ep123-Cluesquiz #2-NASA

Be the 1st to vote.

Who? Simon and Hoi – and 3 contestants (please apply below – must have Skype)

What? We have 11 questions on for James Stigmire, Jan Erik, and KHammad

When? Sunday, Aug 24/14 at 7:11pm EDT


Apollo 12 Launch

Clues in the news:




No tags for this post.

15 thoughts on “ep123-Cluesquiz #2-NASA

  1. UNreal

    Great show,
    as a numerical sidenote on the 1865 Jules Verne 11km/s velocity theory,,,
    18-65 > 1+8 & 6+5

    Verne / neVer
    Is this wordplay just like Musk / Skum ?

    1. smj

      that damn verne is everywhere:

      During briefings, Abelson, lining the walls with blueprints, equations and other diagrams, vigorously presented the importance of extended submerged operations and the need for nuclear power. In attendance at one such briefing, Vice Adm. Charles Lockwood, a veteran World War II submarine commander, likened what he heard to something out of Jules Verne’s “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea,” an analogy that may have inadvertently inspired the naming of the first nuclear submarine. – See more at: www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-re…

      abelson is another berkeley hustler who got to play with the atom smasher’s cyclotrons.

      1. smj

        abelson lays out the hustle in this interview. he dabbled in all kinds of bullshit- like a good berkeley man should:

        There was a year in my life when I was editor of Science, I was president of the Carnegie Institution, I was president of the International Union of Geological Sciences, I was president of the American Geophysical Union, and I was president of the Cosmos Club.


  2. or e bil

    Rats. Missed the edit window.

    2nd paragraph, line 1 in my previous post should begin with:

    Now, once one has made the leap to an idea of purposeful “inclusion” through hoaxing from that of mere accidental discovery,

  3. or e bil

    One thing I have a hard time comprehending sometimes is the lack of understanding displayed to those who have made a logical leap in their minds, through reasoning, that these hoaxes are being fed to us on purpose to figure out for those paying attention. Let’s use simon’s “BEATING THE DEAD HORSE” post as an example. Do we have [a] 43 instances of so-called sloppiness, or do we have [b] more of a “pattern” at this point. Hopefully, it shouldn’t be hard to see that some, if not many could logically make the decision to pick [b] without hesitation.


    Now, once one has made the leap to an idea of purposeful hoaxing from that of accidental, then an entirely new conundrum begins to emerge and the real fun begins. And the paradox of intention of the hoaxers still, of course remains ambiguous.

    So, pshea appears to think the hoaxing is purposeful. I believe culto did as well (castles with gates was his analogy, If I recall.) I’d say that I unequivocally have moved into this opinion as well.

    1. Hoi Polloi

      Just one take — could be totally off base: I think it might be a mixture. They put a range of problems and debatable points from easy to hard, and fight you all the way on all of them. I think this is a technique to measure our response and get nuanced examples of people’s “awakeness” as it happens and watch us combat even simple aspects of the maze to take more notes. Only some clues are findable if you merely have enough expertise, wisdom, luck or something besides knowledge. All the clues are findable if you have enough knowledge. None of us has all the knowledge necessary to totally shred apart the lies.

      They want to know how much knowledge different groups have. And unfortunately posting to each other on the Internet about it gives them exactly that data they mean to collect. I am guessing and hoping it may also force them to stop doing some aspects of the lying.

      I guess if you are suggesting there could be some benevolent reason for the lies, it still doesn’t make me lose interest in seeing them and pointing them out. What does tire me out is just focusing too much on anything, for too long, which is why I will sometimes take long breaks from the ‘research’.

      If you ever start seeing mystical things in it all, I would suggest you take a break once in a while as well. But I think you might not be wrong and it will be an interesting branch of ideas to watch grow.

      1. UNreal

        As for the reasoning behind any psyop or hoax it is very likely that what is targeted is not only our conscience but also the unconscious part of us. Seen from this angle, much of what seems like “glitches” or ridiculous to our conscious mind might very well be vital to trigger our unconscious mind. Much of the “magic” is most likely targeted for this area of our brain as it contains much more processing power, pattern recognition ability and interpretive skills.

