The Conspiracies Series #2- The Moon Landing

2. The moon landing pictures were real, but every other photo is forged.

The old version of the moon landing conspiracy claims that the U.S government hired Stanley Kubrick to film some fraudulent footage of Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong bounding around on the surface. This was allegedly done so the American public could picture the Russians dashing their furry hats to the ground and saying "darn it!", while a comedy trombone played in the background. But this theory does not stand up for two reasons. Firstly, Kubrick was such a perfectionist that the Russians would have established a moon colony long before he approved the final edit. Secondly, the Americans wouldn't make up a story about landing on the moon without also including a bit where they liberate the moon people by overthrowing their tyrannical rulers. The truth behind the moon landing is not only more devious than any previous theory, but also makes full account of all the available evidence.

During the 50s and 60s, the 'space race' was at the forefront of everyone's mind. Both the Americans and Russians went to great lengths to prove their country's power by launching insects, dogs, monkeys, and bears into orbit. Neither country knew what it was proving with this, but each had their separate theories. The Russians thought it was a question of getting the biggest animal into space, and began keeping an elephant in a centrifuge in preparation for launching it into the atmosphere. Kennedy seemed to think that the point of using so many animals astronauts was to build a zoo on Mars, and shipped an entire aviary to NASA. But at some point in the early 60s, the idea came about that sending a human being to the moon would prove once and for all who was the best at building rocket ships. It was then, while closely examining the moon, that government-funded astronomers on both sides made a horrifying discovery- the object in the night sky which we call the moon was really Earth, while humanity had been living on the moon all along! For both the Americans and Russians the problems with this discovery were twofold. Were the public ready for the revelation that they lived on the moon? And what of the damage the announcement could have for the credibility of either government? No leader would be prepared to stand up before the whole world and say, "Sorry everyone, but it turns out we live on the moon. We thought we lived on Earth". The central worry was that the masses would react with anger at being inconvenienced with such a massive piece of information, and inflict that anger on whoever blew their minds. The decision was therefore taken to suppress the findings and leave some other country to invoke the furious irritation of the public. As an interesting side note, the truth about the moon-Earth relationship was in fact discovered centuries prior, by Galileo. Considering their options, the Catholic church had him placed under house arrest and told everyone that his discovery had been about the Earth's orbit around the sun. The fact that the church chose to concede this blow to their worldview speaks volumes about their fear of people finding out that we all live on the moon.

Meanwhile in the 1960s, the Russian and American governments had a major problem on their hands. So much posturing had gone into claiming that each side would be the first to the moon, one of them had to produce something or the deception would be unmasked. It was eventually agreed that the Americans would stage the 'landing' in their own country, and in return the Russians could flood Hollywood with subliminal communist propaganda. So it was that on the 20th of July 1969, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong went out to the back garden of the White House and jumped around a bit, while Kennedy filmed them from the kitchen window. Anyone who wishes to corroborate my version of events need only take an ordinary "Earth" rock and compare it with any of the rocks which NASA claim were "brought back" from the moon. They will be identical, because they were taken from the same ground we all walk upon, specifically the bottom of the White House garden, where Marilyn Monroe was trying to grow rhubarb.

Stage two of the deception required that no observant free thinker should notice that they were actually living on the moon, and make a fuss about it. To ensure this, a massive project of evidence tampering began, wherein all mass media was heavily edited to make it look as though it were filmed on Earth. There is a reason why cinema and television from the 1970s appears so far removed from everyday reality, and that reason is because all fiction is set on an interpretation of what Earth is like, while we all live on the damn moon. I feel that a comparison may help to illustrate the difference. Here is a photograph taken in the 1940s, before the governments began their frantic cover up:

To an unbiased eye, this photo was clearly taken on the moon. Look at the way the flag is bunching up as it is raised into position. Shouldn't an Earth flag be hanging downwards relative to the flag pole? The American government will try to tell you that the flag was flapping that way due to the direction of Earth's winds, but don't be fooled. Nobody knows how the winds on Earth truly work, because nobody has ever been there. The flag in this picture is moving under the influence of the moon's gravity, which is far lower that that of the real Earth. The only winds in play here are solar winds, which as we all know, come from space. Now look at the soldiers. Isn't it suspicious that we can't see their faces? This is because they were all wearing astronaut helmets under their army costumes, and the breathing devices had to be hidden. I also find their poses very suspect, exaggerated even. It's almost as though they're holding onto the flag to prevent themselves floating off into space. Next, let's look at an image from a film released after the Americans began their blanket propaganda campaign to prevent us suspecting the truth.

Are we really supposed to believe that Earth looks like this? Rather than ramble through all the obvious errors in this image, I'll simply present a list:

- The hair. Sealed in place with hairspray to prevent it waving about in low gravity.

- Suspiciously large boots counteracting same low gravity levels.

- The gut is sucked in to an absurd degree. Actor clearly holding in a lungful of sweet oxygen from a canister prior to cameras rolling.

- Notice how actor is pointing up while clenching his fist towards the ground. A covert message which pleads with us to LEARN THE TRUTH.

- Despite all of Jimmy Carter's attempts to maintain the lie, actor's jacket still flaps loosely in the moon's atmosphere.

- Not a single tree or mountain in shot.

