September 6, 2015 — Walter Bosley with Goggs Mackay

[wwkirk]

Did you ever read James Shelby Downard's King Kill 33 ? any comments ?

I think he's gone.

 

[Ghost]

Please tell us about King Kill 33

 

[Wade]

If that question was directed to me I haven't read it but from what I've heard Mr. Downard casts a wide synchromystic net chock full of conspiracy theories regarding the masons the nwo and the Kennedy assassination. This article was an essay in some compendium by Adam GoRightly I believe.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Are there "magick cults" within the MIC matrix manipulating our understanding about UFO's and Aliens? What's your thinking speculations about it?

WB: Could be. Why not? I tend to suspect all manner of esoterica being painted over social engineering political agendas when I look closely at stuff because of the clues. Example: King Kill 33. And, yeah, it's fun in that 'Holy crap, they're insane and mean us no good!' kind of way.

I'd like to add that I visited the Pentagon Shopping Center—right near the Pentagon and I went into a Barnes & Noble and was shocked that this store had (by far) the largest occult, metaphysical and UFO section of any bookstore I've ever visited. It sprawled row after row and was a major section of books in the store. In most stores you're lucky if you have a single shelf (or two) containing these types of books. This amazing amount of titles could not be in that particular store by accident.

 

[Wade]

I didn't even notice that Walter mentioned king kill 33 earlier. the question just occurred to me after reading post #58.

 

[Sub-light]

OK, I'm sorry Walter, I'm listening and I'm in the middle of hour two and I'm also in the middle of a big project but I had to put the brakes on and say a few things here... I'm sure your credentials are what they are but I also happen to have been involved to some extent in the space program as an aerospace educator. I've worked with the NASA/ JPL outreach programs on projects. If you want me to believe that we secretly launched Apollo missions to the moon, I can't go there. How on earth do you hide the launch of a Saturn 5 (The largest and most powerful machine ever built at that time) and where would it have lunched from? Every Saturn five that ever launched has clearly been accounted for. While I am happy to believe that there could have been some limited secret space activity and payloads we didn't know about, you want me to believe in secret Lunar missions? That's just too much. Sure maybe there is some evidence for some weird secretive organizations even societal breakways to some extent but to hide super high technology is just something I'd like to see actual proof. Now, If you want me to believe that Apollo 10 actually landed on the Moon and it wasn't just a dress rehearsal I might go there. But that's an awful slap in the face to Neil and Buzz and it's an even bigger slap in the face to Gene Cernan and Tom Stafford. What if that mission had failed? What kind ugly scenario could we come to it with with the conclusion of something like that? And you're also asking me to believe that someone has hundreds of billions of dollars to send humans to Mars meanwhile we piddle around pretending like we haven't gone there with humans?
While I'm at it, if your theories are true what is the point of studying UFOs investing in expensive camera programs and things like that? Apparently we will never know what they are because "they" will never let us know what they are because they have godlike power over all of this, according to your theory. And for that matter what's the point of a show like this because were just talking about something that's unknowable unattainable, untouchable and unchangeable so, we all may as well just go on with our lives and pick up a different hobby...
What is it about spooky creepy secret government conspiracies that turns some people on so much ? Sorry dude, I think I'm going to employ Occam's razor here again. This stuff sounds way too overly complicated.

 

[withoutlimits09]

