose alleged fate at the bottom of the ocean is no more preposterous than the rest of his life story as portrayed by the TPWRTS.

Prominent ‘alternative media’ types such as Alex Jones are known for proclaiming loudly that ‘9/11 was an inside job’. This implies that it was the government (or some other establishment outfit) who were responsible for the attacks, but it says nothing of the character of ObL. To accept that ObL was not responsible for 9/11 might be a decent start for the budding deprogrammer, but this barely scratches the surface of a far more important revelation which stems from the event: the bad guy was a fictional character. Understanding and appreciating this fact is an important step in beginning to understand media fakery. After all, if the bad guy was make believe, how much of the story was real?

It is not simply that the media report mistruths. It is not simply that they report lies. It is instead the case that the lies depend on the MSM and, moreover, the media’s primary function in large-scale hoaxes is to disseminate the lies to the masses. The ‘911 was an inside job’ mantra omits this simple but fundamental concept. It is not merely that ObL was not responsible for what happened on 9/11; what is far more profound is that he did not and does not exist outside of the media paradigm. This realisation may allow would-be deprogrammers to move on to the next important understanding: 9/11 No Planes. See ‘9/11 No Planes’ within Kiddy Hoaxes.

Apollo Program. The ‘moon landings’ of 1969-1972 set the stage for the entire NASA charade which was to follow and is still ongoing (with no end in sight). As with 9/11, peoples initial belief in the official narrative was entirely dependent on media dissemination of crucial images and sound. As with 9/11, the story involved at its core the idea of an ‘us vs them’, in the form of a ‘space race’ with arch nemesis (i.e. bad guys) USSR. As with 9/11, the ‘conspiracy theories’ began making the rounds immediately, almost as if they had been planned ahead. As with 9/11, the most widely-publicised (‘debunked’) of these theories were themselves spurious red herrings. And, as with 9/11 (ObL), the Apollo Missions serve as a bridge to understanding a much greater level of Hoaxery. See ‘NASA Fakery’ within Kiddy Hoaxes.

Unlike broader NASA Fakery, the Apollo Missions have been referenced and mocked (‘hidden in plain sight’) time and again via pop culture. As early as 1971 (before the Apollo Program had even concluded), the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever featured an amusing scene based on a moon landing movie set. Then in 1978 the film Capricorn One (starring O.J. Simpson) was released, and based entirely on the faked moon landings, via the barely-subtle analogy of a faked Mars landing. More recently, all of the following ‘sitcoms’ have included brief scenes which blatantly reveal the obvious truth: Family Guy, Friends, Futurama, King of the Hill (see 13:30).

The most important aspect of the Apollo Program hoax for would-be deprogrammers to understand is this: the masses believed it because they saw it on TV. no more, no less. Countless hours are wasted by truth n00bs in attempting to deconstruct the logistics or technical aspects involved in ‘sending a man to the moon’. Were the rockets powerful enough? Were the spacesuits sufficiently ventilated? Would the Lunar Module have been able to withstand both extreme heat and extreme cold? Could the camera used by the astronauts have produced the types of crystal-clear images brought back to earth? All red herrings. What matters is most is that masses believed the story because they saw it on TV and were told that it was real.

A Level Above Baby Hoaxes

Both Baby Hoaxes and Toddler Hoaxes are media-driven. There are, however, some significant differences which set them apart.

First, whereas Baby Hoaxes may be of small scale right through to large scale, whose power lay in their cumulative effect on the mind of the sleeple who consume and believe one after another after another ad infinitum, the Toddler Hoaxes were discrete, major events. Each is more momentous and symbolic than a run-of-the-mill marathon bombing or Sydney terrorism siege. Just a few years after the former, few people on the street today would recall the name ‘Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’, and almost nobody will remember in another ten years; contrast this with ‘Osama bin Laden’, whose name still evokes memories of the most evil man alive (since Hitler).

