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.
I've been maybe 20% believing the moon landing for years now. That lousy, cheap lunar landing module, are you kidding me? That can go thru space at thousands of miles per hour? I also wondered how in hell someone could have their picture taken if no one else was there to take it (supposedly)? The lunar module also looks so prettily clean after kicking up all that dust after landing, that has always bothered me too. Didn't old Buzz even admit on a talk show that part of that farce was filmed in a studio? Then by God, it ALL must have been! I follow a channel that reviews these "photos" of Mars. I mentioned that I don't think the Rover is even there, maybe that's why they don't want anyone invading Area 51. Must be one hec of a movie studio out there. Anyhoo, this was a GREAT article! Thanks!
While I certainly recognise NASA tells whoppers with the Challenger disaster psyop and no doubt numerous other things although that's the only one I've really looked at I believe the moon landings. These are some of the reasons:
--- All the imagery is both internally consistent and consistent with expectations considering the alien lunar conditions, eg, black sky against brightly sunlit surface, virtually no atmosphere, lunar terrain so different from anywhere on earth
--- There are subtleties we would not expect in fakery such as minute amounts of regolith particles visible only in high-res photos with the magnifier in the creases of the mylar covering the landing pads. Not only would we not expect this level of subtlety in normal fakery we certainly wouldn't expect anything like it in psyop fakery because psyop fakery is generally done deliberately sloppily Hidden in Plain Sight.
--- The audio between mission control and the astronauts seems authentic and there's hours and hours of it (compare the alleged "oral" histories of the 9/11 firefighters which show no evidence of "orality" in the lack of audio (we only have the alleged transcripts of their ludicrous stories) and the audio of Collateral Murder which is obviously bits of genuine audio stitched together).
--- Virtually all the seeming anomalies have been explained satisfactorily (eg, the flag waving in the image in your article can be explained by the effect of the exhaust of the LEM as it ascends)
--- Where we see clear psyop signs are in the prominent people coming out and saying the landings were fake, notably the cartoonish Bill Kaysing who we're told completely against reality was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne and there is not a single thing that stands up to scrutiny in the book, Wagging the Moondoggie, nor the film, American Moon
I know most psyoppers disagree with me over the moon landings and some think my belief in them makes me suspect, however, there are mountains of things I don't believe and some fakeries I've worked out myself such as the faked Operation Northwoods proposal and Chelsea Manning, agent / Collateral Murder faked (see my substack). Honestly, I believe virtually nothing from the authorities ... except the moon landings.
I have no understanding of physics beyond common sense physics, this is true, but generally speaking for huge events which involve masses of evidence of all kinds, a lack of understanding in one area doesn't mean a lack of understanding in all and what I aim to do is look at the evidence I can understand for signs that it favours either real or fake. If the only argument possible was around space and rocket physics I'd simply admit that I wasn't in a position to argue either way but there is evidence of all different kinds that doesn't require an understanding of how rockets work in space, for example, there's all the imagery that is completely consistent with sunlight against a black sky, the hundreds of hours of audio recordings between the astronauts and mission control that no disbelievers of the moon landings seem to even be aware of and certainly haven't offered an explanation for.
1. Why would hundreds of hours of conversation be faked when it would have been completely unnecessary?
2. Do you really think that there wouldn't be any signs of fakery in those hundreds of hours? If they're there why haven't they been pointed out? I have to say I really don't think hundreds of hours of conversation could be faked at all but especially without detection ... but I always have an open mind so if someone could duplicate that kind of conversation for even a few hours or point out signs of fakery I'm all ears.
"Any exhaust gas would dissipate immediately as it has nothing to push against."
Perhaps exhaust gas would dissipate quite quickly but not absolutely immediately. The point is how do we know exactly what would happen? What we do know is though that:
--- there's hundreds of hours of audio recording of conversation
--- the imagery completely corresponds with the alien lunar conditions, namely, sunlight against a black sky, clearer delineation of shadow and light due to lack of atmosphere, movement in low gravity.
What I find when I look at the disbelievers vs the believers is that the believers know an awful lot. The thing is it's not like 9/11 where the believers just want to prove the disbelievers wrong, it's different with the space enthusiasts - they love the subject, they know a lot, they're not just out to prove the moon hoaxers wrong. And what the disbelievers show is that they have no real interest in the subject of space travel, they're simply out to prove the moon landings didn't happen and as that is the case they show they're not well-versed in the subject.
You also don't believe the 1611 KJB, do ya? Cause if you did, you would know the sun and moon, greater and lesser LIGHTS, were created on the fourth day, AFTER the earth was made.