      2. or e bil

        Hoi, thanks for your response. Everything you say makes perfect sense and I am happy to hear you are receptive to the possibility that some of the “easter eggs” and whatever may be planted on purpose. I also agree we each must leave the option open for either scenario, lest we appear to be defending an opinion for reasons beyond our attempted mining for the truth.

        Examples of the synchronistic stuff… “mystical” if you will, are already being posted to Cluesforum and I think they add value in determining if a reported event may be a psyop or not, but perhaps you haven’t exactly been seeing them defined that way for what they are. “Wag the Dog”, for instance has nothing to do with media fakery but the movie’s content and “true life” events that happened later that year sure seem to sync up well. All of the apparent preconditioning leading to 9/11… Neo’s passport expiration from the Matrix etc. — none have anything to do with media fakery but they sure are coincidental. The Batman movie and shooting psyop, Sandy Hook, Football/Superbowl blackout occurence tie-ins etc… That’s as far as I take it into sync… where the coincidence appears to overwhelm the odds for the likeliness of a random event to be taken at face value. Hopefully it makes a bit more sense now to you where I’m coming from.

        And, I am in full agreement with you that whether the fakery is done for benevolent or malevolent means, the service that cluesforum and fakeologist provides to inform those who are willing to free their mind and accept the message is invaluable. I know you are always mentioning to folks to do their own research as well. I think this is super important not only for fact checking purposes but to really obtain a true understanding of the event and to possibly even look for additional purpose or meaning.

        Here are the lyrics to the Oompa Loompa Song “Mike Teavee” from the movie “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.”

        Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-do
        I have another puzzle for you
        Oompa Loompa doom-pa-da-dee
        If you are wise you’ll listen to me
        What do you get from a glut of TV?
        A pain in the neck and an IQ of three
        Why don’t you try simply reading a book?
        Or can you just not bear to look?

        You’ll get no… you’ll get no… you’ll get no commercials

        Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-da
        If you’re not greedy, you will go far
        You will live in happiness too
        Like the Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-do

        And here is the point Roald Dahl, the original author of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” intended to get across. I don’t even need to push the point but I believe you will identify which is the richer to experience.


  4. simonshack

    Hi all Fakeologists and Fakeologettes,

    I hope you’ll all be tuning in on today’s MOON / NASA quiz. I’ve spent a few days putting together 11 NASA quiz entries – doing my best to make them both serious and entertaining – so as to uphold the quality and the good mood of Ab’s great radio show. it should be fun – so don’t miss the NASA quiz!

    As for the recent, ‘little drama’ going on here (which I’ve lazily / reluctantly tried to follow), I’m sorry – there’s no way I’m going to let myself dragged into it. I’ve already got plenty to do – just keeping my own forum on track, thank you very much. Besides, the ‘little drama’ took place within the private / group voice-chats between various regular Fakeologist members; therefore, I can’t see how this is relevant to anyone outside of the chatters involved – and it certainly doesn’t affect in any way the overall high standard of Ab’s proper radio shows and interviews.

    Anyone interested (for whatever reason) in my own views and stance regarding the “little drama” can contact me on my private e-mail address to be found here: www.septemberclues.info/contac…

    Sincerely yours – and keep up the good mood !


  5. Banazîr Galbasi


    Ab, please ask Simon and Hoi to clarify their position on the Evil Edna/Psyopticon voice morphing mystery. Simon who has pointed out such audio anomolies in the 9/11 videos as the drawer slamming and the reverse drum cymbal crash should have an excellent ear. The three of you should also comment on the possiblities of voice altering technology (starting with ancient analog equipment dating back to the 1947) beginning with ‘ring modulation’. Simon has experience with vocoders as well.


    Lets face it, we look for the fakery in everything. Surely if there is a faker amongst us we should point them out and expose them. Nevermind how people have been banned for way less than this guys performance last week. (He sure loses his cool over such a simple request.) This too should not be another forbidden topic on a forum for free thinkers. I believe I speak for many of us when I say the mood of this site has changed and we desperately want back what we once had. The silence is deafening.

    Gentlemen I implore you.

    1. psyopticon

      Erm, before we go running around like blue-arsed flies – spitting out spineless and silly accusations at the sincerest members of all – let’s just take a reality check here, guys.

