Are Space Rockets Actually HELIUM BALLOONS? Hilarious NASA Fakery

Once you see it you can never unsee it, and once you see it, it's seriously the funniest sh*t ever...

Wanna listen instead of read? You’ll miss all of the important photos, videos, and audio clips, but if that’s the risk you want to take, here you go:

---

It started with me seeing this clip from Lost In Space, an episode of SGT Report featuring David Weiss & Jeran Campanella (Oct 4, 2022). At the 19:30 mark, David Weiss shows the following:

This is what Dave is referring to when he says it looks overinflated:

Is this a stretch of the imagination (pun intended)? An innocent manufacturing defect? Poor lighting? Or could what Dave is saying possibly be true? If you read my two-part series The Satellite Hoax, you already know NASA loves balloons. In fact, they love balloons so much that they are the world’s biggest buyer of helium. Their “satellites” are balloons, devices dangling from balloons, airplanes, and ground-based units, none of which are in outer space. When they say they put something into “Low Earth orbit”, it simply means it’s flying around in the sky. So is it out of the realm of possibility that rockets could all be balloons? More research was required.

As I have said numerous times before, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so, other than using balloons for satellite trickery, has the government ever used balloons to deceive people before? It turns out, YES.

Yep, the US military used balloons during war to confuse the opponent, and if they didn’t tell us those tanks were balloons, to this day, we never would have known because they look so real.

If we go back and look at still shots of the SGT Report clip, there’s the huge rocket:

And here it is, splitting open. Not only will you notice that there is nothing inside the rocket, but you will also notice some form of white vapor is being ejected from it.

As it begins to open more, we can see more vapor rushing out.

If we compare the rocket bursting open to a large science balloon popping in the sky, we see a quite similar phenomenon:

Intriguing, isn’t it?

My mission now was to locate footage of rocket failures, which, you would think, would be a really easy task, but for reasons I could not explain at the time, it was not.

I first came across this video:

Then there’s this photo…

This looks like a deflated balloon or a space shuttle in need of Viagra, pronto:

How do you explain that? If you truly want to believe it is metal that crumbled like tin foil, then you must ask yourself how this, or anything like this, is able to get to space. Commercial airplanes are not made out of foil, and they only go 30,000 to 42,000 feet (5 to 7 miles or 8 to 11 kilometers) above the ground. Commercial planes are sturdy. Look how thick the door is.

Now imagine how thick the door of a rocket would need to be to travel 280,000 miles above earth. According to NASA itself, the rocket’s walls must be made from 8-foot-thick steel and concrete to deal with the vacuum of space. For reference, this is an 8-foot-wide house.

Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but this just doesn’t look like the same thickness, nor does it look like steel and concrete.

Neither do these pieces that fluttered to the ground.

Next we will check out some rocket blast-offs. Keep in mind, we don’t get to see rocket launches up close.

The closest place you can see a Cape Canaveral launch is over two miles from the launch pad. Most viewing locations are six to 14 miles from it.

This means what we see is what they decide we can see. They could be shooting up holograms, and we wouldn’t have any way to tell the difference from two miles distance. With that being said, we can look at what we are allowed to see.

I made you a 2-minute video compilation using some of Mr. Weiss’s footage showing NASA rockets vs footage I located showing a kids’ water bottle rocket science project:

These videos have not been slowed down. This is the actual speed. Notice how they also drift to the side. All of this defies Newton’s Laws of Motion.

Lots of smoke does not mean the force is larger, nor does smoke mean it is accelerating faster.

Here’s the SN-10 launching exceptionally slow, then the clip clearly changes into CGI that proceeds to look like a Marvel movie by the end.

ALL BURNT UP

After the SN-10 flew all over, it came down to land… watch until the end…

… so, we are supposed to believe that thing blasted off, flew all over “space”, landed flawlessly, then burst into flames and became nothing?

Then there’s this rocket fire, in which there isn’t a trace of the rocket left. 8-foot thick steel reinforced with concrete, yet it melted like wax. Notice that the steel arm that holds the rocket survives the explosion without issue.