OK, I'm sorry Walter, I'm listening and I'm in the middle of hour two and I'm also in the middle of a big project but I had to put the brakes on and say a few things here... I'm sure your credentials are what they are but I also happen to have been involved to some extent in the space program as an aerospace educator. I've worked with the NASA/ JPL outreach programs on projects. If you want me to believe that we secretly launched Apollo missions to the moon, I can't go there. How on earth do you hide the launch of a Saturn 5 (The largest and most powerful machine ever built at that time) and where would it have lunched from? Every Saturn five that ever launched has clearly been accounted for. While I am happy to believe that there could have been some limited secret space activity and payloads we didn't know about, you want me to believe in secret Lunar missions? That's just too much. Sure maybe there is some evidence for some weird secretive organizations even societal breakways to some extent but to hide super high technology is just something I'd like to see actual proof. Now, If you want me to believe that Apollo 10 actually landed on the Moon and it wasn't just a dress rehearsal I might go there. But that's an awful slap in the face to Neil and Buzz and it's an even bigger slap in the face to Gene Cernan and Tom Stafford. What if that mission had failed? What kind ugly scenario could we come to it with with the conclusion of something like that? And you're also asking me to believe that someone has hundreds of billions of dollars to send humans to Mars meanwhile we piddle around pretending like we haven't gone there with humans?
While I'm at it, if your theories are true what is the point of studying UFOs investing in expensive camera programs and things like that? Apparently we will never know what they are because "they" will never let us know what they are because they have godlike power over all of this, according to your theory. And for that matter what's the point of a show like this because were just talking about something that's unknowable unattainable, untouchable and unchangeable so, we all may as well just go on with our lives and pick up a different hobby...
What is it about spooky creepy secret government conspiracies that turns some people on so much ? Sorry dude, I think I'm going to employ Occam's razor here again. This stuff sounds way too overly complicated.

With all do respect, I am sure there were plenty of people at various levels of the Airforce and Navy, that would have held a similar position to yours about the reality of Area 51 prior to its public unveiling. I could imagine people saying, "I am a Air Force officer and I don't know where the government test crafts like that, our runways are not long enough." At that time, of course nobody had a clue about a top secret military instillation located on Groom Lake. If you don't have a need to know, then you probably won't know about alternate launch locations, or technology beyond the Saturn 5.

With that said, I am becoming more and more skeptical of the official moon landing story. If I had to bet, I would say we probably went to the moon, but it alarms me that in 2015, no other country has duplicated this task. Countries have duplicated our nuke technology, our stealth technology, our satellite technology, even our unmanned rover technology. Everyone has been able to keep up with us in this respect. However, no one has ever been able to put a man on the moon. We supposedly did this in the 1960's using relative tin cans and calculators. Meanwhile, in 2015 with all our technological advancements since the 1960's, private space industries (and even our own shuttles) have blown up just trying to get into low-earth orbit. Just for comparison sake, low earth orbit is a few hundred miles up, where as the moon is a paltry few hundred thousand miles away. It concerns me that Virgin and others are losing advanced crafts trying to simply get a man into low earth orbit, but in 1960 we landed on the moon, televised nationally, the very first time.

We are now learning Russia does not think they will have the ability to get man on the moon until 2030, yet they were our superior in many aspects of the early space race. Oddly enough, Space magazine called this 2030 date "very ambitious." It is also bothersome that our US government is also trying to pass legislation that would treat the original Apollo landing site as a "protected area" while deeming it off limits to any rovers or future manned mission. They say they want to preserve the landing site from other visitors. I would argue, it would be in our best interest for China to land their moon rover right next to our American Flag and broadcast that in HD for the world to see our superiority. However, the government, for some reason, does not want anyone near that area. I don't understand the harm in confirming the moon landing and getting to see everything in HD using modern optics.

If another 20 or 30 years go by, and no one has yet to land a man on the moon, I am going to suggest to everyone, our moon landing was largely a myth.

 

[Walter Bosley]

"Now, If you want me to believe that Apollo 10 actually landed on the Moon and it wasn't just a dress rehearsal I might go there."

That is generally where I go with that; a previous Apollo mission. Remember, this is my personal theory and I always confess I could be wrong. I don't see it as a slap to the Apollo 11 crew at all because of the magnitude of expertise and sheer balls every Apollo astronaut displayed on every mission. I say that if my theory is correct, those fine gentleman have done their jobs even if playing along. There are many special ops guys who were the actual guys to do something great but for which the credit went elsewhere to maintain a necessary cover. These kinds of people understand that's the nature of the job. But they still do it. Anyway, yes I think it would have most likely have been a known Apollo mission prior to 11, and have said that elsewhere. But it could also have been via some other mission program, we just don't know here among us in this forum, though I give credit to a guy who's worked NASA/JPL as being closer to that milieu than I have for having the opportunity to know better than I on the issue.

