Wade Frazier

Hi: Early in the journey of life on Earth, some organisms decided that other organisms could be their source of energy, and grazing and predation were born. Then those grazed and preyed upon developed defensive strategies, and life’s arms war was on. It long predated the Cambrian Explosion; the Cambrian Explosion was only when it became visible to the naked eye. In the ocean, the food chain’s base is completely devoured, as in the ocean, it is truly eat or be eaten. On land, less than 20% of plant matter is eaten, although, as usual, humans radically changed the game, finding a way to consume everything. Each organism has its energy niche, and if that niche disappears or the organism is displaced, it will die. Species go extinct when they no longer have their niche, and more than 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. After the Cambrian Explosion, it was not long before plants began to colonize land, if not before the Cambrian Explosion, and about 40 million years later, along came animals, to eat those plants, and along came predators behind them, and the cycle began anew. Those that played the energy game the best survived, while those that didn’t went extinct. Mass extinctions cleared biomes, and what usually happened after mass extinctions was that previously marginal creatures rose to dominance, in what scientists later called Golden Ages of those creatures. The first land plants and land animals needed water to reproduce, so they had to be in wet environments. Later, seed plants and amniotes appeared (with animals always coming later, as they could only eat the plants at first), which did not need water to reproduce, and they rose to terrestrial dominance, along with arthropods. Mammals and dinosaurs arose from reptilian stock about the same time, with the path to their rise paved by the greatest mass extinction ever. Dinosaurs were highly superior at playing the energy game and mammals were driven to the fringes, being nocturnal burrowers during the reign of dinosaurs, with the largest mammal when that bolide hit being about raccoon size. Dinosaurs have undergone revision in my lifetime from being slow, lumbering, stupid beasts to being fast, nimble, and smart. Some smart dinosaurs had hands, and if not for that bolide event, Earth might host space-faring dinosaurs today instead of space-faring humans. It is now thought that many bird behaviors were dinosaur behaviors, such as brooding their eggs, how they care for their young, and forming breeding colonies. When the field was swept clean by that bolide event, mammals were merely the latest marginal group to benefit from a mass extinction, and they quickly rose to dominance. It took them about 25 million years to reach the maximum size that the ecosystems could support, and they stayed that large for 40 million years, until humans came along. For plants and animals, size was a great survival strategy, until something came along and plundered the energy stores of their bodies. And that is where humans come into the picture, the greatest energy users in Earth’s history. The human journey is quite a tale, it is coming and, as always, it is primarily an energy tale. Best, Wade

Hi: As I write about the role of energy, there is always the tension between data and theories, and when I get to FE, it would be healthy to recall the tension between the data from new technologies and the prevailing theories. The technology and data has long led the theories. There is robust data that is still generations ahead of the theorists, who ignore the data and technology as if they do not exist, and that is for very public technologies, not the stuff sequestered in Godzilla’s Golden Hoard. A great delusion is that the mainstream endlessly seeks the novel and cutting edge. It doesn’t, which is why it is the “mainstream.” That captured sunlight powers all ecosystems, and with exception of geothermal and nuclear power (which is energy from former stars), captured sunlight powers all civilizations. Even hydroelectric power comes from captured sunlight as it taps the Sun-powered hydrological cycle. All of the hydrocarbon fossil fuels are based on captured ancient sunlight, whether it is oil, gas, or coal. But before humanity appeared, the only available energy of significance was that captured within the lifetimes of the organisms that captured the sunlight, and the processes of digesting those organisms after they died. Humanity radically changed the game, but life engaged in numerous innovations that allowed humanity to appear on the scene, going back to the earliest life on Earth and how it farmed chemical energy and used it to split hydrogen atoms and strip electrons from other atoms and use those electrons and protons to power life’s processes. Enzymes were critical innovations, speeding up chemical reactions by millions and even billions of times. The structures of life at the molecular level are incredible in their complexity and function, and people can be forgiven for thinking that it was no accident. Einstein didn’t think that it was. The glorious “accident” of symbiosis of an archaean and bacterium led to complex life, but complex and simple cells co-existed for more than a billion years before complex cells learned to team up and create complex life. At the mitochondrial level, the energy flows are the equivalent of lightning bolts, and complex cells burn up energy, pound-for-pound, 100,000 times as fast as the Sun produces it. So, great energy miracles predated the appearance of humans on the scene by billions of years. Best, Wade

Hi: On energy sources, the number one energy source for our planet is the Sun, with a bullet. While there are scientists who argue against the Big Bang, and I am far from certain that the theory is correct (when the ETs finally come out in the open, we can ask them ), I won’t challenge it. Who would even take me seriously? I’ll buy that our solar system formed from an accretion disk less than five billion years ago, and that fusion powers the Sun and will for several more billion years before it becomes a red giant then a white dwarf. The Sun provides all the energy that warms the planets, moons, and the like. Mercury and Venus are too hot, Mars too cold, and Earth is just right and kept its water. The remnants of former stars comprise Earth, including the radioactive elements that warm Earth’s interior. So, either the current star or former stars provide all the energy that powers Earth’s dynamics, including its ecosystems, which are almost solely based on captured sunlight. Cosmic rays and other stellar interlopers provide negligible levels of energy. While some major scientific figures challenged the materialistic religion of our Epoch, and others challenged the idea that “space” is empty, those few of us who pursued what is sometimes called “free energy” discovered in the course of our adventures that technologies extracting energy from that “emptiness” have existed for generations. While I have also generated something like the energy myself, with my consciousness, the masses do not have practical access to that energy, nor do the life forms that we share the planet with seem to have access to that energy. We are all dependent on the Sun. Here is to the Sun. Best, Wade

Hi: It looks like I won’t get that essay update done in June (I still plan for plenty of progress in June), but I plan for it to happen this year. I have the stack of books to use for it next to my desk, along with some scientific magazines. I am going to try to focus my posts until then on the topics that I will update, but a little detour here, but which might be something that I will expand on in the coming update, related to recent posts. My essay is full of energy concepts, and several are here. In the end, it is about energy surplus and how fast it can be used, whether it is an organism or civilization. In producing work, how fast the energy is used relates to the power issue. How much energy is available to be exploited, and how efficiently it can be harvested and transported, is critical for determining how much energy surplus can be generated. How efficiently that energy can be turned into work, and how fast, relates to the power concept. Technology is key, whether it is the electron transport chain in the mitochondria membrane, a mainmast’s strength, or how sturdily engineered an automobile or rocket engine is. The more power generated, the more and faster work can be produced, and horsepower has been the unit of measure since horses were the primary source of work. Today, Boeing is building the most powerful rocket ever, for a Mars mission. Brian is the first person ever asked to ride one of those. For white science and technology, that is as powerful as it gets. Of course, for Godzilla, that is a primitive way to get around in space. Power in the political sense is related, but instead of directing energy, it is directing energy-empowered people. In a world of scarcity, it is all about who has the power, which is really about who directs the energy. I’ll get into some of the pros and cons of energy sources and practices in coming posts. Best, Wade

Hi: I raise this subject plenty of times in my work, but it keeps rearing its head with FE newbies. Hitting the bullseye of understanding the FE situation is not easy. Almost nobody ever attains it, getting derailed along the way. The structuralists (who are Level 3s) deny the very existence of organized suppression and generally have a fantasy that mainstream science is somehow democratic and above the fray, and that not only does Godzilla not exist, but their “laws of physics” objections deny that his Golden Hoard is even possible. Conspiracists generally see Godzilla as the source of all human problems, when he is merely a symptom. FE newbies want to proselytize to their social circles, help whip up some mass movement, and the like. If they do it for long, they get sobered up and are often ostracized. Then, they get disgusted. The challenge is to relinquish judgment of the situation, and I mean all of it. Godzilla is just doing what he does best, and his eager minions will reap what they sow, as we all do. Focusing on him and his antics is not the answer. The masses addicted to their scarcity-based in-group ideologies are just trying to survive in a world of fear and scarcity, and that they are no use whatsoever for an FE effort, and in fact a great hindrance if they do get involved, is normal. They have never initiated Epochal change, and it won’t be any different this time. They will be the biggest beneficiaries of the Fifth Epoch (and all of Earth’s creatures), but they aren’t going to help us get there. That is like thinking that a kindergartener can play in the NFL. The FE pursuit is the hardest on Earth, and love is the answer, as always. Those who make FE happen will have gotten over their egos. They won’t see themselves as Messiahs, but just doing what they were put on Earth to do, as part of their path. Love drives out judgment, does not fixate on “bad guys,” and is required to see the forest from the trees. This was one of the greatest lessons of my journey. Best, Wade

Hi: One item on my list of things to write about is “insider revelations.” How do you sort out the chaff from the wheat for that? It does not get any more honorable than what Ralph McGehee did. That is the kind of insider testimony that you can hang your hat on. The Disclosure Project was people testifying under oath. Again, very impressive. Rodney Stich, again, highly impressive. Gary Wean risked his life to write his book, which was truly heroic. Brian’s book on his days as an astronaut was also notable for its candor, if not exactly a whistleblower book. Most that I respected the most were not really insiders, in the sense of people involved in black ops/projects or immoral acts, to later reveal them publicly. Most were “accidental” insiders, such as most of the Disclosure Project witnesses. Mark was one of many in the FE field who discovered the hard way about organized suppression. Some, like Mark, began on the “inside,” so to speak, but naively stepped into trouble. Most of my fellow FE travelers were not really “insiders,” at least regarding their FE activities, but the inside came to them, and they often barely survived the experience. Many didn’t. What is far more problematic, and I take it all with a grain of salt, are insider revelations by black ops/projects people, either alleged or real, especially if they are anonymous. That is where the mountain of chaff is for insider revelations. There are ways to try to sort it out, but it is usually not worth the time and effort to. Those accounts above are going to be far more reliable than covert ops people coming forward, or those who say that they know covert ops people. A great deal of such “information” is disinformation. My CIA contract agent relative never knew that I knew about his secret life, and I only found out because a covert op blew up, he had to have a bodyguard for some time and brought his wife into it, who later told me. That kind of stuff is very credible (or, at least, as credible as those who publicly discuss it), but what is far less credible is people coming forward, claiming to be deep insiders who now have to come forward, either because their conscience got to them or their superiors encouraged them to. Some of that may be legit, but I consider most such testimony highly suspect. Many of those “insiders” are not insiders at all, but attention seekers who don’t have to provide any evidence for their claims, but spin tall tales. Others really are insiders, but they are also spinning disinformation as part of their “assignment,” or they were being used, fed “insider” information and experiences that were designed to dupe them, so they would later be insiders unknowingly spinning disinformation. That realm can be a hall of mirrors, and Internet surfers are not going to successfully navigate it. Conspiracists usually either uncritically lap that stuff up or make it the center of their awareness, which can easily become fearful and paranoid. I have seen the full range of reactions, including ending up in mental institutions. It is almost all highly counterproductive. I found that the conspiracist orientation was usually simplistic, scientifically illiterate, and a vestige of the Third Epoch, in which people based their worldviews on fairy tales. Perhaps more deluded is denying that covert ops and black projects even exist, or putting them all in the same basket, such as thinking that the CIA is only involved with the kinds of activities that Ralph was, and ignoring the contract agent and privatized aspect of it, which is where the dark stuff begins (Perkins’s “jackals” hail from there). The dark stuff is very real, and it seems to draw a kind of paranoid and tabloid fascination from the masses. There are global forces at work, which own the media, the banks, the politicians, etc. Jack Kennedy was the last American president who thought that he could make a dent, he was rudely disabused of that notion, and if his death was related to the ET cover-up, it would not surprise me at all. Looking for change to come through the retail political system is a delusional mindset, but very common amongst the masses, especially the political class. Does anybody really think that it will matter if Hillary or Trump becomes president, or even Bernie? We already had the obscene spectacle of Bush the Second, which was the greatest imperial embarrassment since Caligula’s horse. Can it really get much worse? Maybe so, but don’t expect sitting presidents to be anything other than puppets. Soon before he died, Brian told me that electoral politics was a dead-end, and he would have known. Time to begin my busy week. Best, Wade