How about this wobbly piece of shit rocket that could barely get into the sky, then fell slowly down, ultimately crashing into the ocean in an explosion?

Yet we are told these space machines are made to withstand the temperatures of space, which they tell us is hotter than a blast furnace and colder than -400°F or something crazy like that (I wrote about it in The Satellite Hoax), yet these ships cannot withstand what should be a fuel fire? Yet they withstand the sun? Make it make sense.

YOU GOTTA GO DOWN TO GO UP

Rockets are shot straight up, then they curve and come back down.

There is a variety of explanations for this, the most common being that it is “fighting gravity”.

Clearly, “gravity” is winning.

They say this is how they get it into orbit.

Which would make sense if orbit was down, but being that it is supposed to be up, it seems quite illogical. Newton’s Laws of Motion state, an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force. A body will maintain its state of motion—whether at rest or moving uniformly in a straight line—unless a net external force changes that state. Therefore, if something is headed in a downward trajectory, it will continue on its path until it has reached the bottom. The trajectory does not change unless something, mid-flight, changes it. You are supposed to believe what changes the trajectory is “orbit”, which is located lower than the height the rocket reached at blastoff. This leads one to ask, “Then how wasn’t it in orbit when it first blasted off, before it began coming back down to land?”

The John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida is NASA’s primary hub for blasting off rockets. It is located right next to the Bermuda Triangle, which, we have been told is super duper dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. The vast majority of researchers, myself included, believe they are most likely shooting the rockets (balloons) into the Bermuda Triangle area.

That probably sounds unbelievable, but watch this video.

Fun Fact: Marvel X-Men, 1964, contains a graphic showing the Bermuda Triangle.

Did you see it? Let me circle it for you:

If you can’t read that, it says Secret Freemason Shadow Government Headquarters, on the Triangle. This was published only two years after NASA was founded. Coincidence? There sure are a lot of crashes in the oceans.

If I had to take a guess, I’d say these were the times they got caught. Meaning, someone saw their rocket plummeting into the ocean, so they reported it as a crash.

I wouldn’t doubt, if the ocean is busy that day, they shoot them out of the sky and have a plane pick them up mid-air. Additionally, many of these launches take place at ridiculous times. Why would anyone want to launch such an important piece of machinery in the black of night when they could wait a few hours and have daylight to ensure the safety of the rocket, the staff and the public alike?

And for reference, this is a “Rockoon”, a rocket balloon some dude made which looks a hell of a lot like the NASA and SpaceX rockets, which are not supposed to be balloons.

FLOATING ALONG

Here’s official NASA footage of a fuel tank in space:

Let’s compare the speed of that tank to a man free falling:

As you probably noticed, the tank isn’t free-falling downward; it is floating in the sky. This is because it is “in orbit”, which, as mentioned previously, means flying around the sky. This is a balloon, floating around the sky, carried by the wind. It really is that simple if you allow it to be.

ROCKET LANDINGS

Rocket landings are CGI or balloon liftoff footage played in reverse (I still suspect they are also holograms, but I have no proof of that). This is why they post schedules for launches, but I have yet to find a landing schedule.

Many of the rockets, such as Bezos’ Blue Origin, land in the middle of the ocean on a platform, so we can only see footage. A boat then pulls it to shore so we can watch its arrival.

THE ILLUSION

This next series of photos is the Falcon 9 rocket launch on December 10th, 2025. What is the purpose of these metal cables? Is it to stop a 6-million-ton piece of steel from falling over?

Or are they to make sure a balloon doesn’t fly away?

What even is this?

To me, this looks like a poor AI image generation or a bad job inserting an image onto another.

Take a peek at this cleverly designed pyrotechnics display prior to lift off. And note that the 4 million to 6 million ton rocket is bouncing like a rubber ball.

It’s all smoke and mirrors and a fancy balloon liftoff.

