When I first got into 9/11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10% of the population who would automatically assume that the government did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10% who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got.
I'm glad I know you're still stuck on understanding that all space exploration is fake. The abundance of evidence anyone would present to you wouldn't matter - you are obviously having cognitive dissonance on the matter. Do you have an emotional attachment to space exploration or something? As if people like Bart Sibrel are even needed to debunk stuff like this?
The Why Files is one of the biggest deep state-controlled, baby-truther shows on YouTube (which is saying a *lot*) - they want people to believe the moon landing was likely real. They also said we didn't go back, because there were aliens living there. You really think Bart Sibrel is as much conop as Why Files, lol?
Also, con-op doesn't mean Bart is wrong: I don't need Bart for anything anymore, this stuff is all just down to basic common sense.
Haha, silly me ... I thought that we didn't go back because they taped over the evidence or lost the technology to get back to the moon & it is just to laborious & difficult to remanufacture.
According to my telescope, The moon is a scam ... I see luminaries in the sky. It's impossible to land on a hologram. A friend of mine noted a mechanical frying pan type of mechanism hovering in front of the moon during the big 4/8 X-Clipse..... Eluding to a CONstruct up there as noted by the Gnostics.
Nothing will ever leave low earth orbit due to the Van Halen 🎶 Belts. lol
Either way, it's not as represented. Most SIMS are pretty bad fakes of the real. Peace :)
It's my thought that it must be plasma, But If you follow a fallen star to the ground....The impact site leaves a gelatinous GEL of matter accompanied by a foul odor. It's still a mystery to me. Any thoughts?
No problem, 2000 years ago a book was written called The Sophia (the wisdom of) of Jesus Christ where Jesus himself figured out this whole place is a construct, (Not just the moon) a simulation, The church was so mortified by this info, that they banned the book & persecuted anybody that had it.
Edit... The Gospel of Mary also alludes to how to exit the simulated nature of this reality. Hope this helps.
"Also, con-op doesn't mean Bart is wrong: I don't need Bart for anything anymore, this stuff is all just down to basic common sense."
Lucas, just more and more nonsense.
It makes not a jot of difference if you "don't need Bart".
My argument isn't that you or any other individual hasn't recognised the Four Horsemen as only-tell-lies/push-propaganda people.
My argument is that not a single disbeliever of the moon landings has recognised that none of these people say a single thing that refutes the reality of the moon landings.
Not one. And yet they are popular among disbelievers and my first port of call in studying the moon landings was reading Wagging the Moondoggie by agent, Dave McGowan, as recommended by a disbeliever friend.
Nowhere in the many comments here has anyone defended a single thing that any of the Four Horsemen say on the moon landings.
"... doesn't mean Bart is wrong."
OK, where is he right? Give me one thing.
If you're going to mention the "cut-out window" can I advise some due diligence watching Dave McKeegan's exposure of the falsity of the claim - because I will certainly be back at you with it if you do mention it.
A very bad example that exposes embarrassing ignorance.
[Note: this comment was in response to Lucas's comment about the impossibility of the Nixon phone call that he deleted. So his deletion indicates he recognises the stupidity of his comment but obviously has no further effect. It doesn't set him back on his heels as it should and reflect. He just keeps pushing out more nonsense.]
Looks as if you deleted your original comment about the Nixon phone call that exposed your embarrassing ignorance. Seriously?
You think space exploration is fake and to defend that belief you pull out objection to the phone call from Nixon ... exposing your embarrassing ignorance that the phone call from Nixon didn't go directly from him and therefore if you want to argue against communication then it's not about Nixon's communication it's about communications in general between earth and the moon.
Why don't you reveal all your great knowledge on that subject, Lucas? Why don't you show what an authority you are but my question is: why haven't you already revealed your knowledge of how communications between earth and the moon aren't possible?
Invading the “space between our ears” is what interests me, JM. What is so obvious is that they have us profiled and they knew even before the moon landings happened that those with a tendency to disbelieve the authorities would be easy to persuade that an implausible event was fake.