Hi: I have been thinking about my effort some today. There will certainly be room for free energy theorists and inventors, but they are not going to be the main attraction, not by a long shot. The FE field has been in a state of arrested development for so long that such people instantly become the focus of all manner of attention that is usually counterproductive. I have not been in a room with a working FE device, and don’t need to be. If people need to do that before they are willing to study my work and sing, then they are not in my target audience. I thought of an analogy only a few minutes ago, which is why I am writing this post. After my mystical awakening, I became quite the mystical student, and have had many experiences that showed me in no uncertain terms that there is far more than meets the eye to our existence. On my list of things to do was see a UFO. It was not that high on my list, but if I could easily see one, then it would be worth my time. I knew many people who had seen UFOs and even went out hunting for them, and they often had spectacular experiences. So, when a Boeing pal suggested going to Gilliland’s Ranch to see one, I was game. I did not go to dare one to appear, or genuflect to them, or have my worldview radically change, but I went with the intent to see one, and I was not disappointed. Within seconds of the event, I asked myself if it was worth it, spending a long weekend traveling to see a UFO. I decided that it was, and I took people there three times afterward, with the latest being last year (and yes, I saw something, very similar to my first event back in 2005). One of my Boeing pals, however, was never the same, and walked around in a daze for the next week. If a person has witnessed an FE gizmo working before they encounter my work, great. If they haven’t, so what? I seek people who have already made enough of a shift in their consciousness that witnessing a working FE device will not be a very big deal to them. Their reaction to seeing it will be like mine to seeing a UFO, along the lines of, “I really didn’t doubt it, but there is something to seeing it with one’s own eyes. My worldview did not change with seeing one, but it did help make it more robust.” When my friend got his exotic technology show, his eyes were bugging out of his head, but that was partly because he was blindsided by it. He did not seek the show, but the show sought him. But for those that I seek, if they got a show like that, it would only be confirmatory of their perspective, not revelatory and life-changing. Those who are not going to get out of their armchairs unless they are invited to an FE demonstration are not in my target audience. Also, there is a yawning gap between a working FE prototype and something that can power a home. What my friend saw could power a home, but we are not going to get any right now. Sitting around, waiting for it to be delivered into our laps, is not very productive. Best, Wade

Hi: With that series of posts finished for now, a little more on my intention, which I was just discussing this morning. God bless Dennis and all of those FE businessmen, scientists, and inventors, but they don’t have a prayer in today’s environment. Only people like Dennis ever got to the level where Godzilla had to get very active, and Dennis had to survive the lower levels of the game before Godzilla took much notice. Although Dennis was eventually banned from the energy industry in the USA, he is still raising hell, at 70 years old. His journey has simply been incredible to witness. If Dennis could not make a dent, I don’t know anybody else who remotely can with the businessman’s/inventor’s/populist’s approach, and I decided to do something different. Brian, like Dennis, was a man of the people, and carrying their spears was among my life’s greatest joys and honors, but it was ultimately all futile, other than being a great learning experience, if harrowing. Dennis should be dead dozens of times over, Brian’s life was shortened by his adventures, Mr. Professor’s life was ruined and shortened by his involvement, too, and I will always be picking up the pieces of my shattered life. I don’t want any more blood on my hands or witness any more aspirants disappearing into Godzilla’s maw. It took many years to arrive at my current approach, and I am devoting the rest of my life’s “spare” time to trying it out. I am in no rush, although I am fully aware of the emergency state that humanity and Earth is in. I am going to do all that I can so that my effort does not lapse into today’s arrested development of the FE field, in which tinkerers, scientists, and promoters/businessmen (and Messiahs ) dominate. I think that if Bucky Fuller was alive today, he would be taking an approach similar to mine, and we will see how it goes. It may only help a little, it may be the critical missing piece, but it won’t hurt, which is more important to me than making a dent. Forums come and go, and this one, for instance, is dead, other than my participation, along with a NASA pal’s. But I intend for my forum to outlive me, I have been very picky on who could join, and I expected it to start slowly, and it has. I am building the beacon to attract those whom I seek, and although it might seem like there is no action happening, a great deal is, behind the scenes. Back to work on this year’s big essay revision. Best, Wade

Hi: On another thread, I wrote at length about my participation in the faked Moon landings issue, the adventures of being Brian’s biographer, and the hassles I endured with the Moon landings issue and his bio. It is my last word for now. Best, Wade

Hi: The issue of Brian and the Moon landings brings up mixed feelings for me, on a few levels. Brian’s appearance on that FOX TV show is what “made” me go as deeply on the Moon landing evidence as I did, and my Apollo work actually brought Brian into my life as a colleague. But I never got Brian over the hump on the Moon landings. If he had done the work, he would have, but he didn’t take the time to. There were several painful aspects of the situation, and one was the ardor and even dishonesty of both camps on the Moon landings, trying to portray Brian as taking their side when he didn’t. For the record, Brian thought that it was exceedingly unlikely yet still possible that NASA faked the Moon landings, or at least some of the photographic record. He had several reasons for thinking that way, which both sides of the issue generally either denied or blew out of proportion, turning Brian into a political football. Brian regretted his involvement in the issue until his death. I have written at length about my journey into the Apollo evidence and don’t need to repeat it here, but my view is that the Moon landings happened as advertised, with chemical rockets going to and coming from the Moon, with genuine Moon rocks retrieved from the lunar surface, and no photographic or other evidence provided by the “faked Moon landing” crowd has withstood scrutiny, as far as providing evidence of faked Moon landings. Most such “evidence” quickly crumbled upon inspection, although some took longer to get to the bottom of. Whether evidence of ET encounters was covered up is another matter, and I think that there was a cover-up, but it is an open question to me just how much the Moonwalking astronauts encountered ETs, although Greer is adamant that Armstrong and Aldrin both did, which is partly why they came back such “changed” men. I believe that that situation also contributed to Brian’s faked Moon landings musings, no matter how informal and offhand they were. I will now tell the chronology as I know it to be, and my participation, regarding the brouhaha that centered on Brian’s statements. My cyberpal who worked in Mission Control more than a generation after my father did recently wrote that NASA’s culture of secrecy contributed to “paranoid” musings such as Brian’s. I have no doubt about that, but it was also far more than that. As I have written, Brian and my father had to get Top Secret security clearances to work at NASA, which in those days meant a pretty deep dive, such as the FBI’s interviewing their first grade teachers and childhood neighbors. The Space Race (which JFK tried to end) was a Cold War effort, full of anticommunist paranoia, cloak-and-dagger games, etc. I have no idea when Brian began having suspicions about the Moon landings, and the first time it may have come to him were Buzz Aldrin’s replies to Brian when they shared an office at SAIC. When I was 17 in 1975, at Boys State in Sacramento, a Moonwalking astronaut addressed our group (it may have been Scott). He was naturally asked about what it was like on the Moon, and he replied with something like it would take a day to begin to tell about it, and he immediately dismissed the subject. That was probably the typical brushoff that people received, and perhaps Brian got one or two of those kinds of replies before he asked Buzz about it. Brian’s leaving the Establishment was peppered with many events that soured him on the Establishment, which was a far cry from his flag-saluting Eagle Scout days. Brian’s high-profile protest in 1970 of the Southeast Asian invasions, which was the same year that he published his book on his astronaut experiences and solidified his NASA gadfly status even more, was a key indicator of where his career and life was heading, although he became very active on Capitol Hill. But while all of that may have increased Brian’s cognitive dissonance and gradual suspicions about NASA, hosting a UFO conference and being approached by the military, and almost dying immediately after rejecting their “offer,” was when Brian began to get radicalized. I strongly suspect that those events are where a lot of Brian’s “skepticism” toward the Moon landings came from. After his near-fatal encounter with the military over the UFO issue, Brian was understandably open to anything in those realms being a fabrication or cover-up. Brian’s brush with death was certainly part of why he was a high-profile supporter of Greer’s Disclosure Project. The reality of that milieu, when you begin playing at those levels, is so far beyond what cubicle-dwellers, conspiracy enthusiasts, and Internet surfers encounter in their lives that they have virtually no conception of it, from what the situations are to how you can react to them. Paranoia is a common reaction, as well as a naïve denial that can see somebody keep stumbling forward into those areas to the point where they can risk and lose their lives. It is not a place for the faint of heart. I have played enough in those milieus to where I actively avoid them, and I actively avoid people who think that they have what it takes to navigate those waters, when they have yet to get their toes wet. Having my life wrecked once was enough for me. In the spring of 2001, I was stumbling and fumbling through the Moon landings evidence, but slowly making progress. The neutral point discrepancy vanished for me back in 1998, but in early 2001 I decided to get to the bottom of the faked Moon landing evidence, and by June, I had only a few lingering doubts when I published the first draft of my conspiracy and cover-up essay. I still had my email address on my site then (which I would remove less than a year later), and that essay elicited a great deal of feedback, and has been one of the most popular essays on my site ever since. I was soon introduced to Jay Windley, who is the 800-pound gorilla of the Moon landings controversy, and he answered my few remaining questions well and very professionally. Jay has plenty of savoir faire. I soon had about no doubt left, and then Jay led me to finding Armstrong’s leap up the Lunar Module ladder. That sealed it for me, in more than one way. Ever since reading Moongate in the early 1990s, the lack of any “feats” performed on the Moon by the astronauts, which would have ruled out Earth gravity, was an area of doubt for me. There was a great deal of Sturm und Drang over the feats, or lack of them, for many years, and seeing that obscure footage (which I saw live in 1969, as did hundreds of millions of people), which was not part of the “feat” debate in those days, removed 99.9% of my lingering doubts. Armstrong’s leap happened on the Moon. I contacted Brian with the news, and he soon invited me to meet with him in California, which was the beginning of our close collaboration. Brian was highly impressed with Armstrong’s leap, but still wondered if it could have been faked with wires or some other trick. I introduced him to Jay, which led to this page of Jay’s. But two years later, Brian wrote this in his Re-Inheriting the Earth: “To set the record straight, there is no doubt in my mind that the capsules went into orbit around the Moon, because of the photographs, signals received on Earth, and capabilities of the enormous Saturn V rocket booster. It is conceivable but highly doubtful that the lunar landings didn’t take place. Who am I to say one way or another, since I wasn’t there? Regardless, the Apollo program was a great success. It gave me a valuable reference point for what we must do now.” That is not exactly an endorsement of faked Moon landings. Brian never did the work to become convinced one way or another. To be fair to Brian, he had bigger issues on his plate. I can imagine what attention Brian received over his Moon landing stance: I was bombarded. I am still approached to this day by people who argue for faked Moon landings. Sigh. I have yet to see any evidence, when approached, which is not the same old “evidence” that was discredited long ago, as disinformation is constantly recycled to dupe the gullible, and today I consider the issue not very far removed from Flat Earth theorizing. One pal knows somebody who truly believes that Earth is flat, in the USA, no less. It is no joke. So, the faked Moon landing crowd may exist for a very long time. For the record, that Fox TV show that gave Brian such a high profile on this issue officially approached Brian on the Cydonia issue, to get their foot in the door (in Brian’s words, they “ambushed” him). It was a wide-ranging interview, and those ten seconds on the Moon landings, which they aired on their show, was what they really sought. That was a typical media performance, especially for Fox, whose news shows resemble Nazi propaganda, which feature Dick Cheney holding forth to this day on all the WMD that Iraq had, as if he lives in another dimension, or that Global Warming is some kind of hoax. Was Brian being irresponsible with his public Apollo musings? That is arguable, but I think that Brian was outspoken on many issues, most of which were vitally important, and he had no idea what he was getting into when he gave that interview. He regretted those ten seconds for the rest of his life. It wrecked what little remaining relationship that he had with the astronaut corps, and undoubtedly had something to do with NASA’s stonewalling me over Brian’s astronaut bio. After our meeting in August 2001, we never talked about the Moon landings again, as far as their authenticity went. We had bigger fish to fry, and we were not going to waste any more time on that trivial issue….at least until I began to write Brian’s Wikipedia bio in 2010. His Wikipedia bio was dominated by the fake Moon landings issue. I knew that I could not make it go away, but I did not want it to dominate Brian’s bio, as it was a tabloid issue. It really is crazy that that became Brian’s claim to “fame” late in his life. You can see the edit history of his bio. I began making my changes in December 2010, and you can see others joining in and erasing my work and putting the Moon landings back into prominence, with its own section, after I tried to make it less prominent. Wikipedia’s “editors” were not going to let the issue rest. At least one I think was an Establishment asset, joining Wikipedia solely to erase my work. Of course, they were mostly anonymous cowards. After months of fruitlessness (I worked 70 hours a week at the time), I informed Brian that it was not going well and asked him what he wanted to do. He then provided me with what truly became his last word on the subject. But Wikipedia’s editors erased my references to it, as if they wanted the distorted version of Brian’s views to dominate his Wikipedia bio. Wikipedia is truly worse than worthless on many key issues, I use it with great caution, and hope that I never have to play editor/contributor there again. God forbid that an article on Dennis is ever written, as it would likely be pure disinformation. I doubt that I would do battle there regarding Dennis, partly because I would be too interested a party. When Brian wrote his last word on the Moon landings, he informed me that Jay’s page on him was overblown, but we never got into the details of why he thought so. In June 2011, Brian wrote his last email to me, invited me to South America, and was planning on promoting my strategy for bringing free energy to the world. He died the next month. He was a great man, and I miss him dearly. His voice is very needed in these dark days. I was working my usual insane hours at my day job, and when I took a career break in early 2013 to write my big essay, getting Brian’s bio issue resolved, especially regarding the Moon landings issue, was on my list of things to do. The issue with Brian’s “last word” was that it was only hosted at my site, which is not “notable” enough for Wikipedia, although its editors have linked to my site plenty of times over the years (which eventually gets erased, but I still see traffic come to my site from Wikipedia, especially the Russian version, mostly regarding Paul Bragg, I believe). I reached out to all of the big names of the Moon landings controversy and related issues, trying to get it hosted someplace “notable” enough so that Wikipedia’s editors would not erase the reference to it. Nobody helped. The responses were a variety of excuses and challenges, if I ever heard back at all, and my impression was that Brian’s last word was not what they wanted to hear. The members of Jay’s forum were the most naïve and irrational of all, with lawyer wannabees and other Establishment worshippers holding forth. After that experience, which was unfortunately not very surprising, and just one more confirmation of my journey’s primary lesson, then the miracle happened. With Brian dead and no longer a very viable political football to both sides of the issue, sanity finally prevailed. Brian’s astronaut days are certainly his most “notable” accomplishment, although he would probably have met Wikipedia’s “notability” criteria even if he was not an astronaut, but to be fair, his astronaut days played a big part of opening the doors to being Carl Sagan’s, Gerard O’Neill’s, and Mo Udall’s colleague, as well as getting his pal Buzz Aldrin a job. Of course, if free energy makes its appearance before humanity flushes itself down the toilet, Brian will have more than one professional biography written about him, as will Dennis, and probably me, too. With the faked Moon landings issue dying down in recent years, not the least of which is photos from the Moon piling more impressive evidence onto the stack, the faked Moon landing crowd has dwindled, and Brian’s bio began getting treatment from NASA types, and one of them erased the entire faked Moon landings section of his bio as unsourced tabloid fodder. Hurray! I can live with Brian’s Wikipedia bio as it stands today. Virtually his entire Wikipedia bio as it stands today is my work. We’ll see if somebody tries to resurrect the faked Moon landings issue, especially if they try to ignore Brian’s last word on the subject. I may dive back into the fray then, but I hope it never happens, and the issue is left to rest in peace. All in all, the faked Moon landings issue was very educational for me, and not just the evidentiary part of it, but how I got sucked into the milieu, beginning with Moongate, how I navigated the morass of ax grinders and others, and how I learned to stay away from it. I learned a lot about how to evaluate such evidence, how to write about it, how to deal with inquiries, and how to do battle at Wikipedia. It brought Brian into my life in a big way, and was the most maddening issue of dealing with his legacy, which thankfully resolved itself, without my intervention. If people want these kinds of conspiracist situations to mercifully disappear, the USA’s national security state needs to be dismantled, for starters. There are so many evil activities hidden behind the fraudulent shroud of “national security” that it provides the grist for fertile and paranoid imaginations to run amok. The faked Moon landings issue is just one of many that have sprung up since JFK’s assassination and cover-up, and it is ironic indeed that JFK tried to end the Space Race in his life’s last months, which may well have been related to his murder. If that Soviet-American mission to the Moon had happened, the faked Moon landings issue would have never arisen and the Cold War might have ended back in the 1960s. Those are big what ifs. I don’t shrink from controversial issues, but I don’t want to tangle with another one like the fake Moon landings issue. In the end, it was related to improving my scientific literacy and honing my tools of discernment, and for that, I am grateful. I am going to wind down my scientific literacy posts for now and focus on my big essay update for this year. I may get it done in June, but September seems more likely. We’ll see how it goes. Best, Wade