Second, although the Toddler Hoaxes are primarily media-driven, they still involve notable amounts of state-based indoctrination via the education system, at least inside the United States where they were produced. Even in Australia, the omission of 9/11 from the history curriculum is contentious and receives sporadic media attention.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Toddler Hoaxes necessarily imply a level of international complicity in the ruse. A single national government (or subgroup therein) may carry out a Baby Hoax, and do so (at least in theory) without alerting other national governments either intentionally or unintentionally. The Toddler Hoaxes, on the other hand, could only be accomplished if all of the governments/media of the world are in on it (which, of course, they are). Osama bin Laden was portrayed as the bad guy by the mainstream media (and government) of all western nations; the moon landings were disseminated and portrayed as legitimate by the media/gov of all western nations. Simultaneously. If government and media existed to serve the citizenry of their own nations, how could a single national government create a fictional boogeyman? How could a single nation fake putting a man on the moon? To repeat: Toddler Hoaxes are of a scale that necessarily implies international media/gov complicity.

A level Below Kiddy Hoaxes

There are several important ways in which Toddler Hoaxes are distinct from the Kiddy Hoaxes above them:

First, while they entail some degree of state-based indoctrination, this is not necessary for their ultimate effect. The sleeple believes in an evil Arab bad guy because they saw him interviewed on TV, and they believe man walked down a ladder onto the moon’s surface because they saw it on TV. Once the collective mind had been convinced of the truth of these stories, further ‘education’ about the events was/is required only to expose younger minds to the narrative. In the case of Kiddy Hoaxes, ‘education’ is a fundamental part of instilling widespread belief in the first place.

Second, the the Toddler Hoaxes were primarily disseminated via the ‘news’ programming. Again, the masses saw Osama bin Laden giving a scary interview with a news reporter, and they saw man walk on the moon via a live feed. The Kiddy Hoaxes, on the other hand, involve far more conditioning via other forms of audiovisual programming, chiefly via film (both ‘documentary’ and fiction).

Third, the government’s role in the narrative of the Toddler Hoaxes is important but not fundamental to the belief of the masses that the event was real. In both Toddler Hoaxes, the government is a central part of the story: they were outsmarted by the bad guy but then retaliated with full force; they won the space race and brought society into the ‘space age’; but the belief of the masses followed from exposure to sounds and images on a TV screen. Faith in government is not necessary for belief in the Hoax, and belief in the Hoax is not necessary for faith in the government. This is evidenced by the number of people who can see holes in the official narrative but then seek to justify these problems by appeals to the governments greater good, e.g. ‘the American government funded the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets’, or ‘they faked the moon landing footage to make sure Americans could ‘see’ the successful mission in case telecommunications failed’.

Finally, the scale of the Toddler Hoaxes is well beyond the typical Kiddy Hoax. Even if a man were to truly bomb a marathon, this would only be of genuine importance to his victims and their families. Even if a ‘terror organisation’ were to truly bomb an airport, the average citizen in that country or others would have no discernible solution, and their government no straightforward target. If, on the other hand, a ‘terrorist mastermind’ could outsmart the most powerful government on the planet and kill thousands of people in one strike, this would necessitate international cooperation to catch the bad guy; if a nation were to truly conquer the moon, this would signify a genuinely historical achievement for not only her people but the entire race – at least in the minds of the sleeple.

A Bridge Between Baby And Kiddy Hoaxes…

As they share important traits of the Hoaxes either side on the Hoax Hierarchy, Toddler Hoaxes serve budding deprogrammers as a convenient bridge between the two. The Baby Hoaxes introduce the idea that the media can and does lie about tragedies, the Toddler Hoaxes reveal that they lie about the greatest tragedies (and triumphs). The Baby Hoaxes introduce the idea that the media is complicit in convincing the masses into belief, the Toddler Hoaxes reveal that this is the media’s primary function. the Baby Hoaxes introduce the idea that governments may be part of a grand conspiracy, the Toddler Hoaxes reveal that all national governments are party to the same grand conspiracy.

…Which May Explain Why The YouTube Truthers Remain Quiet

It is one thing to claim that a lie has been told. It is another thing entirely to explain how the lie was successful, or why it was told, or who concocted the lie in the first place.

Take, for instance, Sandy Hook. One can focus on the what (e.g. laughing parents), the when (post-event press conference), and they where (Connecticut), without revealing anything of great importance to the audience. A YouTube ‘truther’ could make 1,000 videos on different aspects of the same event, without ever threatening to assist would-be deprogrammers to improve their broader understanding of the Lie System. Like an adult ‘teaching’ children by pointing to things and saying their names. ‘Look, that’s a train. Look, that’s a tree’. But how can the child use the train, and why should it care about trees?