Moon hoaxers are divided on Flat Earth - some believe it and some recognise it as a psyop - I certainly don’t believe it and I haven’t checked to see if the FE movement was started by genuine disbelievers or agents but my instincts say agents. Interestingly, the commenters on Dave’s videos (who does a lot debunking of FE) lump moon hoaxers and Flat Earthers together. Whether the video is about the moon landings or FE they refer to the disbelievers as flerfers.
I have a standard copy paste I created to cover MY personal stance.
I can't fully commit to FE because I feel there is mind illusion (simulation) thought construct & simulacrum qualities to this realm.
The EARTH is a DOMED CLOSED SYSTEM with several DIMENSIONS & a Multi-tiered holographic lightshow above. We can ONLY move within this artificial snow "globe" system🌐.
THAT 💯% COVERS the ROUND & FLAT discussion.
The Lightshow above is a calendar that runs this system. There is NO outer space, ONLY low earth orbit... which NASA has proven that we cannot leave.
The space they want to invade is between our ears.
P.S. My Grandpa's Girlfriend who is 102 was taught Flat Earth in school as a girl. She remembers them inundating public schools with globes.
So is globe earth the secondary Psyop after they realized what lies beyond the ice wall .... OR is the human experiment a larger psyop of the human condition where several different land masses are mind controlled for thought experiments?? I don't think they ever plan on telling us this is a machine that resets the experiment every couple hundred years or so & repopulates with "orphans" or lab grown human creations with different gene technology & blood type variants.
How does one civilization go from horse & buggy to Hadron collider in less then 200 years & the Congo tribes are still spearheading their dinner?
I read it .... as I AM subscribed & I AGREE. "Dimension" is a term we can all agree on. There are 12 different senses of measurement in all DIMENSIONS.
One of the things God expects us to steward is our time. I don't investigate everything. I prioritize as best I can.
One topic I don't investigate is the moon landings. Now, I choose to believe it was a hoax. I just don't promote it because I haven't done research on it. I just expect to be lied to by just about anything the gubmint promotes.
I believe if we went there, we would have been back. Billions have been sent to NASA for decades. What had been accomplished?
It's easy to tell it's all fake, though - no rabbit holes or research is even necessary. For example, the president pretended to talk to the Astro-Nots using a landline... lol! How funny is that? A *landline* - getting service with literal Freemasons hanging out on the moon!
You shouldn't hesitate to conclude it's all fake, since space travel (curiously, an *absurdly* common theme in film/movies, cartoons, video games, music, comics, anime, disney pixar... you name it) is ultimately there to keep people from God. And - it's worked!
The truth, and I'd honestly bet any amount of money on this: We haven't even gotten machines up to the moon - and if we somehow have--and again, we haven't--we didn't get them back - nevermind people. No one ever has, nor ever will, step foot on the moon. It follows that Mars is obviously a complete joke, get ready for that lie because the "Mars landing" is coming this year like Trump announced.
(What a clown world we live in, people seem to like being complete idiots, don't they?)
Here’s another example of you giving yourself away. Of course, a faked phone call - and that’s what it was. You can’t have an actual conversation from landline to Australia to the moon and back- does not prove we didn’t go to the moon. It is, however, in how it was presented, another glaring example of the unrealness of the whole show. You at least admit the production as shown to the world via Telescreens was substantially unreal, do you not? (Edit: by actual conversation, I mean, even based on what they claim are the capabilities and taking into mind our own experiences, a natural conversation with just a slight delay, such asxwas presented.)
You're only giving yourself away kyle talking nonsense.
Who said anything about a phone call from a landline to the moon? That's the whole point. It wasn't a call from a landline to the moon, it was a call from a landline that went to mission control and was patched to the moon.
If you're going to argue against phone calls then you need to argue against communications between mission control and the moon.
Why don't you regale us with your authoritative knowledge on that, kyle? Mission control to the moon - how was it alleged that it happened and how was that impossible?
Actually, I've read more carefully but I'm not sure what you're claiming. Are you claiming that what has been said is the call went by landline from Australia to the moon and that is impossible. If this is what you're saying, that is not the claim. The claim is that the call was transmitted via S-band radio frequencies from Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra to the moon.