HELIUM AND HYDROGEN

I’d like to again remind you, NASA is the biggest consumer of helium in the world, buying roughly 75 million cubic feet a year. Their latest contract with Air Products and Chemicals is to supply 33 million liters of liquid helium with approximately $1.07 billion. But that’s not all. NASA is also the biggest buyer of hydrogen, which they have used since the 1960s. In fact, they admit they use hydrogen as fuel in space.

What is hydrogen? It’s exactly like helium. It’s what airships / zeppelins (BALLOONS) used to be filled with. The Hindenburg was a hydrogen ship. It exploded identically to the rockets we looked at.

Why hydrogen? Hydrogen is less dense; in fact, it is the lightest gas known to man, therefore, it results in a greater net upward force. When used in balloons, hydrogen provides about 9% more net buoyant force than helium. So, if I was NASA, and I needed to lift a massive, heavy balloon for many miles, I would, without a doubt, choose hydrogen.

But, unlike helium, hydrogen is highly flammable.

And that is why we see the so-called “rockets”, which are balloons with jet packs, explode and then burn to nothing.

Listen to this clip:

BUT WHAT ABOUT ELON MUSK?

If you’re thinking, “Wait, what about Elon? That guy is always blasting off rockets. I’ve seen the footage! There was a huge crowd watching!” Let’s take a closer look at one of the clips:

Look closely at what is on the phone screen. It does not match what the phone is pointed at. This is a CGI crowd layered on top of landing footage.

This guy’s phone isn’t even on.

And this isn’t the first time SpaceX has been busted using airplanes, CGI, and AI. Here’s Elon’s “Dragon Capsule” landing.

How many times is it acceptable to show the public something fake and claim it is real without losing credibility? Once? Twice? 100 times? In my book, zero. I’ll accept an honest mistake, but if you are caught intentionally deceiving me, I’m done with you.

What about Musk’s SpaceX satellites? If you think this junk floating around under the clouds is doing anything, I have magic beans to sell you.

Look at this garbage.

It looks exactly like a banner being carried by a tiny airplane.

It sure doesn’t look like something in orbit in outer space.

The next question is…

WHY DO WE BELIEVE IN THIS NONSENSE?

We believe this because it has been, quite literally, spoon-fed to us since we were born. Here’s a V8 vegetable juice and Cheerios rocket promotion in 1960.

Then we have Disney, who is an official US military PSYOP partner. Read about it in my piece Military Black PSYOPS Documents Expose Disney, Booz Allen Hamilton, Raytheon, the Media & More. Why does it matter that Disney is a PSYOP partner? Because their entire business model of Disneyland and Disneyworld is built on psychological operations (as well as market testing a cashless society). Their goal is to make you lose yourself in an experience and believe it is real for that moment, exactly like these absurd rocket launches. Here is Disney’s “Mission Space” ride:

By the way, the most intense ride at Mission Space was scheduled to open on June 9th, 2003, but was delayed. In basic numerology, June 9th, 2003, is 6 - 9 and two three’s, which is another 6, making it 6-9-6. And is it just a coincidence that Disney’s logo looks exactly like the path a rocket takes?

I know all of this is shocking, perhaps I even sound crazy to you, but if you just look deeper, you will see how it is all fake, how it always has been fake, and how, as time progresses, they find new ways to make it look more real.

NASA has all of these simulators, such as Kennedy Space Center’s 327-foot-tall Ares I-X rocket simulator:

How about the Lunar Landing simulator?

Or the Apollo simulator?

Notice the screen behind the blaster:

Astronauts “practice” in pools to allegedly simulate being without “gravity” in space. In the pools are to-scale replicas of the same things they claim are in space, such as the International Space Station.

Here is an anti-gravity simulator and what appears to be a green screen for editing video footage behind it.

Here’s how they get the shots of running sideways on a treadmill:

Look how massive the “Moon Buggy Simulator” area is. This thing is gigantic. Compare it to the size of the trucks in the upper left.

From this view, you can see this is located in a remote location:

The simulators are real, but they are not going to space. They’re not going anywhere. And just for fun, here’s ISS Christmas gravity, 1999 versus 2023.