Many will seek to defend the prominent YouTube ‘truthers’ by retorting ‘they are doing their best’, ‘at least they are exposing lies’, ‘they helped me get started so they are useful’, etc etc etc. To some degree, these defences are legitimate, in that they are based on elements of truth. What they fail to account for is the net effect of these ‘truthers’ on the audiences they command. Further analysis of this aspect of the Hoax Hierarchy will have to wait for another time but, suffice to say, the expression ‘a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing’ has merit. The truth n00b who consumes an overabundance of Baby Hoax ‘exposes’ may soon become a regular conspiritard who thinks he has uncovered some great truth which must be presented to the world. He may begin to think he has cracked the code, egoism will take hold, and genuine research/skepticism will dissipate (if indeed it had ever existed).

The prominent ‘truthers’ who fail to mention (or worse, deny) the Osama bin Laden and Apollo Program hoaxes are, at best, conspiritards, and at worst, deceivers. They may do what they do intentionally or unintentionally but, either way, they are agents of the Lie System. A proper understanding of the Toddler Hoaxes – not merely the basic facts surrounding the Toddler Two, but a genuine appreciation the fundamental importance of the Toddler Hoaxes as a bridge level on the Hierarchy – is your best weapon against these agents: psychologically, spiritually, and practically (i.e. when actively taking part in the truther scene).

If you have not merely read but studied and engaged with the words on this page, you can now consider yourself well-armed against the agents of the Lie System. The good news for you is that if you progress up the Hoax Hierarchy, you will seldom need to employ your new armament. The prominent YouTube ‘truthers’ avoid the Kiddy Hoaxes like fat people avoid salad. Progress at your own leisure.



9 thoughts on “Toddler Hoaxes

  • 07-June-2018 at 1:58 am

    Well, again. The OBL hoax I have been comfortable with for some time. Apollo I’m still unsure about. From JLB’s comments elsewhere, it seems as if he is skeptical about space itself, and the shape of the earth. I remain convinced, and also trust my intuition as well as my own experiments, that the earth is in fact round. As for the Apollo subject, if someone were to force me to set out what I believe as of this moment, I think that they did go to the moon, or at least have been to the moon, and at the very least unmanned missions were within our abilities. However, it’s obvious that there is a lot of fakery involved in the “evidence” and footage we are allowed to see, not to mention the odd behaviour of the three astronauts straight after apparently returning to earth. So, I think there is definitely something they are hiding from us, and so a lot of the footage was faked so as to keep whatever particular tissue of lies they’re foisting down our throats there intact.

    However, if believing that the earth is not basically spherical is a pre-requisite for ascending the Hoax Hierarchy, we may have run into a problem already. And I’m only a toddler!

    • 07-June-2018 at 6:46 am

      In regards to the Apollo missions, I recommend watching the “moonfaker” series by Jarrah White

      It’s been years since I watched it, but I remember it was pretty good back then.

      However, Jarrah only applies his skepticism to the moonlandings. He believes everything else that NASA claims about space travel.

      • 03-September-2018 at 7:30 pm

        Sorry to contradict, but I would definitely not recommend Moonfaker to someone who currently leans towards believing the moon landings. I hadn’t seen that series before, Nate. I’ve just watched it and… well… I’ll try to be kind and say I admire JW’s enthusiasm, but while some of the content is ok, it’s really badly put together. I appreciate he was just a young lad putting his ideas out there, and that’s great, but better to start with something like “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” in my opinion.

        • 03-September-2018 at 10:50 pm

          there are four types of people in my experience:

          those who could care less about the moon, and are pretty much oblivious to any elements of a conversation requiring more than one synapse to process. they are satisfied with their believe in x for why they are here, america is great, live normie pop culture lives…happy as a clam.

          those who look at the lunar lander and won’t bat an eyelid. ‘looks fine to me’ ‘no chance thousands of engineers and employees at nasa could be part of the cover up’ ‘any journalist would get rich exposing it’ ‘we have live footage right now from space matching the weather in real time’ ‘what do you know you’re not an expert’ et al…

          those who look at the lunar lander and can admit it looks ridiculous or suspect, but cannot then accept or bridge the divide between some of the obvious implications. this goes for the tower demos, laughing parents, blown off legs and more…

          those (like us) who look at the lunar lander and will laugh seven times on sunday, seven years hence : )

          ive long found it to be a waste of time sending videos or getting mired in minutiae with people. if they cannot or will not look at x and be interested in exploring y – on their own volition – they are people to be categorized into the first few bullets above.

          this would be the vast majority of the human population.

          and here we are…

        • 04-September-2018 at 5:23 am

          You just watched the whole series? Yikes, thats a lot of videos.