Perhaps you know about S-band radio frequencies and how they couldn't travel from Honeysuckle Creek to the moon.
Pray, do explain how that's not possible, kyle ... or please tell how you know whatever it is that is said about the phone call wasn't possible. No doubt you're a great expert on S-band radio frequencies.
Only prompted by Blue Origin ... but also because my main interest is propaganda and mind control and the moon landings is the only real thing I'm aware of that has been made to look fake so it is of extreme importance. Flat Earth is a psyop of a similar type but in that case it's just a physical reality that is said to be different from what it is, not an event.
Because they like to control our minds and making a real thing look fake is a perfect way to dupe those who tend to disbelieve them. They like to dupe us all, believers and disbelievers alike, and in the case of the disbelievers, in addition to duping them it helps undermine them when they call out the very many real lies.
okay, yeah, but as if going to the moon is not technically exacting enough, you think they actually did that, got everything right the first time, had the technical capability AND balls to video it and talk to the Astronauts along their journey live in front of a naive and enthralled audience, succeeded in all this risk, AND said oh by the way we need to make this look fake. I don't buy that.
When my sister tried to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job, I shouted her down with, "They wouldn't have had the confidence they could get away with it."
Do you see how your argument is of the same type?
This video may help: Did NASA really go to the Moon on the first try?
They did it with ocean travel for thousands of years. If you can't think of one reason that the powers that are would make interplanetary space travel look fake you aren't really thinking.
Now just because they faked the tv moon landings doesn't mean there were real ones. But it is definitely how I would cover up space travel if I was getting started. And because there is such a huge gap in intelligence between people some will actually believe the landings were real (these people are ALL non technically minded and are no threat in developing their own systems. Then others (more technically minded) will believe they were impossible, simply because they see the obvious fakery and technical lies. Very few will automatically realise the first century or more of space travel as seen by most always had to be faked. Most of these people are systems thinkers and less the engineering types so are also very little threat
Our ruling class would not intentionally give away the secret to space travel on their first trip to the moon. Only the most nieve peasants would even consider that a possibility.
I think it’s you I have to thank, Petra, for bringing me out of my “space is fake” stupor.
I’m not quite at the point where I’m willing to say the moon landings fully happened as described, but I’m open minded to it. People like yourself and Dave McKeegan deserve credit for patiently explaining the frivolous noise and lies propagated by the “space is fake” brigade/cult.
One of the key evidence barriers both you and Dave have identified is the use of “point and declare” reasoning. An example of this is ‘pointing’ at shadows not being parallel and ‘declaring’ it to be because of artificial lighting, when the same effect is easily explained and recreated with similar camera optics and perspective.
This is why I like Dave McKeegan. His expertise with cameras has allowed him to personally debunk a lot of ‘point and declare’ nonsense.
Do keep this in mind as you get more acquainted with other topics, like 9/11 and the shenanigans over at cluesforum. Consider how much of that ‘evidence’ is, in fact, just more point-and-declare nonsense waiting for someone with Dave McKeegan’s patience to debunk it…
Oh my goodness, dbuser. I have a very poor memory so although I recognise your name I cannot remember what conversation we’ve had in the past. I cannot believe my argument has had an influence on someone. I keep thinking whatever side of the psyop fence I’m arguing on it’s like talking to a brick wall so thank you!
With regard to CF I think most of the stuff they say on 9/11 holds water (but not on the moon landings obviously). In fact, I’m most grateful to CF for being introduced to the idea of staged death and injury and learning that the footage of the building destructions was faked. Do you not agree with what they put forward on 9/11?
You and I have chatted on various platforms over the years. Pieceofmindful, Reddit, fakeologist, and a few others.
I use this username, and several others. I vary it for a few reasons, including to reduce the doxxing risks to myself and my family, but also to separate myself/prior associations from the argument being made — it’s the content of the argument that should matter, not who is saying it.