 

[Sub-light]

My peoblem with that is that it forces the astronauts to become liars. Maybe apollo 11 just landed the first time and that's it...just as Apollo 13 was a failure that almost killed 3 men and Apollo 1 never even got off the ground. Maybe I'm an naïve idiot but I just don't believe all much in a sinister NASA. Not staying they're perfict and above reproach but I have met several astronauts and worked with people who trained them and it just easyer to believe that we just went for it on 11 fail or not.

 

[Sub-light]

With all do respect, I am sure there were plenty of people at various levels of the Airforce and Navy, that would have held a similar position to yours about the reality of Area 51 prior to its public unveiling. I could imagine people saying, "I am a Air Force officer and I don't know where the government test crafts like that, our runways are not long enough." At that time, of course nobody had a clue about a top secret military instillation located on Groom Lake. If you don't have a need to know, then you probably won't know about alternate launch locations, or technology beyond the Saturn 5.

With that said, I am becoming more and more skeptical of the official moon landing story. If I had to bet, I would say we probably went to the moon, but it alarms me that in 2015, no other country has duplicated this task. Countries have duplicated our nuke technology, our stealth technology, our satellite technology, even our unmanned rover technology. Everyone has been able to keep up with us in this respect. However, no one has ever been able to put a man on the moon. We supposedly did this in the 1960's using relative tin cans and calculators. Meanwhile, in 2015 with all our technological advancements since the 1960's, private space industries (and even our own shuttles) have blown up just trying to get into low-earth orbit. Just for comparison sake, low earth orbit is a few hundred miles up, where as the moon is a paltry few hundred thousand miles away. It concerns me that Virgin and others are losing advanced crafts trying to simply get a man into low earth orbit, but in 1960 we landed on the moon, televised nationally, the very first time.

We are now learning Russia does not think they will have the ability to get man on the moon until 2030, yet they were our superior in many aspects of the early space race. Oddly enough, Space magazine called this 2030 date "very ambitious." It is also bothersome that our US government is also trying
to pass legislation that would treat the original Apollo landing site as a "protected area" while deeming it off
limits to any rovers or future manned mission. They say they want to preserve the landing site from other visitors. I would argue, it would be in our best interest for China to land their moon rover right next to our American Flag and broadcast that in HD for the world to see our superiority. However, the government, for some reason, does not want anyone near that area. I don't understand the harm in confirming the moon landing and getting to see everything in HD using modern optics.

If another 20 or 30 years go by, and no one has yet to land a man on the moon, I am going to suggest to everyone, our moon landing was largely a myth.

The lift off of a 363 foot tall rocket that has 7 million pounds of thrust is a pretty hard thing to hide and that's what is required for lunar injection. The Groom lake Facility was a simple case of denial. Everybody knew it was there. As to why we haven't been back to the Moon is as puzzling to me is it is to everyone but, that doesn't mean sinister plots were involved. It simply could be a case of lack of interest, too much politics etc. didn't Sigmund Freud once say sometimes a Tunnel is just a tunnel...

 

[Walter Bosley]

Why would it be sinister? I've never said that nor implied it. I'm a huge fan of our manned space history. And coming from the perspective of the classified ops world, something you should have some understanding of in your professional realm, I wouldn't consider them heinous 'liars'. I have said that my theory might explain Armstrong being relatively a hermit for having been the first man on the Moon, BUT IF my theory turns out basically true, these men weren't liars, they were professionals doing their jobs. If that job required being part of such a cover for a classified mission, these guys (especially the former military among them) would have saluted sharply and done as instructed. I've "lied" about where I have been or what I was doing to family and other loved ones to maintain a cover. I would totally "lie" about government employment IF required to do so for cover purposes, i.e. tell everyone during interviews etc that I worked for Burger King when I was actually working undercover for Uncle Sam. When an agent, I "lied" to a perp once when I indicated I had a full file on him when the stack of paper in the folder was blank. There are lies that are immoral or naughty and then there's what we call a cover 'legend'. My proposal is that IF my theory is correct, the Apollo guys did their jobs to maintain the cover. There is NO dishonor in that.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

After spending 5 years in the U.S. Navy as a combat aircrewman on Lockheed P-3C Orion's, the idea that the moon landings were faked is ludicrous. Considering all of the coordinated leg work that had to have been done with fake videos/photos, etc. They left reflectors on the moon that you can point and fire a laser at. You'll get a return and it will tell you how far the moon is away from the Earth. I don't think the reflectors grew there on their own.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

