NASA PSYOP: Just Show Us 1 REAL Photograph!🌎 PART 2🚀

In Part 2 of this series, we will try to find 1 real photograph of Outer Space, and sift through a bunch of government-ran PSYOP bullsh*t that makes absolutely no sense.

Jan 18, 2024

In Part 1 of this series we looked at almost 60 YEARS of Space propaganda and Predictive Programming leading up to the very first space mission, then we examined some Moon Landing photos and their discrepancies. This research led me to try to locate 1 real photograph of Space (Yes, just one. I set the bar very low, then allotted 2 hours of my time to the task, which seemed beyond reasonable, does it not?). Let’s check out what I discovered:

HUNTING FOR 1 ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH

To find a real photo, I did what anyone would do, I opened Google Image Search and typed, “real photo of outer space”, but everything shown, when you read the fine print, was “depictions” and “renderings” (paintings, CGI, illustrations, pictures, art).

Then there’s many pictures that, upon closer inspection, are blatantly Photoshopped (copy+paste) images (26 second video)

Say it with me kids, “THAT’S JUST A COINCIDENCE!”

Moon landing copy+paste:

…also a coincidence…

Clearly, Google Image searching, “real photo of outer space”, was not the way to find a real photo of outer space. Silly me. I then began going through articles that appeared on the first seven pages for Google search results and eventually I found, “These 10 space images look unbelievable, but are actually real (pictures)”, which looked promising!:

But upon closer inspection, I thought it was kind strange that they used the word Images instead of Photos, because the word Image is related to graphic design and art, whereas Photo is short for Photograph. The definition of Photograph is, “always captured with a camera”. But perhaps this was a bad choice of words? Surely it’s an honest mistake, right?

To make it more bizarre, the title says, “are actually real (pictures)”, instead of saying “Real Photos”, or just “Photography”, which would automatically mean they are photographs:

The word Picture is not the same as the word Photo. A Picture can be art of any form; paint, airbrush, charcoal, computer graphics, etc. While it is acceptable to refer to a Photograph as a Picture, you cannot refer to a piece of art as a Photo, unless it is an actual photograph, taken with a camera.

So, when you read the title of the article, it actually says, “These 10 space arts look unbelievable, but are actually real (art)”. … Do you see the mindf*ckery? Here’s the "photos” from the article, the article that discreetly told us in its title that this is art:

Years later, a new image would surface, which, we were told, was the exact same thing… because they look so similar…:

And if you don’t realize it’s the same, you’re a conspiracy theorist… and racist too. You're a Space bigot! Back to the article:

Sure looks like ~~art~~ a photograph to me:

Below, at quick glance, it’s a Satellite-in-Space photo, but if you look a little longer, the clouds on the globe are clear, but the machine floating in space is slightly blurry.

Actually, this sh*t is really blurry, which is what happens when you insert a low-resolution image into a high resolution image, then you stretch the low-res image to be larger:

Let me show you what I am referring to about stretching the image: (27 second hack job video I made for you, so for the rest of your life you will be able to spot this bullsh*t)

Now let’s look at the blurry Satellite again:

MUTHAF*CKING COINCIDENCE!

This one is super-duper unbelievable. A dude, just chillin’ in space. I sure hope he can get back to his ship!:

Lol:

Although that was a nice little art tour, I really wanted to find 1 real photograph that doesn't include suspicious wording anywhere, why is this so dang difficult? So I went to NASA.gov. Obviously they are going to have lots of photos, right? And because NASA runs the NASA Art Program, they must know the difference between a Photo, a Picture, a Depiction, a Rendering and an Image, right? Of course they do.

On NASA’s site, I searched for, “Outer Space Photos”, but that produced an error message:

I realized I was asking for too much, so I then searched for, “Space Photos”:

And I began scrolling through results. The Hubble released new IMAGES:

But I don’t want images, I want photography. I kept looking and finally found one:

But, alas, there are no photos whatsoever:

It’s just a paragraph about Chinas photos, which NASA did not include in the article. Son of a b*tch.

Then I found this article, "New Hubble Portrait of Mars”, but the word Portrait does not mean it’s a photograph. A Portrait can be any medium.

Just when I was about to give up, AH HA! This one says “Image” but the description says “Photos” twice, so, perhaps there will be some actual photography in this one?

But the article redirects you to a website called Gateway to Astronaut Photography and when you start looking into these photos, there is no photographer information, and they also say “image”

Here’s “10 Images”:

PICTURE of the Day:

“View More Images in the Space Station Gallery”:

This was in the Photos category, but is labeled an “illustration”, which means it was drawn:

The guy in the video below had me giggling like a schoolgirl, because he was on the same mission as I was and experiencing the same results. He simply wanted to see ~~pictures~~ photos of “Earth from Space”: (37 second video)

The image below is labeled “picture of the Gemini VI spacecraft”:

This one says “This mosaic depicts the International Space Station”. MOSAIC? WTF!

”…is pictured from the Nauka Laboratory…”

… “is pictured February 21, 2022”, and the purpose of this space mission was to “Replenish the Expedition 66 crew”

At this point in my search I was expecting the next thing I type to be “below is an image but when you read the details, it is a finger painting”…

Then… waaaait a second, what is this?! NASA artists making “Images”, you say? (really good 1:52 video)

If you’re a crazy skeptic like me, you probably caught the quick glimpse of "the Hubble telescope” on the graphic designers screen. If you didn’t see it, don’t worry homie, I got your back. Here’s a screenshot :

My search for 1 real photo continued, but I was running out of my 2-hour time allotment. I feared the worst, what if I fail to find a real space photo for my readers? How many will unsubscribe?

Then… it happened… just when all hope was almost lost… Hooray! I finally found a “PHOTO”… and we can all agree this is indeed a real photograph!

…but it’s not of outer space… so my rejoicing was short lived, However, this photograph does prove that NASA knows what “photo” means, and has no issue using the term when an actual photograph is taken.

I then found this photograph, showing the Viking 2, that we landed on Mars (which is so f*cking hilarious that I had literal tears while typing this and my spouse kept asking “What’s so funny?” , to which I was forced to reply, “Trust me, you wouldn’t find it funny” (because the spouse is a NASA-believer).

So, as I was saying, I found this photograph of the Viking 2, and I agree this is a photo… but, although this is a photograph, it sure has hell wasn’t taken in “outer space”:

It is more ~~retarded~~ interesting than the moon landing garbage. Below is a closeup of this piece of sh*t with enhanced clarity. Can this thing even stand on its own? It looks like it’s leaning against that fake rock wall….

Do you guys think the beautiful Viking 2 was designed in NASAs “secret art studio”? Or was it designed in a 6th grade classroom? Hard to tell.

It’s so sad that we threw away this cutting-edge technology. Maybe someday, God willing, some toddler can figure out how to build it again.

In Part 3 of this series we are going to look at “How to Fake Space”. We will check out NASA videos and photos that show green screens, harnesses, bubbles, CGI malfunctions and more. In Part 4 I will show you the real history of NASA. But first:

Everybody, say bye to our waving flag, as we depart the moon!