You certainly changed my perspective on space and in particular the moon landing missions. It was a combination of seeing you transparently and honestly journaling your own learning journey combined with the thorough approach to DD that swayed me — real independent research, checking facts, verifying (and falsifying) claims, and so on.
This is also why I made the point about Cluesforum (CF).
It has led many an earnest and curious researcher astray, myself included. I mention it to draw your attention to some fundamental issues with their analysis approach, and a cult-like following that extends to other platforms.
I could go into detail about how I got to this point, and the many conversations I have had with CF members on these issues. Little progress can be made persuading anyone attached to the foundational theories of CF, which is why I describe it as “cult-like”— it’s a forum for attracting and retaining pseudo-rational discussion masquerading as actual logical discourse.
EDIT: posted too soon — that new submit button keeps catching me out!
I won’t go into detail now, maybe later we can get into the weeds, but I’ll just point out a couple of things that convinced me that CF and Simon Shack in particular are either knowingly or unknowingly propagating nonsense.
Firstly, I have firsthand experience of the 3/11 Japan Tohoku M9.0 earthquake, having lived in Japan for many years. CF did a post on that event and the footage that came out immediately in the aftermath, declaring most of it to be fake, and they used the same reasoning as for the 9/11 footage that they also claim to be fake.
I didn’t stumble across that post until many years later, sometime during the Covid years.
This is what tipped me off to CF being largely full of charlatans. I personally visited locations shown in the Tohoku ‘fake’ footage myself a week or two after the earthquake and tsunami and verified the destruction for myself. The claims these idiots were making were outright wrong, but they were all ‘seeing’ the same ‘artifacts and anomalies’ that were, according to them, dead giveaways of composite and CGI imagery.
Except, the videos they were referring to were all real, unless one tries to argue (without evidence) that a shady and incredibly capable government agency was able to prep a whole bunch of fake imagery that also happens to actually line up with real locations and their actual destruction after a gigantic earthquake and tsunami.
Utterly preposterous.
So, I went back to look at the 9/11 posts and they were all full of similar reasoning. “The video shows the same black lines around the towers” and “look at the pixelation in this video Vs this video”, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of comments along those lines yourself.
Their worst and most common offense is using point-and-declare reasoning: “look at this video, it looks wrong to me” then all nodding along with how sketchy it looks.
You will never see an equivalent known-good video of the same vintage and type, with similar lighting etc, used as a baseline to definitely show these supposed ‘artifacts’ — ever. Not even once in the entire forum has Simon or any of his sycophantic followers bothered to test these theories to see if they actually withstand scrutiny.
This is a huge tell as to their thought process and also possibly to their motivations with respect to actually determining the truth of the events of 9/11, and in particular an honest analysis of the imagery.
Very interesting about Japan. Unfortunately, I think it’s easy for genuine people to seem like agents because they get a lot of things wrong due to their biases and tendency to the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have an identical twin sister who disbelieves everything and will say about anything and everything, “That looks fake,” but I know for a fact she’s not an agent (or only an unwitting one) :). I have to say I don’t think Simon is an agent just a victim of strong bias and D-K … but he could be. One thing is that I’ve applied to be a member a few times but never get given membership and I can see that members have been banned whose comments don’t seem indicative of people who would deserve that treatment, not to mention that I’m a little suspicious of the “need” to ban anyone.
With regard to the building destructions, I went to the footage shown on YT directly and it clearly is faked - which only makes the most perfect sense - and even Ground Zero images are clearly faked too … however, you may well be right about some of the claims Simon makes with regard to the buildings. Rather than rely on other people’s analyses of fakery when I’m not really up on photography, I like to look for irrefutable examples, eg, in the footage of the South Tower destruction we have the Chrysler Building peekabooing behind the Twin Towers when, in reality, it’s 50 blocks uptown on 42nd street, just a speck in the distance in photos taken from One World Observatory. I can’t help it - it really makes me chuckle. And then we have the vantage point move from West St to Liberty St as we see the building come down - another laugh.
In the case of WTC-7 it’s interesting - it’s only in hindsight that I recognise a sense of awareness that the movement of the mechanical penthouse at the top prior to destruction didn’t seem right.