Hi: When I wrote Brian’s NASA bio, I had him write his Martian part, as it was his unique distinction and he knew best how to write it. Through the editing process with Chris Ferguson, I left the Martian part alone and there was no comment about it. The astronaut corps certainly had no problem with Brian’s Martian credentials. However, after Brian’s NASA bio was published, a leading space debunker informed me that Brian’s bio was inaccurate. I thought that maybe he took issue with Brian’s stated reason for leaving the astronaut corps: the lack of spaceflight opportunity. The Wikipedia page on Brian’s group states that he quit because of the hazards of training, not the lack of a spaceflight opportunity, as some other astronauts in his group stated. Brian gave several reasons for his disenchantment with NASA in his The Making of an Ex-Astronaut, published in 1970, and the dwindling likelihood of ever getting into space was one of them, along with the hazards of training. Lyndon Johnson came to Mission Control in early 1968 and told the troops that the funding cuts because of Vietnam’s invasion meant that NASA’s ambitious plans beyond the Moon landings were being scrapped, including planetary flybys. That was why Brian was hired, so he saw the writing on the wall and quit a few months later, combined with his other dissatisfactions with NASA. I asked that space debunker (one of the most famous) what about Brian’s bio that he thought was inaccurate, and a couple of weeks later, I got my answer. That debunker enlisted the help of a NASA historian to specifically challenge this sentence of Brian’s biography: “After completing a Ph.D. thesis on the physical properties of the Martian surface, O'Leary was specifically selected for a potential manned Mars mission when it was still in NASA’s program plan.” The historian stated that Brian was never assigned to a mission like astronauts were on this list. True enough, but that was not what Brian stated. The Mars flyby mission was on the drawing board back then, as described here, for instance. All that the space debunker and so-called NASA historian had to do was get Brian’s book and see his account of his astronaut interview, to understand Brian’s Martian credentials. That debunking exercise was idiotic. I had already seen how Dennis’s most prominent “skeptical” assailant was a criminal, but to see that leading space debunker engage in such irrational behavior was an eye-opener for me. To be charitable, that space debunker had committed the straw man fallacy, and seemed unconcerned about portraying anything close to the truth. I was concerned that that leading space debunker was going to start some campaign at NASA to erase Brian’s Martian credentials, and he had to stature to try. That was just the kind of thing that made me wary of doing Brian’s biographies. I asked Brian to provide me some ammunition, in case I had to do battle with NASA and the space debunkers. He gave me the Alan Shepard and Werner von Braun anecdotes. Fortunately, I never had to do battle, and that aspect of Brian’s career, and his unique distinction, will likely remain intact. But it was one more episode that gave me a bad taste regarding debunkers. When they weren’t being criminally dishonest, they were moronic, even the “smartest” of them. As I have written, it seems that most such irrationality is not intentional, but because their brains turn off when information threatens their cherished beliefs. They are incapable of rationally addressing the issues, which is ironic for a movement that claims to speak for reason and a scientific approach to dealing with the evidence. But it seems that that particular space debunker has been on special assignment for some time, like Mr. Skeptic appeared to be, so I was not going to waste any more time and energy with him. One cyberpal worked in Mission Control more than a generation after my father did, and my adventures in getting Brian’s NASA biography published was depressingly familiar to him. NASA had become a shadow of its former self since the Apollo days, with its halls at Mission Control full of people seeking lost glory. But the first stage of my Brian biography project was complete, and in the end, the astronaut corps treated me fairly and better than I expected. Brian’s bio was about the same length as Neil Armstrong’s, so I really could not complain. I was able to get in Brian’s professional relationships with Sagan and O’Neill, which were among his most significant, space-wise, and I got his Martian credentials in there. I am happy with how it turned out. As I recall, I took a couple month break, bio-wise, after my NASA experience, before focusing on Brian’s Wikipedia bio, which was abysmal at the time. You can’t really see what the article looked like before I wrote the one that is largely how it stands today, but it was in very poor shape. Just now, I had to reinstate the link to Brian’s Ph.D. thesis, which I am hosting on my site until someplace else hosts it again. An “editor” erased my change, to put it back to a dead link to where NASA used to host it. That is typical of the kind of maddening experiences that I have had with Wikipedia. I’ll save my Wikipedia adventures and Brian’s Moon landings controversy for coming posts. Best, Wade