It seems like nowadays anybody could write a book that explains (for instance) that the World Trade Center was made out of pieces of Stonehenge rocks. And the aliens that made Stonehenge took control of the jets on 9/11 because they were mad that we built the WTC and they wanted them destroyed. Therefore, under remote control, they flew the jets into the buildings. The aliens used their hidden underground base on the moon as their headquarters for this operation. And their main spy that they use to gather their intel for 9/11 is JFK - who really didn't get assassinated. He was abducted by a UFO on that day in Dallas. E.T. made time stop for a minute while they abducted him and replaced him with a body double. They then restarted time and nobody noticed anything different besides him getting shot and he's been living on their secret moon base ever since. Etc. etc. blah blah.

You know there would be people that would buy into this and you would see it all over the net. I should make a YouTube video as an experiment explaining all this with all the graphics/video etc. I bet people would argue points over what part of my tale is probable and which aren't.

 

[Walter Bosley]

We went to the Moon. Several times.

With all do respect, I am sure there were plenty of people at various levels of the Airforce and Navy, that would have held a similar position to yours about the reality of Area 51 prior to its public unveiling. I could imagine people saying, "I am a Air Force officer and I don't know where the government test crafts like that, our runways are not long enough." At that time, of course nobody had a clue about a top secret military instillation located on Groom Lake. If you don't have a need to know, then you probably won't know about alternate launch locations, or technology beyond the Saturn 5.

With that said, I am becoming more and more skeptical of the official moon landing story. If I had to bet, I would say we probably went to the moon, but it alarms me that in 2015, no other country has duplicated this task. Countries have duplicated our nuke technology, our stealth technology, our satellite technology, even our unmanned rover technology. Everyone has been able to keep up with us in this respect. However, no one has ever been able to put a man on the moon. We supposedly did this in the 1960's using relative tin cans and calculators. Meanwhile, in 2015 with all our technological advancements since the 1960's, private space industries (and even our own shuttles) have blown up just trying to get into low-earth orbit. Just for comparison sake, low earth orbit is a few hundred miles up, where as the moon is a paltry few hundred thousand miles away. It concerns me that Virgin and others are losing advanced crafts trying to simply get a man into low earth orbit, but in 1960 we landed on the moon, televised nationally, the very first time.

We are now learning Russia does not think they will have the ability to get man on the moon until 2030, yet they were our superior in many aspects of the early space race. Oddly enough, Space magazine called this 2030 date "very ambitious." It is also bothersome that our US government is also trying to pass legislation that would treat the original Apollo landing site as a "protected area" while deeming it off limits to any rovers or future manned mission. They say they want to preserve the landing site from other visitors. I would argue, it would be in our best interest for China to land their moon rover right next to our American Flag and broadcast that in HD for the world to see our superiority. However, the government, for some reason, does not want anyone near that area. I don't understand the harm in confirming the moon landing and getting to see everything in HD using modern optics.

If another 20 or 30 years go by, and no one has yet to land a man on the moon, I am going to suggest to everyone, our moon landing was largely a myth.

 

[Wade]

If that question was directed to me I haven't read it but from what I've heard Mr. Downard casts a wide synchromystic net chock full of conspiracy theories regarding the masons the nwo and the Kennedy assassination. This article was an essay in some compendium by Adam GoRightly I believe.

It was in Apocalypse Culture by Adam Parfrey you idiot.

 

[Randall]

My thought is that humans exactly like us can very possibly have developed on another planet in spite of what respected established science has concluded. My point still stands. No one can honestly say that it is not likely or impossible when you consider that our knowledge of biology and the universe is limited to Earth and what we've gleaned from our solar system and theorized based on that limited data -- especially when there is an entire universe yet to be explored by the very same scientific establishment drawing such limited conclusions. The job of science is nowhere near finished on this issue.

You may quote me: I disagree with your position. And that's perfectly OK.

We must agree to disagree on this issue and move to another. Your argument is not so convincing. We are at stalemate on this.