I would like to end this portfolio of evidence with a final observation. It would be so easy for us to reveal the truth behind the moon landing footage if we could just get John F Kennedy to admit his involvement. Yet due to his assassination, we cannot. And as we all know, part of the speculation surrounding the JFK assassination was the 'magic bullet theory', wherein a bullet appeared to perform an impossible swerve in order to strike both the president and his driver. Impossible in terms of Earth physics perhaps, but on the moon...

Well, need I say more?

The Conspiracies Series #1- 9/11

I've been reading a bit about conspiracy theories lately. I started with a book debunking the better known ones, like Kennedy, then picked up a 400 page tirade by David Icke, a man so devoted to independent thinking he's outgrown the need for evidence. But as I read the various accounts of magic bullets and aliens with weather machines, something seemed off about the picture the theorists are trying to paint. All big conspiracy theories require, at their heart, some body of all-powerful conspirators who are able to manipulate events on a grand and convoluted scale, yet these figures do nothing about the people who are trying to expose their plans. We're talking about figures who staged the destruction of the World Trade Center, and maneuvered entire nations into war, yet they haven't the resources to ensure a whistle-blower like David Icke has a conveniently fatal accident? You'd think that offing the occasional writer or blogger would be small potatoes for the Illuminati, the kind of job they'd give to the work experience kids. Based on the fact that such people haven't mysteriously vanished for getting too close to the truth, I conclude that they were never anywhere near the truth. The truth remains out there, and I plan to discover it. What follows is the first of my own conspiracy theories based on my own independent research. Read them closely. If I should die in a Parisian underpass, or get shot while driving through Dallas in the near future, do not believe the official version of events, for I have been silenced by the New World Order.

1. A beloved American icon was behind 9/11

As conspiracies go, this is the big one. Not only because the alternative account suggest that the U.S government is willing to murder thousands of its own citizens to manipulate global politics, but also because the alleged perpetrators are still alive. If we were able to produce evidence that George Bush et al. had cooked up the idea to blow up the Twin Towers, it would lead to the biggest war crime trial since Nuremberg. Unfortunately, based on the evidence I am about to reveal it seems that the Bush administration is completely innocent of any illegal warmongering allegations. The truth of the 9/11 attacks may come across as somewhat mundane following the extravagant theories which have been suggested previously, but from my own research it seems that the true perpetrator of the atrocity was none other than Amelia Earhart.

As far as history is concerned, Earhart vanished while attempting to fly around the world and was presumed to have crashed into the ocean. But when we look a little closer, we begin to find some disturbing connections. According to Earhart's official website, on the 2nd July 1937, Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan set off for Howland Island in the Pacific, and seemed intent on landing to refuel. However, the last recorded location of Earhart's aircraft showed that they had overshot the island, and from there it is accepted that they ran out of fuel and crashed. What the official story does not mention however is that Howland Island was bombed by Japanese forces in 1941, the day after the Pearl Harbour attack. Based on this, I posit that Earhart did not in fact crash, but rather flew around Japanese airspace for four years in search of land, refueling by harvesting oil from whales. At some point she encountered a lost Japanese fighter pilot, who spent 60 years convincing her to renounce America, culminating in the devastating events of 9/11.

Let us consider the evidence. Following the attack on Pearl Harbour, many kamikaze pilots were unaccounted for, having 'crashed en route', or 'flown off course'. These pilots were often later recovered by American naval forces. There are also documented instances of Japanese infantry who continued performing their duties in the Pacific jungles, unaware the war had ended decades earlier. We know for a fact that Japanese air forces were in the area of Howland Island just a few years following her disappearance. Given this, it stands to reason that while flying around the Pacific region in the early 40s, Earhart may have encountered a Japanese pilot who was MIA. For the next 60 years they flew around the Atlantic, refueling in the most part from BP oil spills - until the forgotten Japanese pilot finally convinced Earhart to launch a kamikaze strike against America in the name of the emperor. Even looking at the footage of the attacks, it is obvious to an unbiased eye that the aircraft being flown are Earhart's Lockheed Electra and a WW2 Japanese bomber.

But what of Earhart herself? Why should we be so eager to believe that such a beloved American icon would turn her back on her country and commit such a terrible kamikaze attack at age 107? We need only look at her character. Consider this youthful anecdote from the official Earhart website:

A pilot spotted Earhart and her friend, who were watching from an isolated clearing, and dove at them. "I am sure he said to himself, 'Watch me make them scamper,'" she exclaimed. Earhart, who felt a mixture of fear and pleasure, stood her ground. As the plane swooped by, something inside her awakened. "I did not understand it at the time," she admitted, "but I believe that little red airplane said something to me as it swished by."

Could that something have been “death to America”? This event took place before Earhart had even sat in an aircraft, and we can see that her feelings at the sight of a plane rushing towards her in a nosedive stirred a certain thrill of suicidal excitement. Could the temptation of creating such a self-destructive spectacle for herself have continued after her first flight in 1921? We should also note that Earhart collected newspaper clipping on women involved in traditionally male careers, such as mechanical engineering. Might she have gained insider knowledge from such feminist studies which allowed her to strike the Twin Towers with even more deadly precision? These are questions which the official account of Earhart's disappearance will never address.

From the evidence I have provided, a very different picture of Earhart emerges. Though as determined and resolute as her supporters claim, was also see that she was bloodthirsty and violent. A self-destructive calculating centenarian, obsessed with mechanical engineering and planes in suicidal plunges, she is clearly the most likely candidate to have carried out the 9/11 attacks. The government, most likely in an attempt to shield her reputation, launched the second Iraq war as a smokescreen.