Hi: On to my adventures in being Brian’s biographer and dealing with the Moon landings issue. I have written about it here and there, but this will likely be my definitive rendering of the issue. Brian and I met in 1991, as our paths finally crossed. We had no further contact, and I wonder if he remembered me (probably not), until he published Miracle in the Void in late 1995, and I became that book’s biggest fan, so Brian later told me. I introduced him to Dennis, at Brian’s request, a few months later, when both spoke at a New Age expo, as Dennis was barnstorming the USA. Dennis thought that Brian had a lot to learn, playing the Paul Revere of FE, and Dennis was right, but Brian learned honestly, through the crucible of experience. I called Brian as he was downloading that 1998 image of the Face on Mars, so we were friendly in those days, if not exactly colleagues. It was not until I informed Brian of Armstrong’s Leap around June 2001 that we began to collaborate. He invited me to California a couple of months later, and I chauffeured him around during our seminal note-trading sessions. I don’t recall much interaction after that until Brian invited me to help found NEM in May 2003. I was an emotional wreck, in the dark phase of my midlife crisis and was still reeling from the USA’s invasion of Iraq. The Nazis swung at Nuremberg for what Bush and gang did. I never asked Brian, but I would imagine that the oil-and-blood-soaked invasion of Iraq had something to do with his founding NEM when he did. The NEM experience was a disaster for both Brian and me, and we had no contact for years afterward, as I struggled with my midlife crisis and Brian lived in exile in South America, after he was kicked out of NEM. This essay, published in the summer of 2007, as I recall, is what began bringing Brian back into my life, as Brian said that it was the best writing that he had seen in a long time on the issue. Brian’s influence led to my first public interview in 2008, and the next year, we did the Camelot interview, which I later learned was because Bill had been familiar with my writings since around 2001. A few months later, Brian asked me to help him write that DOE proposal, and I was in Brian’s circles again. It was a mixed bag, and I begged off of some of Brian’s invitations, such as getting together with FE scientists and inventors for some kind of effort. Been there, done that. I will never again get involved in somebody’s else’s effort like that. Most who I encountered in Brian’s circles were naïve, if well-intended. Some were scientists, others were activists and helpers, but it was a motley crew, like NEM proved to be. Some visited me and some I sent Brian’s way, but those experiences helped set the path that I am on today. I was working long hours at a high-tech company (60-70 hour weeks for most of the year), which I did for ten years, during the entirety of my close collaboration with Brian, so what I did with Brian was all done in my “spare” time. This essay, for instance, is the public version of a letter that I wrote to Brian, and it took me most of a year to finish it. I began it around the time that I helped write that DOE proposal. After Brian died, it took me nearly a year to finally finish my tribute essay about him. Seeing the long time that it took me to write those small essays helped me realize that I needed a career break if I was going to write that big essay. Soon after helping write that DOE proposal (the “Big Picture” part is all mine, and could be considered a prelude to my big essay), Brian asked me to write his NASA and Wikipedia biographies. I can’t recall the entire sequence of events, but one thing led to another, and writing those biographies was added to my list of things to do. On one hand, they needed to get done and I was honored to help, and I think that Brian sensed that the end was near. I am so happy that we got them done while Brian was still alive, but I was not looking forward to the experience. Brian’s Wikipedia bio at the time was a travesty, dominated by the fake Moon landings issue, and I had already had dismaying experiences with Wikipedia‘s editors. Brian was the only NASA astronaut without an official biography, which was obviously for political reasons, Brian being the NASA gadfly that he was. I had my own Internet stalker, Brian received regular attacks and hate mail, had his own stalker when he spoke publicly, and I learned my lesson about unfiltered public interaction back in 2007-2008, as the trolls swarmed me wherever I appeared in forums that discussed my work. Other than Mr. Skeptic, who was probably a professional xxxxx, the trolls were all anonymous cowards, which was only a variation of my journey’s primary lesson. Even supposedly protected forums had their problems. I was expecting Wikipedia’s editors to be an obstacle to getting a good biography of Brian published, and I was unfortunately later proved right, so I decided that it would be strategically best to get his NASA biography done first, and then descend into the fray at Wikipedia. I wrote Brian’s NASA biography in the summer of 2009, with Brian’s input. The original biography is on Brian’s site. As you can see on that page, NASA provided a bureaucratic response for why Brian did not have a NASA biography, but as I discovered later, their provided reason was false, as I got Brian’s biography published without Brian ever having to sign a “NASA Privacy Act Form.” After several months of being stonewalled by NASA, at the same NASA portal from which they issued their false bureaucratic reason within minutes, I had to resort to Plan B. I believe that I submitted his biography to that portal three times, and had Brian do it once, without ever receiving the courtesy of a reply. Plan B was finding another door to NASA. Just as we were thinking about the next steps, Brian was contacted by a NASA employee who was making a poster of astronauts who were also Eagle Scouts. He was friendly, but could not help us breach the stone wall regarding Brian’s biography. I finally contacted one of Brian’s colleagues from his NASA days, and he directed me straight to the astronaut corps. That was in late April 2010, more than seven months after I first submitted Brian’s biography to NASA. I wrote to the astronauts that ran the astronaut corps, and a week later, the most famous active astronaut was assigned to get Brian’s biography done, and I wrote about it here. When all was said and done, only Chris Ferguson, Brian, and the astronaut corps came out of my biography process, at NASA and Wikipedia, looking good. Nobody else helped us, and I ended up interacting with several big names in the field, I am sorry to report. There is much more to come. Best, Wade

Hi: I am looking at my list of topics, and I don’t see an easy way to string them together logically, so here goes. There is nothing like being there, and one reason for all of the Internet chattering and nattering is that those people don’t have any experience, or were close to anybody who did, so they chatter/natter, which is pretty pointless, IMO, like gossip. As I have written plenty, if not for my adventures, I would likely not have much worth saying. Experience is the greatest, and arguably only, teacher. But with language, writing, the Internet, and so on, those who learned by doing or being there are able to relate their experiences, which can shorten the learning curve for those who came behind them. That is the sole purpose of my work. If everybody had to learn how Dennis, Brian, and I did, almost nobody would survive the experience to graduate from the curriculum. While experience is the greatest teacher (which is why a mystical awakening can only come through experience, for instance), the experiences can also be traumatic, which can send people off the deep end or off into other unproductive directions. It can wake you up, but you can also misinterpret what you experience, and I will give some examples. I believe that people who had experiences that caused them to question the authenticity of the Moon landings probably ran into something different: the UFO/ET cover-up, which is very real, and is conjoined with the free energy cover-up, which is all too real. What Steven Greer did with his Disclosure Project, which culminated in secret Congressional hearings (and then his team was taken out and Greer was never the same), with Ed Mitchell at his side, was highly impressive, and when I began watching his witnesses talk about their experiences, some described the same technologies that my friend was shown several years previously, which gained Greer’s effort plenty of cred with me. Greer had long linked JFK to the heart of the ET issue, and Douglas Caddy’s reporting fit that scenario like a glove. Brian discovered the hard way that the American government’s silence and debunking stance on the UFO/ET issue was fraudulent, and who knows exactly what there was about Buzz’s reaction to being asked how it went on the Moon that gave Brian pause, but Greer has long been adamant that the Apollo 11 crew encountered ETs. I have a tight circle around me on the ET/UFO issue, and do not relate third- and fourth-hand rumors, but only relate experiences from people close to me or what I encountered (if I am not citing something that has been published by what I consider credible sources). I heard from a close source about astronaut close encounters with ET craft at the International Space Station. Astronauts are not trained for ET encounters, but when they have them, they are sworn to silence (with threats that are more than implied), but not all of them can take that information to their graves, and some can leak out to a select few, and I have been a beneficiary of some of that. For instance, apparently, some close to Buzz know about his ET encounter, but they leave it up to Buzz to disclose it or not, and it looks like Buzz will be a good soldier and take it to his grave with him. Greer has repeatedly stated that Armstrong and Aldrin had an ET encounter and were sworn/threatened to silence, and Armstrong took it to his grave. That does not surprise me at all, and could have been related to Buzz’s reaction to Brian’s question. But I want to relate an incident where the ET cover-up likely related to the Moon landings issue. Bart Sibrel was a TV producer and got ahold of some Apollo 11 footage that he misinterpreted as evidence of faked Moon landings. His presentation had me going for a few days, until I realized that his evidence did not depict what he purported that it did, but he and I had a three-hour conversation back in 2001. Whether Bart really had anything was beside the point. Bart thought that he had something, and announced to the local TV station that he was going to bring the smoking gun to the TV station for immediate broadcast. It looks like Bart ran afoul of the ET cover-up, not the faked Moon landing cover-up. It was hard to know at the time just what Bart had ahold of, but a funny thing happened on the way to the TV station: Bart’s car was intercepted and he was arrested, his tape of “The Footage” was seized, and he was drugged and thrown into a mental institution in the remote countryside. He said that some “White Hat” person looked after him while he was incarcerated there, and he later escaped the institution, Deliverance-style, and made it back home. Did Bart really have the smoking gun of faked Moon landings or the ET cover-up? No, but he acted like he did, and that set the wheels in motion to prevent something from being aired to the public that TPTB did not want aired. In my opinion, once they viewed Bart’s “smoking gun,” they had a good laugh and were no longer concerned with Bart, and his “escape” did not matter to them, but they could not take the chance that Bart really had something. Nipping it in the bud early is far easier than damage-control later, spinning disinformation, etc. In Ventura, when Dennis announced that he had the goods for making free energy happen, we were raided two days later, the sheriff’s deputies stole all of our technical material, and Mr. Researcher was never the same. Did they steal anything of great value, as far as free energy went? No, but Dennis made them think that we had it, and if you have something that they think is important to maintaining their global rackets, especially the issue that can overturn the entire applecart, then they will come and get it, and you can’t do anything about it. That is partly why when I see free energy aspirants think that they are going to play cloak-and-dagger games, with proprietary technology tricks, I have to shake my head. That approach is foolish, and can be suicidal. But after his harsh treatment, Bart will go to his grave believing that he found the smoking gun of faked Moon landings. That reaction is understandable, but IMO, he did not understand why he was arrested and sequestered like he was, until they could have a look at his “smoking gun.” As an addendum to Bart’s adventures, for the couple of days that I thought that maybe Bart had something, it was kind of scary, and was a lesson for me about finding what you are looking for. If you discover some truth that TPTB want suppressed, to the level of “having the goods,” are you ready to deal with the consequences? That is a question that aspirants really can’t answer until they are faced with it, and my takeaway from the Bart experience was to be careful of what you wish for. If you get it, it may not turn out like you hoped. It is easy to get in way over your head in these milieus. I suppose that I should have learned that from my days with Dennis, but I am a slow learner. Best, Wade