Hang on. Please bear with me here, and the following will likely make things much more clear. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing ( as you suggest ) but exploring the issue with a rational mind via a process. So on one hand there is the view that the chances of identical human evolution on two separate star systems close enough to each other for one of the civilizations that develop to create spacecraft that could drop off their people here, appears to be so remote as to be beyond the realm of reasonable consideration, even for the most devoted sci-fi fans.

But the process doesn't end there ( though the skeptics would probably like it too ). If we want to be fair-minded, we need to recognize the challenges posed by the skeptical line of inquiry, admit they're valid points, and find a way to work them into the picture in a coherent manner. So for example, we might propose that separate star systems could conceivably evolve identical genetically compatible species ( in this case humans ) if at some point in the distant evolutionary tree a third party spacefaring civilization ( millennia ahead of us ) seeded those worlds, and has been tending to them on and off over time. This satisfies the "mere chance" argument because suddenly the picture is no longer one of mere chance, but of deliberate seeding, and there is nothing scientifically impossible about that idea.

But what evidence is there? Well we do have UFOs. They are real. They seem to be alien. If they're ETH alien, then maybe the theory's not so far fetched as it seems. Add in all the mythology and ancient astronaut stuff and while it's true there's a lot of noise there, as you say, maybe all these grains aren't quite as easy to dismiss as the skeptics might think. So we're not "agreeing to disagree", that's not my thing. Instead we're considering better possibilities, better ways of framing the question, trying to think outside the box. I hope you see how this works ( or at least should work ) now .

 

[Sub-light]

The lift off of a 363 foot tall rocket that has 7 million pounds of thrust is a pretty hard thing to hide and that's what is required for lunar injection. The Groom lake Facility was a simple case of denial. Everybody knew it was there. As to why we haven't been back to the Moon is as puzzling to me is it is to everyone but, that doesn't mean sinister plots were involved. It simply could be a case of lack of interest, too much politics etc. didn't Sigmund Freud once say sometimes a Tunnel is just a tunnel...

Why would it be sinister? I've never said that nor implied it. I'm a huge fan of our manned space history. And coming from the perspective of the classified ops world, something you should have some understanding of in your professional realm, I wouldn't consider them heinous 'liars'. I have said that my theory might explain Armstrong being relatively a hermit for having been the first man on the Moon, BUT IF my theory turns out basically true, these men weren't liars, they were professionals doing their jobs. If that job required being part of such a cover for a classified mission, these guys (especially the former military among them) would have saluted sharply and done as instructed. I've "lied" about where I have been or what I was doing to family and other loved ones to maintain a cover. I would totally "lie" about government employment IF required to do so for cover purposes, i.e. tell everyone during interviews etc that I worked for Burger King when I was actually working undercover for Uncle Sam. When an agent, I "lied" to a perp once when I indicated I had a full file on him when the stack of paper in the folder was blank. There are lies that are immoral or naughty and then there's what we call a cover 'legend'. My proposal is that IF my theory is correct, the Apollo guys did their jobs to maintain the cover. There is NO dishonor in that.

Well, because it forces the astronauts to lie about who was first on the moon. that kind of thing could have drastic PR consequences. I guess it to me it seems like there's a slightly sinister ring to that point of view. It's one thing to be in the Clandestine Service or military and have to lie or keep secrets but NASA was a civilian program.
Regarding Neil's shyness, if you follow the career and the personality of Neil Armstrong he was just like that, he was simply a humble pilot and didn't see what all the hoop-la was about. Watch an episode or two of the TV show First Flights and you'll see what I mean. In fact most of the astronauts are very reserved guys. In the 1990s I had a chance to spend a day with Dick Gordon of Apollo 12 and I was amazed how low key he was for somebody who flew around the Moon!
One other little tidbit that I want to point out here as well. If you were to ask most of the people who were involved in the Mission Control Room during Apollo 11, most of them didn't expect Apollo 11 to even be successful landing wise. It was taken for granted that 11 very well could have failed. This is why they launched in July so that Apollo 12 could still get in a landing in December within the decade. Actually they didn't really see them as missions so much as landing attempts.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Ufology: I'm not that interested in convincing you; no offense intended. I've done my consideration of all this and have formulated my opinion. The exercise of going through it all here is just not something I'm interested in. You are obviously most comfortable considering the issue only from accepted scientific conclusion OR you actually enjoy point-counterpoint, which I don't so much. That's OK, if you do; a lot of people do and I understand that. I simply don't. I know some people find it problematic for a researcher/writer to not want to engage in debate or point-counterpoint, as if that makes said researcher lacking in credibility. I don't worry about the folks who think that. Frankly -- and I am honestly saying this with all polite demeanor and civil intent -- this already feels like when a wife 'just wants to talk'. lol