IF NONE OF IT’S REAL, WHY WOULD THEY BE DOING THIS?

Everyone always asks, “If what you are saying is true, why would they do this?”. Folks, just as one example, NASA (which had an annual budget of 25.4 billion in tax dollars in 2024) gave SpaceX 396 million for three rocket launches. An additional 300 million was pumped into developing the SpaceX Falcon 9. Then Musk got 1.6 billion (I said BILLION!) for 12 missions to ferry supplies to and from the ISS. Then another 1.7 billion followed by 396 million, then 35 million, and 95 million… those figures are just from the Falcon 9 Wikipedia page. Multiply that by three rockets, or ten, or 30 rockets, and that is just SpaceX.

Jerm Warfare made a phenomenal podcast a few years ago outlining the NASA gravy train. You should listen to it because it is unbelievable. Space makes more money than the entire movie and home entertainment industry, and more money than the video game industry!

The worst part is, this money comes from you and I. Remember, the entire income tax system is unconstitutional. There is no law requiring us to pay a tax on wages derived from our labor, but if we don’t pay, we face serious repercussions (which makes the entire scheme extortion and slavery. Read more about it in my Substack series or download my eBook Is Income Tax Illegal?)

So, they unlawfully take our money, then they funnel it to themselves through assorted organizations, contractors, even shell companies (Read Evergreen and the Black Budget Operation.)

“So you’re telling me everyone is in on it and somehow they all keep a secret?” - No, everyone is not in on it. Those who build rockets don’t get to fly them to space. Those who run the launches don’t build the rockets, let alone sit inside of them. In my series, How Fake is NASA?, I told you about my family friend who works for NASA doing data entry, and is a believer. “If it was fake, how would I have a job?” he said. Simple: You type data into a computer. Someone else makes the data, you have no idea who. It could be an AI program for all we know. The data you type then goes to another department, where they do something with it. Their work goes somewhere else. Every job is compartmentalized and isolated from the next. The people running the launches in Florida have no clue what the Goddard Flight Center in Maryland is doing. Very few are in on it and those who are in on it are also in a very special club.

---

If you enjoy my research, hook me up with a coffee or become a paid sub. I’ve had a lot of cancelations in the past month, which is plummeting my Substack earnings, so any new subscriptions are greatly appreciated.

I try my best to produce awesome content you haven’t seen elsewhere, but without funding, I cannot afford the sites I need to research. I release all of my content for free with the exception of two paywalled articles per month. When you subscribe, you get access to all of my fantastic paywalled content, and you will also get a free membership to Shadowbanned Library when the awesome, new site launches on January 1st, 2026.

NEXT READ

---

---

---

---

---

SOURCES, NOTES & OTHER SH*T

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6371474181112

Explode https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/03/13/rocket-explode-space-one-japan-ovn-contd-hnk-vpx.cnn

Explode 2 https://www.euronews.com/video/2024/03/13/watch-japanese-space-rocket-explodes-straight-after-launch

https://www.thecivilengineer.org/news/a-nasa-experiment-creates-rain-clouds

https://www.bitchute.com/video/9LHgmPXIuMcf/

Bermuda triangle https://www.bitchute.com/video/Y4WEvaeBAWNo

Short doc about NASA balloons https://rumble.com/v3dgrpn-nasa-admits-rocket-launch-satellite-are-really-balloon-hoax-chinese-spy-bal.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o&sci=e190b434-e808-410e-8875-7e8b085f5793

NASA fakery in general https://www.bitchute.com/video/54ECTI0j841E

https://rumble.com/v2jvp9e-led-zeppelins-are-rocket-assisted-balloons.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o&sci=090d6207-6275-4462-9632-ba4ed2b1657f

https://www.mide.com/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator

balloon tanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_tank https://www.nasa.gov/rocket-systems-area-centaur-program/

You can see assorted photos of helium balloon incidents in this article called The helium balloon accidents of Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.