          I suppose instead of me recommending the Moonfaker series by Jarrah, I should have simply said that it helped me in my journey. Who knows what will help other people, everyone is different.

          I liked the way Jarrah presented things throughout the series. It was more like research and analysis, and it didnt seem biased like most conspiretard videos. He was more focused on proof, if I remember right. I wasnt looking for entertainment, although it was entertaining at time.

          My history in the ACT realm started when I watched “Room 237” about the Kubrick film “The Shining”. That documentary or analysis blew my freaking mind in several different ways. For weeks after I watched it I asked myself, “Did Kubrick fake the moon landings? Are the moonlandings ACTUALLY a hoax, like for real?”. I watched “Room 237” a second time and I was even more mind blown. Afterwards I was asking the same questions about the moon hoax, except i was even MORE curious. It started driving me nuts, “Were the moon landings a hoax?!”.

          That was about 4-5 years ago, and I had just purchased my very first smart phone. I dont know about you guys, but getting a smart phone completely changed my life. I liked going to the library when I was younger, I loved that I could learn about anything I wanted to at the library, and I could request books or videos from other libraries, I could read up and learn about ANYTHING. Then the internet became popular and I started to feel the same way about the internet. To me the internet is just like the library, I can look up and learn about anything. Its like the biggest and best library imaginable, and its all instantaneous. Smartphones changed my life because suddenly I had the worlds biggest library in my pocket at all times. Anytime I wondered about something, I could look it up in that very moment when I was curious. I spent so much time looking up things when I got my first smartphone, it was ridiculous. I did not think of my smartphone as a tool for socializing, I thought of it as a tool for research and learning.

          Anyway, after watching “Room 237” for a second time, I was obsessing over whether the moon landings were fake. “Could that many people be in on a lie? Could a lie be that big?” It was driving me nuts, really. I was working tons of overtime back then, but I had my smartphone with me, so during work I started looking into the moonlanding hoax.

          It was very frustrating because so much of what I found about the moon hoax was…retarded. I think a part of me expected that I could simply watch a Youtube video that would convince me one way or the other on the moon landings. But it wasnt like that at all, regardless of whether someone was for or against a hoax, their arguments were never 100% convincing, and usually they were retarded. It was frustrating because I wanted to simply look up “moon hoax” the same way I had been looking up word definitions or other factoids with my smartphone since I bought it. So one day I was extra frustrated with this moon mystery and I sort of put my foot down and told myself “Im going to look into this moon landing stuff, Im going to look at all the evidence for myself so I can KNOW 100% whether the moon landings were a hoax instead of trusting someone elses opinion, I need to know!”

          Looking back, it seems clear to me that I just needed to see enough proof so that I could confidently infer, one way or another, whether Apollo was faked. Jarrah 100+ videos exposed me to enough of Apollo that I was able to infer that it was faked. Nowadays, Apollo looks blatently fake to me, or at least the way it is presented is blatently fake.

          Anyway, after i “put my foot down” i watched all sorts of shitty youtube videos, I was glad when I found Jarrah. I wanted to be convinced with evidence, not charm or humor, I wanted to see clear proof so I could know for sure.

          I seem to remember that Jarrah would look at specific pieces of evidence, and then analyze them in a more unbiased way. Jarrah apparently believes in ALL the other NASA shenanigans, so maybe that helps him to look at things more closely, or with less bias, than a typical conspiretard. Whatever the case, I was able to sit and watch through all of the moonfaker series. I can pretty much say that series, by itself, was what convinced me the moon landings were faked. That was my first act in the ACT realm.

          So then I thought that maybe the moon hoax was done in a time of cold war, as if the apollo hoax was an isolated event, but then I was exposed to Boston and Sandyhook and the ISS, and I learned that hoaxing(big organized lies) is a present day phenomena.

          Everyone is different, especially me. What videos work for me might not work for other people. JLB’s missile video where he drew force arrows on a missile, that helped me a ton, but I imagine many people see chinese when JLB writes those arrows.