Please don't take offense if I simply don't want to dissect my position on this in this forum. Again: Nothing you have stated sufficiently 'wins the debate' on the issue of whether humans exactly the same species as us have or have not developed on another planet somewhere in the entire UNIVERSE. No scientist on Earth that you can cite has done enough research to state that it's not possible anywhere the entire universe. So no more foreplay, I'm not erect over this discussion. lol

Hang on. Please bear with me here, and the following will likely make things much more clear. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing ( as you suggest ) but exploring the issue with a rational mind via a process. So on one hand there is the view that the chances of identical human evolution on two separate star systems close enough to each other for one of the civilizations that develop to create spacecraft that could drop off their people here, appears to be so remote as to be beyond the realm of reasonable consideration, even for the most devoted sci-fi fans.

But the process doesn't end there ( though the skeptics would probably like it too ). If we want to be fair-minded, we need to recognize the challenges posed by the skeptical line of inquiry, admit they're valid points, and find a way to work them into the picture in a coherent manner. So for example, we might propose that separate star systems could conceivably evolve identical genetically compatible species ( in this case humans ) if at some point in the distant evolutionary tree a third party spacefaring civilization ( millennia ahead of us ) seeded those worlds, and has been tending to them on and off over time. This satisfies the "mere chance" argument because suddenly the picture is no longer one of mere chance, but of deliberate seeding, and there is nothing scientifically impossible about that idea.

But what evidence is there? Well we do have UFOs. They are real. They seem to be alien. If they're ETH alien, then maybe the theory's not so far fetched as it seems. Add in all the mythology and ancient astronaut stuff and while it's true there's a lot of noise there, as you say, maybe all these grains aren't quite as easy to dismiss as the skeptics might think. So we're not "agreeing to disagree", that's not my thing. Instead we're considering better possibilities, better ways of framing the question, trying to think outside the box. I hope you see how this works ( or at least should work ) now .

 

[Walter Bosley]

Well, because it forces the astronauts to lie about who was first on the moon. that kind of thing could have drastic PR consequences. I guess it to me it seems like there's a slightly sinister ring to that point of view. It's one thing to be in the Clandestine Service or military and have to lie or keep secrets but NASA was a civilian program.
Regarding Neil's shyness, if you follow the career and the personality of Neil Armstrong he was just like that, he was simply a humble pilot and didn't see what all the hoop-la was about. Watch an episode or two of the TV show First Flights and you'll see what I mean. In fact most of the astronauts are very reserved guys. In the 1990s I had a chance to spend a day with Dick Gordon of Apollo 12 and I was amazed how low key he was for somebody who flew around the Moon!
One other little tidbit that I want to point out here as well. If you were to ask most of the people who were involved in the Mission Control Room during Apollo 11, most of them didn't expect Apollo 11 to even be successful landing wise. It was taken for granted that 11 very well could have failed. This is why they launched in July so that Apollo 12 could still get in a landing in December within the decade. Actually they didn't really see them as missions so much as landing attempts.

You're aboslutely right. I am so wrong. You win the debate!

Now we can all sleep, lol. Sorry, but I disagree. No biggie, though, because we all have the same lives we had before this conversation, right?

 

[Randall]

... Again: Nothing you have stated sufficiently 'wins the debate' on the issue ...

You and I haven't been having a debate. I just knew I never should have posted that Anne Elk video ( Either that or just left it at that. Not sure which now ).

Ufology: I'm not that interested in convincing you ...

You seem to have missed the point that there is a way to look at your theory that might come in handy for you in future discussions. But if you don't want to take advantage of that, then that's your business. Take it or leave it..