      I did not make that audio recording which you and others are claiming contains “voice morphing”. Yet one of the newest “fakeologist” clown(ettes) – who suddenly appeared to promote the ongoing Sandy Hook hoax machine – has even made a youtube video claiming proof of my voice fakery! For christ’s sake. Moreover,her video is somewhat professional in production to boot. Hat tip for others: those ‘too slick’ productions claiming “conspiracy” invariably belie a professional, paid hand of a propagandist behind them – the”Betsy McGee” psy-operation is a prime proof of point here.

      So let’s start with those basic questions, yes? Let’s study the Chain of Custody of that audio which supposedly contains me “voice morphing”. Sounds reasonable, yes? Who made it? (hint: not me). Who processed it? (hint: not me) Who uploaded it? (hint: not me) Who hosts it (hint: not me).

      Four obvious areas of research that you are blindly overlooking, Banazir, in your zeal to plunge the knife in your twisted ad hominem attacks. An underlying insincerity that is abundantly transparent.

      Let’s frame your distractionary and very divisive Inquisition around those questions, too, yes? And if there is a mole or moles within then, sure, let’s smoke them out, Banazir. Yes?

      So who made the audio “recording”? Were you involved, Banazir? How was it made? What processing tools were used? Where’s the original (pre-transcoded) raw audio? Let the raw audio be made available for independent forensic analysis. And let’s find the truth. Secondly of that “conspiwacy theowy” video from “Khammad” (whom you are pointedly endorsing, here, Banazir), what role, if any did you have in its production? Why was that video made? What agenda? Whatever reason, it’s a slick effort, isn’t it, Banazir?

      Isn’t it time to quit casting these very silly scatter-gun aspersions in a sloppy, underhand manner, every bit as a pathetic as the goons running the psyops through the mainstream outlets??

      Currently all you and others are doing, very possibly by design, is undermining the defining purpose of this group – the study of media fakery. And in doing so, distracting the ever-growing army of fakery researchers from far more profitable studies.

      So Banazir, there are some very reasonable questions you are invited to answer.

      And lastly, Banazir, you should also explain why you’ve hijacked this thread – about a Chat show tonight – along with several earlier threads – in your determined effort to undermine the effective operation of this forum.

      1. Hoi Polloi

        Sorry for saying “I told you so” but what do you think we have been trying to avoid on CF for all these years? It’s like watching Christophera vs. Gamolon. Tweedle-dum vs. Tweedle-dee. Fake-debates all over again. Disruption and division. Do not allow it, if you care! Don’t waste your or your readers’ time. If you are not the mod, and the mod doesn’t care, still nobody is stopping you from harboring your own thoughts on it.

        In my opinion, just watching what has been happening from an arm’s distance, and occasionally commenting on it, it seems to me someone wants to break you guys up and cause you to disperse and loath the community that you yourself created and are in charge of. I don’t know who it is — whether it’s any one amongst you or not — but you have the power to choose to be turned off of the truth by this “annoyance” on either side or not. Or just fucking get through it, damn the shills.

        As an example, someone or something just gave over 30 thumbs down and 30 thumbs up to your little spat in this comment section apparently in support of psyopticon. That spat has nothing to do with Ab’s show this week, and then the site went down for several minutes. To me, this means someone is watching your flame war and wants to ignite it.

        Who is stopping you from telling the truth? Really? NOBODY!

        So keep pressing on the issues you care about! Everyone who cares and thinks posting on the Internet about it in a forum like this is a good solution! (Maybe it isn’t!) But the only “gatekeeping” that I see that has been going on has been personal gatekeeping occurring on the personal level, like people not believing in something someone else does believe in.

        If you believe in it, post the research! Cripes, that’s what this whole webby world is for, if you want it to be. You can get into religious core-value arguments until you are all blue but if you post research and evidence, as some have done, the conversation gets more interesting, doesn’t it?

