Hilarious! Love the snarky commentary. What a truly bullshit world we live in. If everything were done for the good of mankind what a different place this would be. This stack is one of my faves for sure keep up the good work!
I’ve seen many YouTube videos about the faked moon landing but I have to admit your post made me long for part two. Well done
Definitely all the “moon” photos are fake. You said it right, who took the photos.
One of the “No brainers” proving the NASAH fakery is the admission they “lost” the technology to return to the moon. I guess they know we could dissect their photo, videos and conversations to prove they are fake.
I love the gold aluminum foil on the lunar modular. See I know all the propaganda terminology.
I was a star trek fan and have watched probably 200 of the 900 shows in the 12 series. NASA should have used the Star Trek stage for their photos. It would have been more realistic:)
Just from my experience Stars become much brighter and more of them as I went higher above sea level. I can only imagine how bright they would be after exiting our atmosphere.
I’ve been to the South American rainforest and can tell you while sat in a carved out tree trunk on the river in the dark they’re bright, not only do they light up the sky but there’s tons of them and they look so close you feel that you can reach up and pluck one from the sky.
To say that it was a breathtaking sight is an understatement and I can remember it as vividly as been sat in that tree trunk today even though it’s over 20yrs since it happened.
Great history lesson. I loved watching Star Trek growing up yes even the old episodes. The more I look into it from others including yourself I can see how it's predictive programming for NASA's space paradigm.
I've had my suspicions for while and after looking at a supposed NASA power point that went into military industrial complex territory I'm confident that they are using our money for something sinister.
oh and we are suppose to believe that all those men and the rover, other equipment needed and 400 kgs of rocks to take back... all fit inside that so call tin foil rocket & that tin foil also protected them from the van allen's belt and yet one of their videos the NASA bloke says we cannot go to space because of the van allen belt
The numerology you mention in this article has a lot to do with the Illuminati and Freemasons. Maybe that's just a coincidence. Nah, all pre-planned and psyopped. 🤔
NASA (Never A Straight Answer) is a major psy-op of the Cryptocracy. NASA's space launches always go only so high and then turn, flying parallel with the earth out to the Atlantic Ocean where they ultimately fall into the drink. The earth is not a ball and it sure as Hell ain't spinning. Wouldn't you love to know where all of those billions of dollars NASA gets for being essentially a cardboard cutout program ultimately goes?
I'd like to see the interior of this junk heap that Aldrin so daintily crawled out of as they yelled 'action!' - and the rare video of the CBS simulation is painful to watch. Having been in the entertainment industry and spent decades on set - it's a pretty bad, low budget B movie one....😂
The "Gold" foil only partially covering the "lander" feet, with not shape-hugging contours in numerous places, the Cross-hair clippings and the reflections are WTF! If from "actual" moon landing photos. I'm guessing that the "Gold" foil was to hide crude joints/assembly areas, and was billowed out to better hide this. Lastly, why was there no visible micro-meteorite damage from such a massive, allegedly, travelled distance between Earth and Moon?
Um, what about Neil Armstrong, Buzz Armstrong’s brother? Wasn’t he the first on the moon with his Kodachrome space camera? Did NADA accidentally send the wrong Buzz to the movie set?
I DID see the broadcast, supposedly live, on television. I was eight, and in New York. My parents woke us all up to see the program. The program is not the only thing that I remember from that night. The "live video" of Armstrong stepping onto the moon's surface appeared on our TV upside down. Very few people remember that, but there was an upside-down transmission; you can look it up.
They transmitted from the moon using a tv camera bolted on to the LM and a transmitter sending images back. What’s don’t you understand about that?
The landline call is so obvious my 13 year old daughter laughed when I told her about your doubt. A telephone is just electric impulse that can easily be modulate for radio by anyone with basic electronic competence. How can you seriously not understand that NASA could connect a telephone signal to a radio.
As for your query about geo filmed the landing. No one filmed it from the moon and there is no footage claimed to be from the surface while they landed.
As for what NASA does with money when they aren’t going to the moon, you get stop being lazy for one day and research they myriad probes, rovers and rockets research programs NASA funds. Or maybe the aeronautical research they do. Or maybe even the fact that they are funding the build up and building of the material for a new moon program and have been for many years.
Just so you know ahead of time (as I suppose this subject Will draw criticism from many) that I am not attacking you: I agree with you on most points.
Now, onto what I came to the comment section for...
No matter the shape of the earth, most can agree that it's pretty large: thousands of miles across. Let us suppose for this argument that the earth is 10,000 miles across. This would mean that in one hour the earth would have moved 1/10 of its visible width. Yes, a photo that needed a 1 hour exposure should give a blurred image, but what about a photo that was 1/60 of a second (a normal duration for a photograph)?
Yes, if you were hovering just above the ground but not moving with the ground, then you would burn up like a meteor falling to earth, but we move with the ground, and so does the air
From space, we are not moving with the ground, but we need to be so far from the earth to fit it in our camera's viewfinder that the motion blur is tiny, not due the the speed of rotation but due to the tiny angular spread of features on the earth as they appear from the great distance the we need to be.
Again, let me reassure you that I am in agreement with the main ideas that you present, and that my disagreement on this point should not be taken as any kind of attack.
Hilarious! Love the snarky commentary. What a truly bullshit world we live in. If everything were done for the good of mankind what a different place this would be. This stack is one of my faves for sure keep up the good work!
I’ve seen many YouTube videos about the faked moon landing but I have to admit your post made me long for part two. Well done
Definitely all the “moon” photos are fake. You said it right, who took the photos.