Hi: Brian lost his job at SAIC in 1987 (near where I was raised), just as I became Dennis’s partner (where Brian was raised), and our big adventures began. Less than two years later, my life was ruined and I was radicalized. Brian began exploring the fringes of science in earnest then, but even before he began that journey, Richard Hoagland and others got Brian interested in the Face at Cydonia. Brian until his life’s end, but he never wrote about it after the 1998 image came back. I called him in 1998 as he was downloading the image like the rest of us, before high-speed internet connections existed for public use. Brian did not shrink from controversial issues, and when we met in July 1991, Brian was just getting his feet wet in the free energy milieu, and we joked about the aliens and artifacts at Wright Patterson Air Force Base as we drove past its front gates. Brian’s speech at the conference that I ferried him to was on the need for a new science. The next year is when Brian began to get radicalized. He hosted a UFO conference and was soon approached by high-ranking military officials who “asked” him to perform classified UFO research for the military. Brian knew the officials from his Capitol Hill days. Immediately after rejecting their “offer,” Brian nearly died of a heart attack, which ruined his health and shortened his life. When I met with Brian in 2001 and we traded notes, he discussed his brush with death in detail, but he never publicly discussed it, afraid that the military would then “finish the job.” The closest that he ever came to admitting it publicly was in the prologue to his last book, titled, “Confessions of a naïve scientific heretic: A story about the carrot and the stick.” You can also see him in video clips in his life’s last years when he would briefly allude to trouble with the spooks. He had more than one encounter, but we only discussed his first one. In our note-trading session, I told him about my friend’s exotic technology show, but Brian was more interested in my CIA contract agent relative. Stories such as Mark’s were just part of the scenery in that milieu, and it was very evident that the official positions on such matters were fraudulent, and the “skeptics” were often part of the cover-up, with Brian’s former colleague Carl Sagan often leading the debunking festivities. By that time, I considered organized skepticism to be a criminal enterprise and had my own “skeptical” stalker, and Brian told me that he had his own stalker who would appear at Brian’s public appearances and harry him. Because of his brush with death and other experiences, Brian had no doubt that the American government’s stance on UFOs, of silence and debunkery, was bogus. Because of his adventures and talking with Moon-walking astronauts such as Buzz and Ed, Brian entertained the idea of fake Moon landings. Brian suffered through many situations in which entertaining unorthodox ideas got twisted by their proponents and opponents into Brian’s unequivocal certainty about the issue, when nothing could be further from the truth. Science is never about certainty. For instance, Brian never asserted that the Face on Mars was artificial, but that it could be, and warranted further investigation, but I have to do battle with people who tried putting words in his mouth. Brian readily admitted how people such as Hoagland played a little loose with the data in making his case for a “city” at Cydonia. Brian believed in the process of science, and advocated scientific investigation of phenomena on the fringes that did not fit into the materialistic, reductionistic paradigm that mainstream science currently operates under. Materialism is a religion, not a scientific finding, and when Brian had experiences that showed had how false that religion was, he was essentially ruined as a mainstream scientist. During his adventures, it became all-too-evident that black science and black projects were very real and subjected to history’s biggest cover-up, and it is directly related to the UFO/ET issue. The exotic technology and ET cover-ups are conjoined, and Brian’s brush with death helped lead to his prominent involvement in Greer’s efforts. Brian’s stance was a difficult one to maintain, with “skeptics” assailing him, the scientifically illiterate New Age/Conspiracist crowd turning him into an icon and political football, and putting his life at risk from the spooks. Not many can walk that razor’s edge, and all-in-all, Brian did quite well. More posts are coming regarding my adventures in the Moon landings, Brian’s views, dealing with NASA and getting Brian’s biography published, dealing with assaults from the “skeptics,” dealing with Wikipedia and so-called “allies” in the field, etc. Getting at the truth, especially in these matters, can be like walking the razor’s edge. The scientific/scholarly process can work, but in these realms, applying them can be like walking a minefield and hall of mirrors, with mountains of disinformation and chaff, naïve and dishonest “skeptics,” naïve and paranoid New Age/Conspiracists, naïve and blinkered scientists, and many other hurdles to navigate. Scientific literacy is vital for sailing in waters like those, otherwise, people easily disappear down the rabbit holes, and zillions beckon, as siren songs hail from all directions. Best, Wade

Hi: That reporting by Douglas Caddy, that JFK was killed over the ET issue, makes a lot of sense, and I believe that it was likely related to JFK’s attempt to end the Space Race soon before he was murdered. That Marilyn Monroe document may be legitimate (a big maybe), or at least partially so. That appearance of General Schulgen’s name on the memo is strange, and I have not seen it satisfactorily explained. After JFK was murdered, the Space Race was back on with a vengeance, the Vietnam invasion escalated, JFK’s Alliance for Progress was gutted, and so on. My father and Brian O both had to get top secret security clearances to work at NASA. I don’t know how far that extended at NASA, but at least the Mission Control crew and the astronauts had to have them. But I think it was related to Cold War zeal, not any fakery. One relationship that I have yet to mention is that Henry Luce’s publishing empire led the public attack on JFK while he was still alive, and Luce worked for CIA front organizations with his good buddy Allen Dulles, whom he even may have shared a mistress with, as well as Luce’s wife. Read Battling Wall Street for some details on the attacks on JFK by Luce’s empire. Luce’s empire “coincidentally” bought the Zapruder film. On Brian’s first day on the job as an astronaut, he was coerced into signing away exclusive rights to all of his public writings of his astronaut activities to Luce’s empire. For those concerned about a UFO connection with JFK’s death, and any faked Moon landings, that is just one more situation that makes you go, “Hmmm.” However, the JFK cover-up would have been immensely easier than faking the Moon landings. The faked backyard photos, planting the magic bullet, the altered autopsy evidence, including photos and X-rays, erasing Oswald’s spook career, killing some witnesses, and the like, would have been child’s play compared to faking the Moon landings. I am now going to write about Brian’s connection to the faked Moon landings issue, in a way that I have not publicly done before. Soon before Brian died, he lamented the fact that his stance on the Moon landings had eclipsed everything else about him. Brian’s stance on the Moon landings had plenty to do with the UFO issue, although Brian never publicly spoke out about it, due to fear of retribution by the USA’s military, and I want to back way up about this, back to Brian’s astronaut days and even earlier. Brian was raised as a typical Irish-Catholic in Boston, who had a precocious interest in space ever since kindergarten, and his visit to Harvard’s observatory when he was eight, to see the planets through its telescope, on the night that Truman beat Dewey (the Dulles’s horse in the race, and Richard Nixon would later be a Dulles creature), was a seminal event in Brian’s life. Brian’s astronomer’s path was set by then, and when he wrote in high school of space satellites, the year before Sputnik was launched, Brian’s teacher and fellow students were befuddled by Brian’s choice of topic. The father of modern rocketry, Charles Goddard, was hounded, the object of ridicule and scorn, and his contributions were not recognized until the Space Race. The Wright brothers were received in even crazier fashion, denied and ridiculed for years after they first flew. So, such airy and spacy notions were far from in vogue in those early days. Brian’s first degree was marked by mundane grades, as Brian explored life beyond his repressed Irish-Catholic roots, but a priest at Georgetown got him into the graduate program. Brian later performed an experiment that proved that priest’s views of Mars incorrect. That challenge of authority was an early warning sign of where Brian was headed, and Brian got kicked out of Georgetown for writing a satirical play on the faculty, which a fellow student working for the CIA leaked to the faculty. Even though he was expelled from the program, Brian had a master’s diploma in hand and got into Berkeley’s doctoral program in astronomy (Berkeley in the mid-1960s, imagine that scene. ), which was where his path to NASA was set. Brian had a mentor, and together they began publishing papers on Mars, which ran in Science and Nature, the most prestigious venues for publishing scientific papers. Brian’s doctoral dissertation was on Mars, and little did Brian know it, but that most famous NASA Nazi, Werner von Braun, was in position to try making his Mars dreams a reality. Dr. von Braun was the primary reason why Brian was selected as an astronaut, as the first talent in the stable for the Mars mission. Between the day that NASA hired Brian and his start date a few weeks later, NASA lost the budget battle on Capitol Hill with the Pentagon, as the invasion of Vietnam had to be paid for. On Brian’s first day of work, Deke Slayton told him and his fellow astronauts that they were no longer needed, and Brian’s group of astronauts called themselves the XS-11. Brian was one of several in that group who quit, mainly because it looked like their chances of going into space were limited, and Brian’s Mars mission was soon scrubbed from the drawing board. None of his group ever left Earth orbit, as those ambitious plans when he was hired were all scrubbed. But Brian did not fit in on his first day. Slayton later called hiring Brian his biggest hiring mistake. Nearly all astronauts to that time came from military backgrounds, virtually all of them test pilots, and Brian was the odd man out. On his first day on the job, at the astronauts’ briefing, led by Alan Shepard, which was organized like pre-flight pilot briefings before flying military missions, Brian noticed that he was the only man in the room wearing glasses, which he promptly removed and put in his pocket. Brian was the odd man out in numerous ways. Instead of the military mission mentality and the nerdishness of scientists, Brian had the heart of a poet and became a man of the people. After his NASA days, he taught Physics for Poets at Princeton, before he had his mystical awakening. Brian did not fit into NASA’s culture, and it showed. After nearly crashing his plane on his second solo flight, Brian quit the astronaut corps. Carl Sagan recruited Brian to teach at Cornell after Brian quit NASA, and when Brian published his book on his astronaut days in 1970, he was involved in high-profile protest activity over the invasion of Southeast Asia, which began a period of high-profile political activity on Capitol Hill, and he became a NASA gadfly, writing op-eds in The New York Times and elsewhere that challenged NASA, earning its ire. It was certainly partly why Brian did not have a biography at NASA until I wrote one and had my adventures in publishing it, but I get ahead of myself. Brian and Sagan were arguably the world’s two leading experts on Mars in those days, and Brian was a key member of the science team for the Mariner 10 mission, which investigated Venus and Mercury. Brian became quite the academic vagabond, teaching at Cal Tech, Princeton, Berkeley, and elsewhere. Brian’s politically active years, especially advising presidential candidate Mo Udall, ended Brian’s first marriage, and he continued his advocacy of space colonies and asteroid mining at Princeton, until that fateful day when he had his mystical awakening, performing the same exercise that I did five years earlier, which gave me my mystical awakening. After his mystical awakening, Brian never quite returned to the Establishment’s fold. The awakened Brian quit his sherry-sipping soft berth at Princeton and got a job at SAIC, a leading space contractor in those days, where he continued his space colony and asteroid-mining work, but he refused to work on Reagan’s Star Wars, which led to him losing his job there and them giving his office to an Air Force general who was showered with millions of dollars to devise strategies for the American military to prevail in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. It was the last job in the Establishment that Brian ever had, and when he was there, he got Buzz Aldrin a job and shared an office with him, and that is where my narrative will pick up the faked Moon landing story and Brian’s involvement. Buzz’s first launch at NASA was my father’s last. If you shared an office with Buzz Aldrin and were a fellow former astronaut, would you have asked him about his time on the Moon? Brian surely did, and I don’t know what others he asked before then, but Buzz’s reaction, and later Ed Mitchell’s, most certainly, got Brian to wondering about the Moon landings. Buzz was reduced to selling cars for a time and spent time in institutions. Ed Mitchell needed therapy to come to grips with his lunar experiences and he generally refused to talk about his lunar experiences. I don’t know what other Moon-walking astronauts Brian might have talked to, but those were certainly two of them, and their undoubtedly odd replies gave Brian pause, and he began wondering about the Moon landings. But Brian would soon have his own experiences that got him wondering about the Moon landings and other space issues, but that is for the coming posts. Best, Wade