          That just reminded me, one of the things that helped me bridge the gap between Apollo hoaxery and modern day space hoaxery was hearing someone ask about the “LUNAR REENTRY MODULE”. He said something like, “how do the astonauts control that thing? How do they keep it from tumbling or spinning wildly? How is that aerodynamic?”. I looked at pictures of that reentry vehicle and I knew instantly that it didnt make sense. So I wondered, “Well, how do they make it through the reentry process in present day space craft?” I learned they either use a “space shuttle”, or they magically parachute down to russia. I instantly saw that space shuttles were a joke, and so is any other reentry scene that nasa puts out.

          Somehow they slow their orbital speed from 17,150 mph to 0 mph, and then the camera cuts to a parachute falling in Russia!

          So its my guess that reentry must be impossible. Or if reentry is possible it is 100% censored.

          Also, skylab is fake as shit.

          After Jarrah it was Lesta, and now JLB. 3 Australians

    • 07-June-2018 at 10:28 am

      —I remain convinced, and also trust my intuition as well as my own experiments, that the earth is in fact round —

      may i ask why your intuition maintains that the earth is a sphere? what experiments have you done – or have you been persuaded by – that convinces you it is round?

      and by round i mean that if you were to zoom in from space on our about the equator, I in NYC would be somewhat standing up..and JLB in Australia would be somewhat upside down.

      also, what makes you think the moon is something to land and stand on? likewise, assuming the sun were room temperature..what makes you think it could not be landed on (according to official doctrine) but the moon can be?

  • 07-June-2018 at 5:00 am

    @lnequals: welcome.

    One concept I like is this: “It is foolish to trust known liars.”

    This does not mean that known liars can never tell truths. But it does mean that skepticism is warranted when known liars make claims and assertions that are not sufficiently backed up by evidence. Government officials have indeed been known to lie, so we should be skeptical of their moon-landing claim.

    Your current “if forced” position on the moon landings MAY be right. However, I would humbly suggest that your position seems a bit convoluted. It is obvious to you that fakery was used to “sell” the “reality” of the moon landings, but you still (want to?) believe in the reality of those landings or some similar landings.

    This view that the moon landings were “faked AND real” is sometimes embraced by people suffering from cognitive dissonance. Their discovery of the fakery conflicts with their previous pleasant beliefs in things like space travel, honest government, truthful news media, high technology, American achievement, etc. They attempt to partially resolve this conflict with ideas about the fakery being used not to just fake an impossible moon landing, but to hide an even more impressive secret moon landing.

    Beliefs like those are not necessarily wrong. But, they they require even MORE complex “conspiracy theory thinking” than the standard “fake moon landings” story. The view is that not ONLY did the government and the media mislead everyone about the “truthfulness” of the moon landing tv show, but ALSO that the government has a secret space program with more advanced tech than we’ve ever seen, etc.

    Anyway, just a little food for thought.

  • 07-June-2018 at 10:38 am

    —-They attempt to partially resolve this conflict with ideas about the fakery being used not to just fake an impossible moon landing, but to hide an even more impressive secret moon landing.—-

    i agree with your larger point, but i also think it COULD be a possible that ‘they’ bake the cake with more layers of the deception than the would be conspiracy ‘researcher’ is able to discern just from images and video. including myself.

    likewise, i think it COULD be possible that they execute these ‘occult rituals’ / hoaxes – but that people COULD also die in the process. same with war.

    look at BNW and 1984. if used as a template-of-a-kind for how TPWRTS operate, killing a few or a few thousand automatons for the sake of stability / keep the Party’s power intact et al.. seems like a trifle to the larger objectives / necessities. after all… who am I but a confused peasant with a terminal diagnoses called being alive 😛

    in short, that there appear to be vicsims does not mean there are no victims

    i obviously do not have the answers, and don’t feel closer to figuring out the puzzle (if it’s even something to be solved). i just don’t find all these things ‘ they ‘ do inherently noble and justifiable, regardless of how retarded the masses are. especially when it appears they are accelerating and amplifying the retardation.

    this is one reason i don’t immediately default to an if > then process of reasoning to the inference of NBDNGH

    setting aside casualties, we don’t know how many centuries / millenia that TPWRTS have had technology. if only a ‘recent’ phenomena, what if ‘they’ are just running this’ show…and there are other shows elsewhere in progress we’ve no clue about? there are obviously many other possibilities that we can all hypothesize and imagine but i’m sure you get the gist.