All I’ll say for now is, reserve judgment on 9/11 imagery.
I do agree that some of it is likely tampered with or even outright faked, but certainly not all of it.
The CF stance is that all extant imagery is fake, every last video and photo published into the public consciousness. The members of CF have never, to my knowledge, agreed that any image or footage of the towers burning or coming down is genuine.
The main reason for this refusal to accept any such imagery as real is Simon’s ‘smokescreen’ theory — he contends that an enormous smokescreen completely obscured the towers on the day, it’s one of his foundational arguments.
Unfortunately for Simon, there is no evidence of such a smokescreen. He merely invokes it, alongside imagery of the huge dust clouds that followed their destruction, so he can proceed with the other main premise: all imagery must therefore be fake, because there was a huge smokescreen.
It’s classic circular reasoning.
There is no evidence of that smokescreen, unless you first internalize that all extant imagery of the towers on fire and coming down is fake, therefore “maybe a giant smokescreen really was in place, but nobody captured it.”
One idea serves the other.
It’s extremely silly, but it’s also the prevailing belief on CF.
You've just given me a brainwave. Your doubt about military obscurants has made me think of a magic trick I just saw and how it explains what they could have done.
One person tells the other they can read their mind.
So what they could have done was used the military obscurants to hide the destructions and then run the footage as if it was taken AFTER the destructions - I seem to remember very thick smoke. I mean when you destroy a building loads of smoke and gas is produced anyway. If people are filming how are they to say, "This is the footage of the buildings coming down." It could be footage taken after.
I replied to the wrong comment about the photo map and the smokescreen theory, interested to read your thoughts on it though.
To keep up this theme of commenting on the wrong reply, I’ll just leave here my own pet theory about what happened on the day…
CDI (aka the Loizeaux family) is a demolition company that does most if not all major demolitions in the US. I posit that it was CDI that carried out the destruction of the towers and other WTC complex buildings, including WTC7, and this is why.
CDI has stated in at least a couple of documentaries that the reason demolitions are done ‘bottom up’ instead of ‘top down’ is not for technical reasons. The timing of the charges is the same, all the infrastructure is the same. The reason is purely down to safety and cleanup, which also equates to cost.
That is, they can do top-down demolitions if they want to — they just don’t because bottom-up is better for almost every regular client.
Every client, that is, except the people behind 9/11. Presumably that client actually wanted a spectacular, visually unique and messy demolition for the TV cameras, and was willing to sacrifice a certain amount of safety to get exactly what they wanted.
This is what CDI delivered. The twin towers were evidently both demolished top-down, creating the most unimaginable TV scenes and cleanup operation (all funded by the taxpayer, no big deal).
WTC7 was demolished in the conventional manner, because it would have made no sense at all to do that one top-down.
Just by having two different demolition techniques at the same event would be enough to cause endless speculation about the means of destruction.
Few if any viewers had ever seen a top-down demolition before 9/11 so there was nothing to compare it with. This is what fueled all the outlandish destruction theories, like those from Judy Wood, the mini nukes, etc.
This is my own theory, I haven’t seen anyone else post this, and I welcome your thoughts on it too :)
With regard to the 9/11 buildings, completely independently of anything that CF says you can see for yourself. I never would have looked through the fakery lens if it hadn't been for CF but nevertheless, in the main, I simply went to the imagery myself and used what I looked at first-hand. Also, even before I looked which was actually quite a long time after I saw it first mentioned on CF, the notion that it would be faked struck me as highly likely ... cos I know they just love fakin' it as much as possible.
Probably the main reason that the majority of 9/11 analysts don't even think of fakery is that they came down in broad daylight where everyone could see them ... so how possible to fake?
We cannot know what they did to hide the actual destructions (if they did, in fact, hide them) but I think military obscurants is not a bad theory - you think there would be film of it? but there probably is film of it but people think it's from AFTER the destructions. It makes no difference though what they did or whether somehow they just managed to stop people filming them or managed to get rid of any film - who knows? - I think the evidence is clear they faked them.