Hi: The Onion often has the best take on these issues, such as when it called for a new bubble back before it really got bad, and the Fed promptly obliged them, but bizarrely reinflating the bubbles in the same asset classes, which is new in bubble-ology. When this latest one goes down, it is going to dwarf 2007-2009. The Onion also predicted what the USA’s invasion of Iraq would do to the region, which could very well end up in World War III. So, its article on how the Internet conspiracy theorists convinced Neil Armstrong that he never walked on the Moon is rich stuff. But here I am, the biographer of the Apollo era astronaut who publicly doubted whether the Apollo missions really landed on the Moon. What gives, and why do I even bother? Well, because there are vitally important issues wrapped into it, and I will try to disentangle some of them. I know whistleblowers and have been called one myself. Ralph McGehee is a whistleblower who is about as credible as it gets. A close relative was a whistleblower in the federal government, who later realized that he was lucky to be alive. That was back in the Vietnam/Space Race era. A close friend testified at a whistleblower trial. He was afraid to come forward for years, after the proprietor of the house of prostitution that served the local Department of Defense (DOD) junkets disappeared, to never be seen again, just as the spotlight focused on her when the whistleblower action began drawing attention. The DOD contractors in California just made people disappear, including a federal magistrate. The evil is very black in California, as I discovered firsthand. Those DOD contractors are the same companies that built the equipment used in the Apollo program. I have many connections to that milieu. For instance, when Mr. Mentor’s engine began making waves, the federal government assigned the man who helped save the space program to analyze his engine. He figured out why those rockets kept blowing up in the early days of the USA’s space program. What I did not write on my site was that that scientist-engineer delivered a veritable textbook to the man in charge of fixing the problem, and the man almost threw it back at the scientist-engineer, because nobody was going to tell him what the problem was. They actually had to sneak out the blueprints and alter them to fix the problem. My father heard of that man’s work when he worked at Mission Control. That is how the real world works, not the Hollywood version. That also all happened in California. There were suspicious deaths in the Apollo program related to those aerospace companies, such as Thomas Baron, who died less than a week after testifying. Today, there are no effective protections for whistleblowers in the USA, who are in prison today (Manning, Drake), live in exile (Snowden, Assange), or met untimely ends. The USA specializes in crucifying whistleblowers. This is nothing new. That case that my friend testified at actually helped lead to the whistleblower laws, which have been almost entirely gutted since then. I recall, just after the USA’s genocidal invasion of Iraq, reading an article published by a union of federal workers, which noted how the Bush administration was not only not protecting whistleblowers as obliged to do under the law, but it was actively persecuting them. It only got worse under Obama. In summary, NASA whistleblowers meeting untimely ends certainly has a familiar ring to it. However, in all instances that I know of, crucifying whistleblowers had to do with covering-up crimes or preventing disclosure of poor corporate practices, even criminal corporate practices. I never got the sense that covering up fake Moon landings was anybody’s motivation, and in fact, no whistleblower has ever come forward on faked Moon landings. Plenty of people have claimed to be JFK whistleblowers, such as being triggermen, etc., but nobody alleged to be on the inside ever came forward and “admitted” to helping fake the Moon landings. Nobody. So, the whole “whistleblowers were silenced over the fake Moon landings” angle just doesn’t cut it, IMO. Much more is coming. Best, Wade

Hi: Quite a few of the anomalies that the “faked Moon landing” (AKA “hoax theorist”) crowd came up with were because of what they expected the events to look like on Earth. They happened on the Moon, with one-sixth of Earth’s gravity, with no effective atmosphere, with a surface that would be very different from soil on Earth, etc. There were going to be marked variations from Earth events in how lunar events appeared because of those differences, including the unique technology that was used on the Moon. Some anomalies were related to the rockets. Some hoax theorists thought that there should have been a crater below the Lunar Module (AKA “LM”) as it sat on the Moon, and a big furrow in the surface under the flight path to landing. In fact, there are photos that show the “furrow,” but it was more like a discoloration and disturbance than a furrow. The lunar surface has dust on it, but it becomes hardpan only a few inches down. So, there would not be any huge craters dug by the rockets, and the astronauts were not going to sink up to their hips in it. Also, in one-sixth gravity, and a very lightweight LM, the rockets did not need to be as powerful as Earth rockets for the lifting LM payload off from the Moon. William Brian made the case in Moongate that no visible exhaust came from the LMs as they took off, which meant that antigravity technology was used. However, when the LMs took off, as seen when the cameras on the Lunar Rovers viewed them, there was a brief ignition flash, and there was also obvious dust being kicked up from the rocket blast. Again, there were several reasons why it was not going to look like a rocket taking off from Earth, but the hoax theorists used this as evidence of faked landings, and William Brian used it as evidence of antigravity being used. Neither claim held up, as far as I could tell. Some hoax allegations are better than others, and on the Internet, hoax theorists can be found who crunch some numbers and conclude that the Moon should have dust from space on it that is miles deep. If that was the case, then so would Mars, but we don’t see that (of course, the same crowd often alleges that the Mars probes are faked, too, but I don’t buy that, nor does almost anybody else on Earth). That kind of naïve number crunching is meaningless. An issue that René brought up, as have many other hoax theorists, is that the radiation of space would have killed the astronauts, so they never left Earth orbit to go beyond the safety of the Van Allen belt. As I noted, there is a great deal of NASA-independent and USA-independent evidence of the Apollo craft on their way to the Moon. I have not seen a hoax theorist make the case that those craft beyond Earth orbit were unmanned, which is their only “credible” rebuttal. The radiation issue was a very real one, and is one of the biggest issues that a manned mission to Mars or Venus faces, as it would be exposed to the Sun’s radiation, especially solar flares, far longer than the nearly two weeks that the Apollo 17 mission lasted. But solar flares don’t flood the entire solar system with deadly radiation, but are more like shotgun blasts. This was certainly one of the biggest risks of the Apollo lunar missions, if a big solar flare erupted and was aimed at Earth during a mission. In fact, the biggest solar flare ever measured up to that time was during the Apollo era. The radiation issue was real, but it was not the instant death issue that the hoax theorists stated. The greatest radiation that the astronauts were exposed to was during their trips through the Van Allen belt, but it was the fastest that the Apollo craft traveled, too, when they passed through the Van Allen belt and got about the annual limit for radiation workers in an hour. So, it was certainly risky, which came with the Apollo missions. The heroism of the astronauts was real enough. They were certainly risking their lives. My father once told me that John Glenn was asked if he wanted to be the first man to walk on the Moon, and Glenn replied that he would not mind being the first man safely back from the Moon. The missions were relatively hitchless, Apollo 13 excepted, and hoax theorists can be forgiven for thinking that the missions went too well, but that is very circumstantial evidence and nothing solid to hang one’s hat on. Another source of hoax theorist musings is the behavior of the Lunar Rovers on the Moon. All sorts of objections were launched, from how the Moon dust behaved as it was kicked up to how the Rovers handled. I watched all of the alleged anomalies, and I never saw anything that was not explained by one-sixth Earth gravity, a very lightweight dune buggy, and no atmosphere. A related issue was the Rovers’ video cameras, which were controlled by a technician in Mission Control. It took more than two seconds for the cameraman to react to events on the Moon, due to the limitation of the speed of light, but I never saw any camera movements that seemed to react as “impossibly” fast as the hoax theorists alleged. Another allegation is that the astronauts worked on a set on Earth, and the footage was simply slowed down by half, to simulate Moon conditions. But other than a some short clips that can be manipulated that way, that allegation does not stand up. Film speed games do not explain the lunar footage. Another allegation is that the Moon rocks are fake. That one does withstand the slightest scrutiny. Those rocks are tested by scientists to this day, and when they were dated using radioactive testing, they were older than any rocks on Earth. How the heck a rock can be faked like that is beyond my imagination. Dark Moon was the most professional of the hoax theorist works, but the new “anomalies” that they presented collapsed under scrutiny, such as an alleged discrepancy in the angle that a reflector was set out with on the Moon. The title of Dark Moon is a misinterpretation of a comment made by one of Apollo 13’s astronauts, making a mountain out of nothing at all. I never saw one technical aspect of the Apollo missions ever be shown as evidence of faking the Moon landings, which did not collapse on further scrutiny. A common disinformation tactic is to deluge the reader with “anomalies,” as if to overwhelm them by the sheer volume. Mr. Skeptic did that with me, where he heaved a disinformation bomb at me as he stalked me on the Internet, and anybody who promoted my work soon heard from him. It was about 20 “facts” about the “fraudulent” nature of Dennis’s efforts, but it was a mélange of half-truths and outright fabrications. When his lies were exposed, he simply made up new ones as he easily gulled the naive. So, I am very familiar with that tactic, and it is trotted out today, within days or even hours, to label an American mass shooting (which happen with disturbing regularity in my great nation) as a “false flag” attack. This tactic is used for many “conspiratorial” musings, but as with the Apollo missions, if you examine the anomalies one-by-one, they usually evaporate upon further inspection. Conspiracists who do that really do a disservice to the entire study of elite skullduggery, spinning grand conspiratorial yarns on the flimsiest of evidence. It serves to discredit the entire field, and as Ed Mitchell remarked on the ET cover-up, many of those wild allegations are actually hatched by elite disinformation specialists to muddy the waters, and hyperventilating and paranoid conspiracists and a gullible public laps that crap up, often intentional crap, mind you, thinking that it is the good stuff. That is how scientifically illiterate onlookers can seize on almost nothing at all and call Global Warming some kind of hoax, and so on. There were numerous sinister connections to the Apollo program, and I will get into them in coming posts, but although sinister, such as using death camp Nazis with a history of fabrication and obfuscation and the MIC’s murder of whistleblowers, they still do not add up to faked Moon landings. Best, Wade