You sound like a shill or a Jesuit defending the liars.
In the case of most events it's the majority who are duped ... in the case of the moon landings, however, it's the disbelievers who've been duped ... by the cartoonish Bill Kaysing and agents Dave McGowan and Bart Sibrel and the disbelievers' own minds have duped them by judging according to their inclination to disbelieve the authorities and what they think should / would / must have happened rather than by THE EVIDENCE and its perfect consistency both internally and with expectations.
I just watched the doco American Moon and was quite taken by it. These “debunks” are also very interesting. Lots of questions and lots of answers. A 480,000 mile manned round trip to the moon still seems a bit far fetched considering the feeble manned space flights we pull off today. That LEM never did look fit for purpose and the manner of the astronauts at that press conference was odd. Still … who’s to say? We are relying on the testimony of others and the truthfulness of their testimony, experiments and research. If we did go to the moon (multiple times) then it truly was a feat of greatness, if we didn’t - that would be more consistent with our efforts.
Rather than think in terms of "look" fit for purpose we should ask, "Can we identify anything that doesn't support the LEM being fit for purpose." I challenge you to do that. I cannot. We need to remember from the outside we see only a cover similar to a dust cover on a car, it wasn't part of the structure. Do we judge a Lamborghini by its dust cover?
Yes, the moon is such a long way away ... but virtually all the distance is a vacuum requiring no fuel to travel through - the only fuel required is to exit earth's atmosphere and for "burns" to control direction, speed when slowing down and liftoff from the moon.
I'm not relying on any one thing, what I rely on is that everything from all aspects fits expectations as much as I can make out and if there are any things that might not they're trivial.
When the press conference occurred the astronauts had spent three weeks in quarantine (from their first exposure to lunar material) not to mention 3 days cooped up with each other in a tiny spaceship. I can imagine they weren't feeling ebullient but in any case I don't see there was anything terribly anomalous in their behaviour in the conference.
It's always good to keep in mind that they have landed spacecraft on the moon since the manned moon landings - just recently in fact but it fell over (or so it seems haven't looked properly) - so they have the technology to land on the moon, they just haven't redeveloped it to send man. It's also good to keep in mind that they don't just want to do the same again. They don't just want to land on the moon, they want to do more than that and it's a big jump from landing on the moon and spending 24 hours outside a spacecraft to going there for a reasonable period to achieve more.
I think you'll find that the tech is just not there, never was. In ten years time when we still haven't successfully put a man on the moon you will start to think twice.
What we need to judge by is the evidence. If you have evidence that the tech wasn't there what is it? If you don't have it you're just speculating. Going again or not has zero influence on the evidence for going. The evidence shows we went - end of story.
Back in 1975 all the evidence for going to the moon was exactly the same as it is now however it would have been absurd to say "If we'd gone ... " Agreed? Nothing has changed evidence-wise since 1975 (except that it is more readily available on the internet) but now we can use the argument? Do you see how illogical that is? Either the evidence says we went or the evidence says we didn't and it says we did.
Your tenacity, critical thinking skills, and quest for the Truth are commendable and so appreciated. I'm new to your stack. Glad I found it. Go get 'em, tiger!
I recall several years ago in the 'news' an Italian astronot almost drowning.....there was a tear in his space clown suit and it filled with water.... I don't recall them saying it was in some pool 'practicing' for 'space' - but I do recall being confused as to why tf is he drowning....if he's in space.?! LOL - flew right over everyone else's head ! Great article - thank you
Very good analysis. I was thinking the other day, that the techniques used in the recent exposes of Western Blot images and other molecular biology images that were used in fraudulent papers, even at Harvard, could be used to identify duplicated imagery in NASA pictures. A good example would be the background "hills' in Apollo 11/12/17 pictures. If there are any duplications between the hills in any of those missions to any of the other missions (that were at different places) it would be proof of image manipulation by NASA.
I believe the moon landings but in the case of the Challenger disaster - I'm assuming it was an unmanned shuttle - it only survived 73s before exploding. The deaths were definitely faked no doubt about it - there is no better example of the people allegedly killed still alive, they didn't even bother changing their names (or only very slightly) in some cases and in others they were supposedly their sibling. It's insane.
I'm.not shilling. The Challenger disaster is the most brazen psyop of all.time (https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive) so I readily admit NASA lies big time. In the case of the moon landings though it was simply a case of them wanting to go to the moon ... so they did.