        Sorry Banazir, but I don’t think what you had was meant to last if you were depending on it to naturally stay undisrupted by shillery, mistrust, miscommunication and derailment. It is a hard wake up call, but now you know how Simon and I have felt for the last five years putting up with this shit and trying to cordon it so that important issues can be laid out for public knowledge.

        psyopticon is clearly not an ‘alternative’ or ‘New Age’ or ‘lovey dovey’ type of person whereas pshea kind of is. So what do you think is going to come of that? Religious differences. Some of the strongest kinds of conflicts. Both psyopticon and pshea tend to try to make it personal really fast. If I am wrong about psyopticon being innocent, then my guess is both pshea and psyopticon are an acting team meant to divide and conquer the forum through emotional drama. Because that is exactly what has fucking happened.

        Clearly nobody is stopping any of you from discussing the matters you wish to discuss here. Only Ab is the moderator and he is pretty loosey-goosey, isn’t he? I have seen a LOT of disagreeing world views come on in the chat, the audio chat and the forum. It’s not disruptive to the truth so far. On the contrary, it gives a very good and wide-ranging perspective on different ideas of where the truth is.

        The truth for me on this subject of psyopticon being a shill is that I don’t know. I am ignorant of these audio matters. It’s not as much a certainty or “it was voice modulation” for me as the clearly shopped self-portrait graphics posted at CF by members I suspected of being sims, and where I feel I was vindicated for having my hunches. I am fine admitting this weakness in my own assessments and saying “I don’t know” in this case. I also think some people could benefit from learning where their accusations have been wildly wrong, such as the notion that Simon or I are different than who we say we are. Those truly are distracting falsehoods from my point of view, unless you are one to pull a Clinton and pedantically assess why my assertion is wrong. I am me. Simon is himself. Deal with it. Feel free to debate and theorize about it to your hearts’ content, I guess, if you really think that’s what’s going to help people.

        As for this subject, Simon has taken the high road apparently and said he isn’t going to get dragged into it. I allowed myself to get dragged into it by joining the audio chats and now I wonder, again, if I ever should have come here. I still have hope that it’s worth it.

        And I really hope you can all drop the drama, allow yourself to become comfortable with your mistrust of all involved (it is, after all, a pretty healthy assumption to think that the Internet is largely controlled, and if you don’t trust any of it then why are you here? Nobody is keeping up with it all, but yourselves and the intelligence spooks) and just enjoy the comical nature of this human (and sometimes fake-human) drama we find ourselves in. At least it’s more real than the TV/Hollywood reality shoved down our throats on a daily basis.

        I fully expect that my post about this will make people annoyed with me personally, mistrust me or choose some other path than taking my advice of just continuing to do what you want on Ab’s site, learning to deal with the conflicts that happen (deliberate or accidental as they may be). But let us be mature and accept that mistrust is a huge aspect of the “personal” side of this research. And what really counts is how you personally feel about any research presented. Which you can always do yourself. On your own terms.

        Apologies for stepping on any toes of legit people here, if there are any.

        1. ab Post author


          As usual, your post is eloquent and a fabulous summary of what has transpired. I thank you for taking the time and I hope others take note of your good advice.

          If I had to ban every member who I disagreed with on one point, then there would no members. I’m pleased that so many free thinkers feel welcome here, but I am not on a membership drive or here to make friends (although I have as a welcome by-product).

          There will be shills here. We all get that. There will be disagreements and unpleasant characters lurking and posting. Heck, I thought you were harsh with some CF members, but your good qualities more than explained your motivations.

          My main goal here is not to create a warm daycare. I am posting my personal observations on my own web space to see if any resonate with anyone else. If people are offended by my “loosey-goosey” management style, then they’ll have to move on. I don’t have a strict rule book on how to deal with users that others don’t like. I’m winging it, and as you can see, some agree and many disagree.

          My only advice is to echo Hoi’s: toughen up, ignore those that bother you, and feel free to discuss in separate threads or chats what bothers you. Just remember that most are visiting this site to help decode the propaganda pounding them daily. Don’t get lost in (false) battles that may lead you no-where.

  6. smj

    here’s a fella that won a million dollars on a quiz show and a nobel prize with the help of nasa’s cosmic background explorer satellite. he is a professor at berkeley of course. he was taught how to hustle people with shit that can’t be seen by the best hustlers in the business, luis alvarez and richard muller.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.