Hi: Scientists and scholars usually have the same goal: discovering the truth. Their methods are cousins, and they handle the evidence in similar ways. Professional care and integrity are ideally exercised, conclusions are supposed to be carefully reached and always tentative, and dependent on the evidence. Scientific practice has an ideal, as does the historian’s enterprise. Journalists have one, too, however frequently they fail. My erstwhile profession has one, too, although conflicts of interest are the bane of all professions. I was definitely an amateur as I read those books that argued for fake Moon landings, or cover-ups of aspects of them, and their approach was similar to the scientific process of hypothesis and evidence, but I found that their work was usually long on hypothesis and short on evidence. As I stated previously, by 1998, I was satisfied that the Moongate hypothesis’s high lunar gravity arguments were false, as its linchpin collapsed. A genuine discrepancy in reporting the neutral point did not point to high lunar gravity, but the challenge of calculating the true point. While Kaysing’s book was the first, it was also the poorest of the bunch, little more than a few photographs and a speculative yarn. René and Percy/Bennett threw far more evidence at the reader, and Collier presented evidence that it took some time and effort to dig through, and in early 2001, I decided that the time came to finally dive into it as deeply as I could, and about a month after I did, Brian was on national TV, stating that the Moon landings might have been faked. Then, I had to try to get to the bottom of it. The Internet was beginning to come into its own back then, even as it was in the midst of its first stock market collapse, as the first Internet gold rush finally abated. I had worked for an Internet company in 1999, and did my Apollo work just before I got a part-time job at another Internet company in the summer of 2001. When I resumed my career after finishing my site in September 2002, it was with an Internet company, where I worked for ten years. Most of the study that resulted in my site did not use the Internet all that much, but was the result of diving deeply into the King County and University of Washington libraries. I could also get books on interlibrary loans. For my big essay, I bought the books that I used instead of using libraries, and the Internet had become a far more formidable resource in the intervening years. My big essay links to many scientific papers, and when I felt that it was appropriate, I linked to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is worse than worthless for numerous topics that I have dealt with in my writings, but for the less controversial ones that have been little corrupted by vested interests, I used it with due caution. Few vested interests have their fortunes tied to the truth of the demise of dinosaurs. So, in early 2001, I devoted a few months of my life into looking into the Moon landings evidence, compared to what those faked Moon landings books argued for. Moongate first made the case, and others did later, that the flags that the astronauts planted in the Moon waved in a breeze at times. But in every instance that I know of, the “waving” was the flag wobbling just after an astronaut had touched it. When no astronauts were near, the flags never trembled. This was a very weak allegation and one of the first that I looked into, and it gave me a hint of what was coming. A common charge to this day is faked photographs and video footage. It might be the most common one, with all manner of amateur image analyst holding fourth. I never saw one image or video footage that was convincing evidence of faked Moon landings. One charge made many times by image analyzers was that the shadows on the Moon do not run in parallel lines in various photographs. The argument was that there was more than one light source, such as in the studio where the fake lunar environment was staged, but it did not take long to realize that if there was more than one light source, an object would have thrown more than one shadow. I never saw even one instance of an alleged lunar object throwing more than one shadow. What explained that anomaly very neatly was that the ground was uneven, and unless the camera was shooting right in line with the Sun, then the shadows would not run in parallel. A similar charge was that the astronauts were illuminated when they stood in shadows, such as the Lunar Module’s shadow. One argument was that because the Moon had no atmosphere, that the atmosphere did not scatter light, so anything in the shadows would be pitch black. But once again the faked Moon landing advocates did not think through the issue. Anything that had a line of sight to the illuminated lunar surface was going to be hit by light reflecting off of the lunar surface, and in every “lit in the shadows” instance, there was obvious light being reflected off of the lunar surface, to illuminate those shadows. Perhaps the most impressive photographic anomaly I saw first discussed by René, and it had to do with the “crosshairs” (AKA “reticles”) in various Apollo photographs being obscured by objects in the photograph, which should be impossible in genuine photographs. The most famous photograph with a disappearing reticle had the famous “C” rock in it, which René argued meant that the rock was a stage prop, with the “C” being an identifier for the stage hands, to place it accurately in the scene. It turned out that the “C” rock and reticle anomaly in that photograph had the same cause: it was not a first generation photograph, but was a copy of the original, at least one generation removed. The “C” was a hair or other fiber that was on either the photograph being copied or the camera lens. In every disappearing reticle photograph that I ever saw, the reticle disappeared behind something that was bright, usually white. That was because in the copying process, the bright areas bled over those thin reticle marks. It was just an artifact of photographic copying, and it was a stretch to begin with, to think that the reticles were “painted” onto the photographs in the first place. Why would anybody do that? I found that this was a common failing of the faked Moon landing crowd, in which the story behind the fakery meant little sense. Why would somebody even think of faking the evidence in that way? Another charge made was composite, cropped, and otherwise altered/faked photographs. In virtually every instance, the fakery claims did not withstand scrutiny and were usually dismissed almost instantly. However, for many photographs, they were indeed manipulated, even faked. But in every instance that I saw, the fakery was not performed by NASA in space or on the Moon, but by book publishers and NASA’s PR department, as they played fast and loose in the editing room, making their official movies, photographs for posters, and so on. For none of the original photographs or video/film footage was there any evidence of fakery that I ever saw. A related charge was strange reflections on the Moon, especially in the visors of the astronauts. For the visor reflections, they were simply the differences between still photographs and video footage. People such as Richard Hoagland argued that some visor reflections were evidence of big artificial structures on the Moon that the astronauts helped cover up, and the visor reflections sometimes provided tell-tale evidence. None of that evidence ever withstood scrutiny, as far as I ever saw. One charge was that the video footage from Apollo 11 was poor and provided to the media in substandard fashion. That was true, but once again, I did not see where it was evidence of fakery. There were some anomalies that had me going for a while, until I realized that the presenter was misinterpreting the evidence. James Collier indeed found where in the official NASA movie, footage from two different days was depicted as the same day, and in one instance, Collier thought that he found where there was more than one “take” of a scene, but it was just NASA’s PR people playing fast and loose in the editing room, and Collier misidentified a rock-holder as the Lunar Rover. Once again, the charges of fakery did not hold up. For me, personally, the instance of faked footage that caused me the most excitement and consternation was Bart Sibrel’s “found” footage from Apollo 11, but after a few days, I realized that like Collier, Bart was misinterpreting what he was seeing, charging the astronauts with faking the scene when they weren’t at all, and an innocent staging technique, shooting images of Earth through the Command Module hatch, was given a sinister interpretation of faking the images. Bart is part of the faked Moon landings crowd that argued that the astronauts never left Earth’s orbit, and all trips to the Moon were fabricated. I still receive this “never left Earth’s orbit” talk from people. That is one of the most ignorant claims that I have seen made for the Moon landings. Many observatories around Earth photographed the missions as they approach the Moon. There are many independent images of the Apollo craft beyond Earth’s orbit. I vividly recall days spent looking at NASA photographs, with frame numbers and times of when they were taken, as the Apollo 11 astronauts, for instance, took pictures of Earth before going to sleep and after waking up, and I spun my globe at home, rotating it for the hours elapsed, and they matched with what was shown, as far as what part of Earth should be visible to the astronauts. More impressive were photographs of the Moon as the astronauts approached and left, as the photographs showed portions of the lunar surface that are not visible from Earth. Something beyond a low-Earth orbit took those photographs, and as those photos were interspersed with shots of the astronauts in the Lunar Module, etc., it would have been one hell of a production, to intersperse real photographs taken by unmanned probes beyond Earth orbit with images of the astronauts in their capsule as it merely orbited Earth. The scenarios of the faked Moon landing crowd had to get ever more fanciful and ornate to account for the evidence that I was seeing. There is much, much more to report on my examination of the Apollo program evidence but it is time to go hiking. Somebody has to do it! Best, Wade

Hi: Before I get back to the Moon landings, I want to briefly revisit that essay update preview post from yesterday. Nick Lane is an entertaining writer, the kind that you could see yourself having a beer with. In his book’s last page, he wrote: “If life is nothing more than an electron looking for a place to rest, death is nothing but that electron come to rest.” In that diagram of protons moving back and forth across the mitochondrion’s inner membrane, as that flow powers the “turbine” that makes ATP, a flow of charged particles powers that turbine. The definition of electricity is a flow of charged particles, not necessarily electrons. Lane makes the point that the electric charge is vitally important, as mere diffusion would not be enough to generate the necessary power. Lane calculates the power in that moving current of protons, and for its scale, it is as powerful as a lightning bolt. My body has about 200 quintillion (or 200 million trillion) ATP Synthase motors in it, turning at hundreds of rotations per second, with the equivalent of a lightning bolt powering each one. As Lane said, life is not a candle, but more like a rocket, and when viewed this way, the fact that a complex cell burns energy 100,000 times as the Sun produces it, pound-for-pound, begins to make more sense. Best, Wade

Hi: I really plan to slow down, I swear ( ), while I update my big essay. This may be my biggest update for the next several years, especially if I resume my career as I hope that I do. Back to scientific literacy, and this will start some posts on the Apollo Moon landings. This turned into something kind of bizarre for me, looking into the issue for years before I decided to get to the bottom of it, and that effort partly led to becoming an astronaut’s biographer, who publicly stated that maybe the Apollo missions didn’t land on the Moon. I have told the story of my journey into the Apollo evidence, and don’t need to repeat much of it, but want to approach it from what the evidence was, how I dealt with it, and how it relates to scientific investigation. The scientific ideal is proposing hypotheses to account for all known evidence regarding a phenomenon, and then seeing how the hypotheses fare in light of new evidence. That we never landed on the Moon was not my hypothesis, and was not the hypothesis that got me looking into the Moon landings, but I initially looked to see what might have been covered up about them. The whole “faked Moon landings” issue took shape while I was looking into what might have been covered up. My father’s year at NASA had something to do with my interest, plus my radicalizing days with Dennis. I wondered if anything that I had been taught was true. Steven Greer stated that what got him looking into the ET issue was his uncle, who helped build the Lunar Modules that landed on the Moon. Greer said that for insiders like his uncle, they were aware of things that the public was not privy too, such as the ET presence. Seeing Douglas Caddy’s testimony on why JFK was killed came many years after hearing what Greer’s Disclosure Project witnesses had to say about JFK’s knowledge of the issue, and I have certainly weighed in on my views on the JFK issue lately, but want to leave them behind for now. It is ironic that the Space Race took me to Houston as a child (because of Johnson’s pork barrel politics), but JFK wanted to end the Space Race, which was likely part of why he died. So his murder directly impacted my life. Before the chorus of faked Moon landings really began, I read William Brian’s Moongate, which did not argue for faked Moon landings, but that there was plenty covered up about them. His chief contention was that there was a discrepancy in published values for the so-called neutral point, which is a point in space for a rocket to the Moon where the pull of the Moon’s gravity is equal to Earth’s. Brian calculated the one that was initially published to the one published during the Apollo missions, and argued that the discrepancy meant that the Moon’s gravity was higher than publicly disclosed, and that NASA had to use exotic technology to land on and take off from the Moon (strongly implying that antigravity was used), not conventional rockets. For several years, I challenged people to tell me where Brian’s calculation was wrong. Finally, in 1998, chief Velikovskian apostate Leroy Ellenberger pointed me to Archie Roy’s Orbital Motion, and it became evident that the calculation that Newton used, as well as pre-Apollo NASA, was flawed. William Brian’s so-called “neutral-point discrepancy” essentially vanished, and I told him so. You can see a derivation of the more sophisticated calculation and its discussion, here. Once the neutral-point discrepancy vanished, as far as it pointing at covered-up high lunar gravity, the entire Moongate thesis largely collapsed. It was a good early lesson for me. There were still aspects of the Moongate hypothesis that bugged me, and it was not until 2001 that I co-discovered evidence that eliminated virtually all of my residual doubt, but I am contacted to this day by people who argue for faked Moon landings. However, all that I have seen them do is recycle “evidence” that has long since been convincingly discredited, as far as being evidence of faked Moon landings. Some of it is appallingly bad, as far as “evidence” of faked Moon landings, but the issue seems to never quite go away. Recent images of the Apollo landing sites has taken most of the wind out of the conspiracists’ sails, but there will likely be a hardcore group that will take their place with the Flat Earthers, who are never going to back down until they can go to the Moon themselves (if they ever dare to). I read the various “faked Moon landings” books when they came out, and Dark Moon came out just after I began going deep on the Moon landings in early 2001, soon after Brian O publicly stated that maybe the Moon landings were faked. Part of me resented getting sucked so far into the issue, but with Brian’s statement, I had to do the work, and what follows will be my journey into the evidence. Best, Wade

Hi: As I have written plenty, impatience is my Achilles heel, and I get to work on it every day. I once read that M. King Hubbert, the founder of Peak Oil theory, which is controvertible, IMO, spent much of his career patiently explaining Peak Oil theory over and over, as people had difficulty understanding it. I think that I am going to be doomed to explaining energy’s Epochal significance, and free energy’s Epochal potential, over and over, so that the people I seek can begin to understand. The West, especially the USA, is a brainwashed, scientifically illiterate culture, and those who are scientifically literate usually have been brainwashed into the religion that has grown up around mainstream science, which is the religion of our Epoch. So, I write this way and that, about energy, consciousness, conspiracies, the structural aspects of our systems, scientific literacy, and so on, trying to help my readers who do the work begin developing comprehensive perspectives. Only then can the big picture begin to be discerned. I am about to go relatively quiet this month, working on my essay update for the year. While I was writing on the JFK hit in recent weeks, I read Arrival of the Fittest, am almost done with Flying Dinosaurs, and am reading Earth’s Deep History, which will all be reflected in the essay update. I would say that Ward and Kirschvink’s latest, as well as Nick Lane’s, will be the stars of the essay update. We will see if I can get it done in June. If not, then the update will appear in September or later. Best, Wade