... and being able to, of course. What I find is that those who say we didn't go aren't even aware of the basic principle used to get to the moon (or at least what we're told), namely, the slingshot, or the gravity assist maneuver. Without the slingshot I doubt they could have done it but really I don't know, perhaps the "gravity assist maneuver" is just all gobbledygook like the NIST explanation for how WTC-7 collapsed.
It would be good to have an argument from the deniers saying how the slingshot is gobbledygook.
As I say, I just focus on the hard evidence that I can understand and cannot be ignored and I believe that this is the best way to determine the truth. Focus on what can you lay before someone that cannot be reasonably denied (even though people will always do that of course).
We cannot lay before someone a clear fact that "the flag wouldn't be moved by exhaust from LEM because the exhaust would have dissipated before it got there" (another possible cause is vibration from lift-off) but we can lay before someone hundreds of hours of audio and photographs that align with the lunar conditions.
Also, I don't believe that the odd anomaly here and there can really disprove an hypothesis where the evidence so overwhelmingly aligns with it. If they faked the moon landings there would be so many more anomalies, not just the odd one here and there.
Rock, you're oblivious to the fact that the earth does not move. It's set on a foundation and enclosed without a way out. Our Creator made it so. You cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belt... they know it and we know it. Nobody went outside our hemisphere. You are putting faith in a fantasy world. Get a hold of a King James Bible and start reading in the book or Romans. You'll see the truth eventually. God help ya.
You're blowing my mind, dude. It would be comical if there weren't so much taxpayer money involved.
Your spouse is a NASA believer...? How does that work? The fake moon landing is like conspiracy 101.
Heliocentric pagan sun god worship is like conspiracy 102. The stationary earth is level, just like water within a boundary.
NASA = Never A Straight Answer
I call it Not A Space Agency
I've been maybe 20% believing the moon landing for years now. That lousy, cheap lunar landing module, are you kidding me? That can go thru space at thousands of miles per hour? I also wondered how in hell someone could have their picture taken if no one else was there to take it (supposedly)? The lunar module also looks so prettily clean after kicking up all that dust after landing, that has always bothered me too. Didn't old Buzz even admit on a talk show that part of that farce was filmed in a studio? Then by God, it ALL must have been! I follow a channel that reviews these "photos" of Mars. I mentioned that I don't think the Rover is even there, maybe that's why they don't want anyone invading Area 51. Must be one hec of a movie studio out there. Anyhoo, this was a GREAT article! Thanks!
While I certainly recognise NASA tells whoppers with the Challenger disaster psyop and no doubt numerous other things although that's the only one I've really looked at I believe the moon landings. These are some of the reasons:
--- All the imagery is both internally consistent and consistent with expectations considering the alien lunar conditions, eg, black sky against brightly sunlit surface, virtually no atmosphere, lunar terrain so different from anywhere on earth
--- There are subtleties we would not expect in fakery such as minute amounts of regolith particles visible only in high-res photos with the magnifier in the creases of the mylar covering the landing pads. Not only would we not expect this level of subtlety in normal fakery we certainly wouldn't expect anything like it in psyop fakery because psyop fakery is generally done deliberately sloppily Hidden in Plain Sight.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5926.jpg
--- The audio between mission control and the astronauts seems authentic and there's hours and hours of it (compare the alleged "oral" histories of the 9/11 firefighters which show no evidence of "orality" in the lack of audio (we only have the alleged transcripts of their ludicrous stories) and the audio of Collateral Murder which is obviously bits of genuine audio stitched together).
--- Virtually all the seeming anomalies have been explained satisfactorily (eg, the flag waving in the image in your article can be explained by the effect of the exhaust of the LEM as it ascends)
--- Where we see clear psyop signs are in the prominent people coming out and saying the landings were fake, notably the cartoonish Bill Kaysing who we're told completely against reality was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne and there is not a single thing that stands up to scrutiny in the book, Wagging the Moondoggie, nor the film, American Moon
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
I know most psyoppers disagree with me over the moon landings and some think my belief in them makes me suspect, however, there are mountains of things I don't believe and some fakeries I've worked out myself such as the faked Operation Northwoods proposal and Chelsea Manning, agent / Collateral Murder faked (see my substack). Honestly, I believe virtually nothing from the authorities ... except the moon landings.
“the flag waving in the image in your article can be explained by the effect of the exhaust of the LEM as it ascends”
… in a vacuum.
BUSTED.
Things move in a vacuum they just don't move from atmospheric air because there isn't an atmosphere, they can move from exhaust gas though.
Things move, but there is no AIR to transmit force. Any exhaust gas would dissipate immediately as it has nothing to push against.