One of the “No brainers” proving the NASAH fakery is the admission they “lost” the technology to return to the moon. I guess they know we could dissect their photo, videos and conversations to prove they are fake.
I love the gold aluminum foil on the lunar modular. See I know all the propaganda terminology.
I was a star trek fan and have watched probably 200 of the 900 shows in the 12 series. NASA should have used the Star Trek stage for their photos. It would have been more realistic:)
Just from my experience Stars become much brighter and more of them as I went higher above sea level. I can only imagine how bright they would be after exiting our atmosphere.
I’ve been to the South American rainforest and can tell you while sat in a carved out tree trunk on the river in the dark they’re bright, not only do they light up the sky but there’s tons of them and they look so close you feel that you can reach up and pluck one from the sky.
To say that it was a breathtaking sight is an understatement and I can remember it as vividly as been sat in that tree trunk today even though it’s over 20yrs since it happened.
Everyone I knew had a tv in the US in 1969. They were mostly black and white sets, but everyone had one.
We were poor but had a TV in 1969. Black and white but it wasn’t long before we had color
I do think the moon landing is a big hoax, though.
Great history lesson. I loved watching Star Trek growing up yes even the old episodes. The more I look into it from others including yourself I can see how it's predictive programming for NASA's space paradigm.
I've had my suspicions for while and after looking at a supposed NASA power point that went into military industrial complex territory I'm confident that they are using our money for something sinister.
Wikipedia states 75% of households had a television in 1955.
From whence came your allegation of only 20% owned televisions in 1969?
oh and we are suppose to believe that all those men and the rover, other equipment needed and 400 kgs of rocks to take back... all fit inside that so call tin foil rocket & that tin foil also protected them from the van allen's belt and yet one of their videos the NASA bloke says we cannot go to space because of the van allen belt
I was already aware of everything you said, but seeing it so well documented makes it all seem even more absurd! Thank you.
The numerology you mention in this article has a lot to do with the Illuminati and Freemasons. Maybe that's just a coincidence. Nah, all pre-planned and psyopped. 🤔
NASA (Never A Straight Answer) is a major psy-op of the Cryptocracy. NASA's space launches always go only so high and then turn, flying parallel with the earth out to the Atlantic Ocean where they ultimately fall into the drink. The earth is not a ball and it sure as Hell ain't spinning. Wouldn't you love to know where all of those billions of dollars NASA gets for being essentially a cardboard cutout program ultimately goes?
I'd like to see the interior of this junk heap that Aldrin so daintily crawled out of as they yelled 'action!' - and the rare video of the CBS simulation is painful to watch. Having been in the entertainment industry and spent decades on set - it's a pretty bad, low budget B movie one....😂
The "Gold" foil only partially covering the "lander" feet, with not shape-hugging contours in numerous places, the Cross-hair clippings and the reflections are WTF! If from "actual" moon landing photos. I'm guessing that the "Gold" foil was to hide crude joints/assembly areas, and was billowed out to better hide this. Lastly, why was there no visible micro-meteorite damage from such a massive, allegedly, travelled distance between Earth and Moon?
"Here’s a moon cave! Imagine what could be lurking in there! I hope he brought a light saber for protection."
I just peeeeeed myself laughing.
Classic.
Um, what about Neil Armstrong, Buzz Armstrong’s brother? Wasn’t he the first on the moon with his Kodachrome space camera? Did NADA accidentally send the wrong Buzz to the movie set?
I DID see the broadcast, supposedly live, on television. I was eight, and in New York. My parents woke us all up to see the program. The program is not the only thing that I remember from that night. The "live video" of Armstrong stepping onto the moon's surface appeared on our TV upside down. Very few people remember that, but there was an upside-down transmission; you can look it up.
Your luck of basic research is frankly laughable.
They transmitted from the moon using a tv camera bolted on to the LM and a transmitter sending images back. What’s don’t you understand about that?
The landline call is so obvious my 13 year old daughter laughed when I told her about your doubt. A telephone is just electric impulse that can easily be modulate for radio by anyone with basic electronic competence. How can you seriously not understand that NASA could connect a telephone signal to a radio.
As for your query about geo filmed the landing. No one filmed it from the moon and there is no footage claimed to be from the surface while they landed.
As for what NASA does with money when they aren’t going to the moon, you get stop being lazy for one day and research they myriad probes, rovers and rockets research programs NASA funds. Or maybe the aeronautical research they do. Or maybe even the fact that they are funding the build up and building of the material for a new moon program and have been for many years.
Get off your backside and do some research.
Strong’s H5375 can also mean to lift, so there’s plausible deniability
"The ball is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour."
Just so you know ahead of time (as I suppose this subject Will draw criticism from many) that I am not attacking you: I agree with you on most points.
Now, onto what I came to the comment section for...
No matter the shape of the earth, most can agree that it's pretty large: thousands of miles across. Let us suppose for this argument that the earth is 10,000 miles across. This would mean that in one hour the earth would have moved 1/10 of its visible width. Yes, a photo that needed a 1 hour exposure should give a blurred image, but what about a photo that was 1/60 of a second (a normal duration for a photograph)?
Yes, if you were hovering just above the ground but not moving with the ground, then you would burn up like a meteor falling to earth, but we move with the ground, and so does the air
From space, we are not moving with the ground, but we need to be so far from the earth to fit it in our camera's viewfinder that the motion blur is tiny, not due the the speed of rotation but due to the tiny angular spread of features on the earth as they appear from the great distance the we need to be.
Again, let me reassure you that I am in agreement with the main ideas that you present, and that my disagreement on this point should not be taken as any kind of attack.