Hi: Here are a few global warming tidbits that I have recently seen. The Great Barrier Reef is dying, due to Global Warming. There have been plenty of news reports on the scientific paper (1, 2, 3). The methane in the melting Siberian permafrost is having explosive melting, leaving huge craters that looks like bombs hit them. Mount Everest’s glaciers are rapidly melting. It is not hard to find overwhelming evidence of global warming, but humanity has its collective head in the sand, on this and many other issues. It is not hard to understand why carbon dioxide traps radiation coming from Earth. Molecules of three or more atoms have a complexity that allows them to absorb frequencies that atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen, which comprise 99% of our atmosphere and are diatomic, cannot. There are many cartoons and explanations (1, 2, 3, 4) out there, to explain and visualize it in a way that is easily understood. The lower energy levels of infrared match the vibrational and rotational energies that can absorb infrared, and to make an electron jump is another order of magnitude. It is also “quantized,” in that only certain movements are allowed, so only certain wavelengths can be absorbed. Best, Wade

Hi: This may be my last JFK post for now. We’ll see. I have written about the JFK hit’s relationship to the ET issue, and what Hunt told Douglas Caddy the last time that they met, and I won’t question the veracity of Douglas’s testimony. It fits in rather well with the bigger picture of what I see happening today. Today, the term “Breakaway Civilization” is in vogue, and conspiracists are going wild with it. What my friend was shown long ago were some of those “Breakaway Civilization’s” toys. A member of my circle was asked to help them terraform Mars (and it wasn’t Brian). Eisenhower’s great granddaughter has gone public with their effort to recruit her for a Mars colonization project. Clips of are easy to find. As fantastic as that all can seem, it is real, and when you begin playing the game at these levels, if you can survive the experience, that stuff simply comes with the territory. The ultra-elites are real, their technological hoard is indeed impressive, and it is all a dark pather’s wet dream. You would not want to live in their “Breakaway Civilization.” As Greer once said, to hear even a fraction of their evil activities can damage a normal person’s psyche. “Merely” studying genocides and holocausts, many inflicted by my great nation, was emotionally damaging and spurred me to stop drinking in the year 2000. I may have to thank those studies, as I might not be here if I drank during my nightmare of a midlife crisis. Let’s say that the Monroe CIA memo is a forgery. The nature of these areas is that disinformation always has elements of the truth in it, which is what makes it plausible, and it would not surprise me at all if the alleged forger and his pals were being manipulated by higher powers in their efforts. Even if they made it up out of thin air, JFK was aware of the UFO/ET situation, enough to know that he was not in the loop on it, as no president since Eisenhower really has been. I won’t deny that when JFK tried to end the Cold War in his last year of life, after already proving to be a reluctant imperial tool, that the ET angle may well have come into play with his murder, especially since JFK proposed a joint mission to the Moon with the Soviet Union. But killing him because he would reveal some of ET “secrets” to the Soviet Union seems like a convenient excuse to me. The Soviets already knew plenty themselves. I think that the ET angle was a proximate cause for JFK’s murder, not the ultimate one. There is a distinct downside to all of this Breakaway Civilization fervor, which is that it focuses on elite machinations and encourages non-productive activities, including paranoia. A lot of what I see out there on the subject is tabloid fodder. Focusing on the Breakaway Civilization is not going to solve humanity’s problems, and they are huge and pressing. We had plenty of contact from the so-called White Hats, and they hide in the shadows, just like the Black Hats do. I do my best to ignore all of them. They are not going to save the day, and they are not going to destroy Earth: both outcomes are dependent on what normal people do, not the elites. Brian O said it best: the only path to our salvation is through combined positive intention, not an obsessive focus on the “bad guys” or the “good guys.” That is what victims do, looking for heroes to worship or villains to revile. Every time that members of my social circle treated me like a hero, they always later attacked me. The hero/villain dynamic is their trip. The greatest humans I have yet met, and I have met some of the greatest that have walked on Earth, were still human, as we all are. I’ll agree that in his own way, JFK was trying to make the world a better place and was not simply following the oligarchy’s orders, which all presidents since him have done. I’ll agree that the USA began its marked decline with his murder, but it is up to us to right humanity’s ship. JFK can’t, nor can his family, nor will the elites. They don’t have the right stuff, and fear their loss of status above all else, and most would rather rule in hell than be regular members of something that looks a lot like heaven on Earth. It is up to the rest of us. We all live here, and this is our planet, too. I won’t stop trying, and have a plan that will work, if I can find enough people with the right stuff and can train them. We need to lay JFK to rest. It has been more than 50 years. He has certainly moved on from his murder, and those who committed the heinous act will reap what they sowed, as always, and most of them already have. I have written about my graveside visit a few years ago, when one of the greatest humans I ever met came through to me, to lessen my sadness, letting me know that he did not want to be remembered that way. JFK can be seen as a martyr, but I doubt that he would have wanted to have been remembered that way. If his acts and intentions could be seen as inspiring future generations to right humanity’s ship, I think that that is the best way to honor his memory. Best, Wade

Hi: On a brief chore break… When scandals break, whether it is on Wall Street, in Washington D.C., and elsewhere, the game is to always exonerate the system and attribute the scandal to a few bad apples, as the illusion of the system’s legitimacy must be maintained at all costs. I see the same pattern in the JFK hit, as people want to finger a few bad conspirators and exonerate the system. The USA has never been “great,” if by great, we mean noble of purpose, but that is the dogma that all American children are raised with, as they are trained to worship a flag, etc. It is nothing more than in-group conditioning, and very few escape it in their lifetimes. Very few want to, as the benefits of American residency are many and obvious, in history’s richest and most powerful nation, and it can really get crazy in places such as the Midwest. The aftermath of 9/11 was incredible to witness in its flag-waving mindlessness, Bush’s cartoon rhetoric, etc. Every sporting event begins with a flag-saluting rendition of the national anthem, with orgiastic cheers and pageantry, and woe to him who fails to salute. All of my fellow travelers that I most respected swallowed that bilge hook, line, and sinker, but their Boy Scout natures eventually led them to understand the lies of their conditioning, although I am the only one that I know of that escaped that particular conditioning to the degree that I did, although I hear that siren song every day. When the evil comes into view to the degree that it is undeniable, then it is like Cliff Robertson’s ending lines in Three Days of the Condor, as it is all justified for the greater good (at least for the in-group), or like that famous Jack Nicholson line, of the public . It is all a crock, of course. There is no benevolent intent behind such deeds, but it makes for a nice cover story. I have been approached over the years by people with their JFK theories, and they usually defend the system, with JFK’s murder being some kind of anomaly rather than a blueprint, as they heap the responsibility onto a few people, and exonerate the entire American establishment’s complicity in the cover-up for more than 50 years. Conspiracists focus obsessively on the alleged conspirators, often quite paranoically, while structuralists usually deny the conspiratorial aspects of how the power structure works. Mike Parenti once wrote a brilliant analysis of how blind the structuralists can be with their “conspiracy phobia.” It takes great integrity to even want to break out of one’s in-group conceits, but I seek the few who can. Because only then can the Fifth Epoch be comprehended, at least to the degree that we can, as mired in the Fourth as we are. Nobody has ever been able to imagine the previous Epochs before they arrived, but I seek the few who can for the coming one, and for Americans, it means getting beyond nationalism, capitalism, organized religion, materialism, scientism, and rationalism. Understanding the JFK hit can help Americans get past their nationalistic conditioning, and should help inoculate people in other nations who look to the USA as some vision of light and goodness. It isn’t. Best, Wade

Hi: My views on the JFK hit, in summary, are: JFK was killed in a CIA operation whose “retail” purpose was to stage a fake assassination attempt that framed Castro, to justify an open American invasion of Cuba; The operation “backfired” when it was interposed by unknown agents, and JFK was killed instead of manipulated into approving an invasion of Cuba; While the identities of the interposers will likely never be definitively revealed, they worked on behalf of domestic interests who wanted JFK dead, for political-economic reasons; The primary beneficiary of JFK’s death was the Eastern Establishment, including Wall Street and the MIC, and Allen Dulles, who was the de facto leader of the Warren Commission, had been a servant of the Eastern Establishment for his entire career, especially Rockefeller interests; JFK was a relative outsider in American politics, an Irish Catholic from a newly rich family, and his attempts to end the Cold War, while pulling in the USA’s imperial horns from the beginning of his presidency, such as in the Bay of Pigs operation, were likely the final straw for those behind his murder; Because of how the real plot was staged within a fake plot, the dupes left holding the bag would eagerly participate in a cover-up of JFK’s murder, which included the bureaucracies at the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI; Lee Harvey Oswald was no lone assassin but a military intelligence operative who was drafted into the CIA’s plot to stage the fake assassination attempt, and he was one of many expendable assets used in the operation; Jack Ruby was part of the real plot, his job was silencing Oswald, and with plenty of help, he did; While a mountain of evidence points away from Oswald being the lone assassin and often points directly at the American intelligence community, which Dulles ran for many years, Dulles orchestrated a “lone nut” scenario, and the evidence that framed Oswald was promoted and fabricated, while the evidence that pointed away from Oswald was manipulated and destroyed (including murdered witnesses), including evidence that a shooter team took out JFK in a hail of bullets, not a lone assassin getting off three shots from the book depository; The murder and cover-up was so successful, although so clumsily performed that doubts about Oswald’s guilt immediately surfaced among the thoughtful, that the intelligence community adopted assassination, with a lone nut scapegoat served up each time, as a domestic policy tool for a generation, clear up to the attempt on Ronald Reagan; they merely brought home tactics used abroad for many years to be used domestically; The media and related institutions are all integral parts of the Establishment, have supported the official position to this day, and have served a disinformation and indoctrination function regarding JFK’s murder for more than 50 years; The Kennedy family themselves never believed the official version of JFK’s murder, nor do they believe it for RFK’s. In essence, JFK’s murder was little different from how many of Rome’s emperors met their end, in a palace coup, although the plot that took out JFK was obviously very elaborate, and it was ingeniously planned and executed. If those tapes that Stich reported are genuine and accurate, it would be no surprise to me at all. The evidence has long pointed at Dulles being the fixer who played his career’s greatest role, of covering up the murder of the man who fired him. About the only time that Dulles was publicly challenged was by David Lifton at UCLA, and Dulles proved himself badly overmatched in discussing the evidence, trying to bluff and bluster his way through. For Americans, the JFK assassination and cover-up brings the legitimacy of the American system into grave doubt. The USA is run by gangsters who can murder the head of state with impunity, and the message to all future presidents was loud and clear: you are expendable. The sitting American president is little more than a puppet. But rather than just a few plotters and Allen Dulles being responsible, the entire American establishment has been complicit for more than 50 years. For me, that is the lesson of the JFK hit. The system is evil, but that is nothing new. It has been evil since Jamestown. Heck, it has been evil since Columbus first made landfall in the Bahamas, as those welcoming natives were quickly driven to extinction. The JFK affair is just more of the same. States are not worth believing in, especially the American state. In the Fifth Epoch, all states will go the way of slavery, as will all corporations, and such huge concentrations of ill-gotten wealth and power will end. The elites know it, too, which is why they have been so avidly preventing the Fifth Epoch from manifesting, even though its technological basis was established before I was born. Meanwhile, humanity has its toes over the edge of the abyss and almost nobody knows or cares. I am trying to do what I can, after surviving my harrowing adventures in our evil system, and am looking for needles in haystacks to help, who are going to have unusual qualities. It won’t take many of us to usher in the Fifth Epoch, and the dark days can end, but there is hard work to do to make it happen, and I wrote the textbook to help train those people. I am not quite through with these JFK posts, but close. Best, Wade