The LEM cannot even “take off” without something to push against. It has only the surface of the moon to push against.
So once it is no longer touching the surface it has no way to accelerate against the acceleration of the gravity of the moon itself.
Two important points:
1) known liars cannot and should not be trusted. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
2) if you don’t understand physics you have no business arguing in favor of known liars, unless you are one as well.
I have no understanding of physics beyond common sense physics, this is true, but generally speaking for huge events which involve masses of evidence of all kinds, a lack of understanding in one area doesn't mean a lack of understanding in all and what I aim to do is look at the evidence I can understand for signs that it favours either real or fake. If the only argument possible was around space and rocket physics I'd simply admit that I wasn't in a position to argue either way but there is evidence of all different kinds that doesn't require an understanding of how rockets work in space, for example, there's all the imagery that is completely consistent with sunlight against a black sky, the hundreds of hours of audio recordings between the astronauts and mission control that no disbelievers of the moon landings seem to even be aware of and certainly haven't offered an explanation for.
1. Why would hundreds of hours of conversation be faked when it would have been completely unnecessary?
2. Do you really think that there wouldn't be any signs of fakery in those hundreds of hours? If they're there why haven't they been pointed out? I have to say I really don't think hundreds of hours of conversation could be faked at all but especially without detection ... but I always have an open mind so if someone could duplicate that kind of conversation for even a few hours or point out signs of fakery I'm all ears.
"Any exhaust gas would dissipate immediately as it has nothing to push against."
Perhaps exhaust gas would dissipate quite quickly but not absolutely immediately. The point is how do we know exactly what would happen? What we do know is though that:
--- there's hundreds of hours of audio recording of conversation
--- the imagery completely corresponds with the alien lunar conditions, namely, sunlight against a black sky, clearer delineation of shadow and light due to lack of atmosphere, movement in low gravity.
What I find when I look at the disbelievers vs the believers is that the believers know an awful lot. The thing is it's not like 9/11 where the believers just want to prove the disbelievers wrong, it's different with the space enthusiasts - they love the subject, they know a lot, they're not just out to prove the moon hoaxers wrong. And what the disbelievers show is that they have no real interest in the subject of space travel, they're simply out to prove the moon landings didn't happen and as that is the case they show they're not well-versed in the subject.
You also don't believe the 1611 KJB, do ya? Cause if you did, you would know the sun and moon, greater and lesser LIGHTS, were created on the fourth day, AFTER the earth was made.
You sound like a shill or a Jesuit defending the liars.
we all get duped ...you will see the light or you won't
In the case of most events it's the majority who are duped ... in the case of the moon landings, however, it's the disbelievers who've been duped ... by the cartoonish Bill Kaysing and agents Dave McGowan and Bart Sibrel and the disbelievers' own minds have duped them by judging according to their inclination to disbelieve the authorities and what they think should / would / must have happened rather than by THE EVIDENCE and its perfect consistency both internally and with expectations.
I just watched the doco American Moon and was quite taken by it. These “debunks” are also very interesting. Lots of questions and lots of answers. A 480,000 mile manned round trip to the moon still seems a bit far fetched considering the feeble manned space flights we pull off today. That LEM never did look fit for purpose and the manner of the astronauts at that press conference was odd. Still … who’s to say? We are relying on the testimony of others and the truthfulness of their testimony, experiments and research. If we did go to the moon (multiple times) then it truly was a feat of greatness, if we didn’t - that would be more consistent with our efforts.
Rather than think in terms of "look" fit for purpose we should ask, "Can we identify anything that doesn't support the LEM being fit for purpose." I challenge you to do that. I cannot. We need to remember from the outside we see only a cover similar to a dust cover on a car, it wasn't part of the structure. Do we judge a Lamborghini by its dust cover?
Yes, the moon is such a long way away ... but virtually all the distance is a vacuum requiring no fuel to travel through - the only fuel required is to exit earth's atmosphere and for "burns" to control direction, speed when slowing down and liftoff from the moon.
I'm not relying on any one thing, what I rely on is that everything from all aspects fits expectations as much as I can make out and if there are any things that might not they're trivial.
When the press conference occurred the astronauts had spent three weeks in quarantine (from their first exposure to lunar material) not to mention 3 days cooped up with each other in a tiny spaceship. I can imagine they weren't feeling ebullient but in any case I don't see there was anything terribly anomalous in their behaviour in the conference.
Unfortunately, they lost all of the technology, so we won't know until someone reinvents it.