  • 08-June-2018 at 6:12 am

    You’re right that anything is possible.

    But in the absence of empirical evidence, I prefer models of reality that require fewer assumptions, beliefs, and logical leaps.

    All we know for sure is that TPWRTS put on a television show about a purported moon landing. And that the show itself was sufficient to convince most normies that the landing had occurred.

    Skeptics rightfully noticed that the show itself did not contain sufficient proof to substantiate the claim. And further that the show itself contained elements of obvious Hollywood trickery and representations of “technology” like the lunar lander that obviously could not have done what was claimed.

    Fakery was used, fakery was enough to convince most people, and we have no sufficient proof that anyone actually landed on the moon. Occam’s Razor suggests we never went to the moon. And that fakery and mind control are among the most important and effective technologies possessed by TPWRTS

    I agree with you that some hoaxes are half fake half real. Some people really do die in wars, AND wars are also largely tv shows.

    But your suggestion in this case isn’t half fake half real. It’s that the fake event was covering for something even more impressively real. And that requires a whole raft of assumptions. And multiplying through the probabilities of each assumption being correct leads me to think there is a lower probability of your hypothetical being correct. It may be correct, it just requires a whole bunch of unknowable things to be true. For example:

    Outer space is real.
    Landing on the moon is safe and possible.
    TPWRTS have space travel technology.
    TPWRTS have had space travel technology for centuries or millenia.
    This technology has been successfully hidden from most of humanity.
    Instead of just showing obscured glimpses of this technology on the moon landing show, TPWRTS painstakingly constructed fake images of lesser technology for use on the show.

    Your open-mindedness is good, but this particular set of assumptions suggests to me that the propaganda may have worked on you. Without any evidence other than various television shows, you suspect the propagandists of ALSO being the powerful masters of all sorts of secret technologies. They might be quite pleased to know you think so highly of them!

    Lesta Nediam has a concept that is very interesting. Which is that the “lie system” contains an ingenious feature. True things are presented to us in the same format which would be required for lies. Sufficient proof is never provided–you have to take even the true things on trust. Which then primes you to accept lies from the same “trusted” sources. Or reject everything from the liars, including the truths they utter!

    The moon landing certainly could fit that bill. Believable by the masses, suspicious to the skeptics, but with no sufficient proof provided. On some level “belief” in the moon landings depends almost entirely on one’s level of trust for government officials and the news media. And maybe that’s by design. Maybe, as part of the lie system, they deliberately withheld sufficient proof of the landings.

    However, it seems like a stretch to see a TV show about unproven moon landings and conclude “THOSE look fake but I still believe that TPWRTS didn’t HAVE to fake them….they just CHOSE to fake something they COULD have actually done. TPWRTS have powerful secret space travel technology and frequently fly to the moon to hang out on the dark side. All this is theoretically POSSIBLE, but it’s not that different from the POSSIBILITY that the animals known as kitty cats ARE actually TPWRTS. It’s just one of many unlikely possibilities.

    Back to your broader point, I applaud you for not immediately defaulting to NBDNGH. Reality is often messy, and “hybrid” events seem quite possible. When something unexpected happens, TPWRTS still know how to spin and propagandize it. I’m also personally skeptical of NBDNGH because it’s a bit of a mind-f*kc for skeptics. It starts us down various paths: “everything is fake, nothing is real, TPWRTS are benevolent, etc.” And those paths, while interesting, would be useful goose-chases for a NON-benevolent TPWRTS to send skeptics down. Especially at a time when more skeptics are catching on, communicating, poring through old images, etc.

    I agree with JLB that what we skeptics can see may be part of a deliberate initiation of us by TPWRTS. I’m also open to the idea expressed by some that conflicting groups among TPWRTS see some benefit in “outing” fakery perpetrated by their rivals. But I’m also open to the idea that certain crimes are starting to become more easily discovered and exposed due to the internet, etc. And in times like this, it might be awfully convenient for the perpetrators of those crimes to promote the idea that “serious crimes may have actually been harmless hoaxes and it’s impossible to know anyway.”

Leave a Reply