It's always good to keep in mind that they have landed spacecraft on the moon since the manned moon landings - just recently in fact but it fell over (or so it seems haven't looked properly) - so they have the technology to land on the moon, they just haven't redeveloped it to send man. It's also good to keep in mind that they don't just want to do the same again. They don't just want to land on the moon, they want to do more than that and it's a big jump from landing on the moon and spending 24 hours outside a spacecraft to going there for a reasonable period to achieve more.
Lander falls over - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wt0Jl5vUPE
I think you'll find that the tech is just not there, never was. In ten years time when we still haven't successfully put a man on the moon you will start to think twice.
What we need to judge by is the evidence. If you have evidence that the tech wasn't there what is it? If you don't have it you're just speculating. Going again or not has zero influence on the evidence for going. The evidence shows we went - end of story.
Believe what you like Petra. But by now there should be a hotel on the moon. The fact is we never went. End of story.
Back in 1975 all the evidence for going to the moon was exactly the same as it is now however it would have been absurd to say "If we'd gone ... " Agreed? Nothing has changed evidence-wise since 1975 (except that it is more readily available on the internet) but now we can use the argument? Do you see how illogical that is? Either the evidence says we went or the evidence says we didn't and it says we did.
Yup. Image - Imagine!
Your tenacity, critical thinking skills, and quest for the Truth are commendable and so appreciated. I'm new to your stack. Glad I found it. Go get 'em, tiger!
I recall several years ago in the 'news' an Italian astronot almost drowning.....there was a tear in his space clown suit and it filled with water.... I don't recall them saying it was in some pool 'practicing' for 'space' - but I do recall being confused as to why tf is he drowning....if he's in space.?! LOL - flew right over everyone else's head ! Great article - thank you
Very good analysis. I was thinking the other day, that the techniques used in the recent exposes of Western Blot images and other molecular biology images that were used in fraudulent papers, even at Harvard, could be used to identify duplicated imagery in NASA pictures. A good example would be the background "hills' in Apollo 11/12/17 pictures. If there are any duplications between the hills in any of those missions to any of the other missions (that were at different places) it would be proof of image manipulation by NASA.
Looks like they are already laying the groundwork for why the next lunar landing can't happen: https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-moon-is-shrinking-could-endanger-astronauts-on-planned-2026-nasa-flight
But what were we watching and feeling at cocoa beach blast offs and what pieces came raining down here in Texas after the shuttle blew up
I believe the moon landings but in the case of the Challenger disaster - I'm assuming it was an unmanned shuttle - it only survived 73s before exploding. The deaths were definitely faked no doubt about it - there is no better example of the people allegedly killed still alive, they didn't even bother changing their names (or only very slightly) in some cases and in others they were supposedly their sibling. It's insane.
https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
You really need to stop shilling for NASA. How much they paying you?
I'm.not shilling. The Challenger disaster is the most brazen psyop of all.time (https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive) so I readily admit NASA lies big time. In the case of the moon landings though it was simply a case of them wanting to go to the moon ... so they did.
Oh, you're so naive. "simply a case of them wanting to go..."
Wow!
... and being able to, of course. What I find is that those who say we didn't go aren't even aware of the basic principle used to get to the moon (or at least what we're told), namely, the slingshot, or the gravity assist maneuver. Without the slingshot I doubt they could have done it but really I don't know, perhaps the "gravity assist maneuver" is just all gobbledygook like the NIST explanation for how WTC-7 collapsed.
https://chat.openai.com/c/e6d2e732-9c12-43fb-82da-2f637d95991b
It would be good to have an argument from the deniers saying how the slingshot is gobbledygook.
As I say, I just focus on the hard evidence that I can understand and cannot be ignored and I believe that this is the best way to determine the truth. Focus on what can you lay before someone that cannot be reasonably denied (even though people will always do that of course).
We cannot lay before someone a clear fact that "the flag wouldn't be moved by exhaust from LEM because the exhaust would have dissipated before it got there" (another possible cause is vibration from lift-off) but we can lay before someone hundreds of hours of audio and photographs that align with the lunar conditions.
Also, I don't believe that the odd anomaly here and there can really disprove an hypothesis where the evidence so overwhelmingly aligns with it. If they faked the moon landings there would be so many more anomalies, not just the odd one here and there.
Rock, you're oblivious to the fact that the earth does not move. It's set on a foundation and enclosed without a way out. Our Creator made it so. You cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belt... they know it and we know it. Nobody went outside our hemisphere. You are putting faith in a fantasy world. Get a hold of a King James Bible and start reading in the book or Romans. You'll see the truth eventually. God help ya.
a REMOTE CONTROLLED "ROCKET" detonated just above you