THE GOLDILOCKS ANALOGY
I think what they gave us in the twin towers and WTC-7 was two impossible extremes to represent controlled demolition because the real thing would give itself away too much. The propaganda is very clever because you think, "Well the twin towers are a little odd but WTC-7 looks like a PERFECT implosion" ... but I really don't think any of the building destructions represent reality.
The twin towers’ imagery equates to Father Bear: It’s a top down destruction where it seems the building is being destroyed floor by floor. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, etc, but as explained on CF is against reality - I admit I don't really understand what is said but it seems to make sense.
WTC-7 equates to Mama Bear: Seemingly, the only weakening is at the base which causes the building to sink ever so gracefully with no signs of destruction until the end.
The reality - Baby Bear (just right): Very tall steel frame buildings aren’t destroyed floor by floor but we may speculate that in the case of both the twin towers and WTC-7 charges weren’t laid only at the base but also at intervals as we see in the demolition of Mina Plaza, Abu Dhabi in 2020. Assuming this to be the case, if we’d been shown the real destructions, the ejection of explosive material at intervals would have been too obvious.
View on a real computer and tap/click the ‘full screen’ / broken square icon on top right to see the legend and photo timeline categories.
So, all of those photos (not to mention the videos, whose events align with these photos) are all fake, all of it, OR…
Most of it is fake, except a tiny percentage that can be retrospectively reconciled with the CF smokescreen theory via a timeline ‘magic trick’ of claiming post-destruction imagery as pre-destruction, OR…
Most of those thousands of photos are, in fact, real, and they reconcile with the main events captured on video, namely the manner in which the buildings were destroyed.
It quickly becomes a numbers game.
The odds of 9/11 being all fakery, and nobody faithfully capturing the real events of the day, including the smokescreen that could not possibly have instantly materialised, it falls close to zero chance upon scrutiny.
There is far too much evidence that aligns, from far too many different sources to simply handwave all of it away as “it’s all fake, and a smokescreen explains it”.
There is little to no evidence that can even charitably be described as showing a smokescreen gigantic enough to (eventually — not instantly) fully encapsulate the twin towers from all eyes in one of the largest population centers in the world.
It's been clear to many of us that people like Sibrel are agents supporting the critical narrative. What narrative? The ISS, Mars and Blue Origin fakery for starters. It's a lot like Assange's defence of the official 9/11 narrative. Sibrel and Assange take up the sceptic space on selected issues only. They win cred to spend cred. The globsters lose a few points to win the game.
Anyone doing due diligence would know that there are numerous doubters of the Four Horsemen who also deny or question the moon landings. Those whistle-blowers tell their biggest fibs on other subjects because the moon landings are such lame fakery they don't have to distort much there.
But we've been here before, haven't we? It's down to whoever gets to say "due diligence" first, isn't it?
Now, if anyone out there wants to disagree with me, make sure you have done your due diligence...and I'll decide what's due diligence here. I said it first!
"Those whistle-blowers tell their biggest fibs on other subjects because the moon landings are such lame fakery they don't have to distort much there."
They don't have to distort much there? They say not a single word of truth. If astronauts really didn't land on the moon why wouldn't they say ONE thing that was true on the subject? How are they able to ONLY say lies if astronauts really didn't land on the moon? Don't you see how it makes no sense?
Nobody flies to the moon on a permanent vomit comet which then deposits a junk pile that fails to disturb the dust. Yeah, the same dust which is greatly disturbed by golf clubs and a 1960s moke. The same dust which defenders ask us to peer for when we don't get sucked into the no-crater narrative.
The controlled whistle-blowers do tell the truth to a degree about these matters. But nobody in-the-pay is to question whether the human body can function without something as basic as gravity. Because that would impede all future Mars nonsense.
I'll say it here. Your blood circulation, lymph system, digestion and respiration cannot function properly for longer than a few moments without something as basic as gravity, (or whatever determines up/down on whatever shape of earth you fancy). That's the thing we are being distracted from in a myriad of ways. Space travel is another "trans" imposture, maybe the biggest one.
Without even testing it or having evidence of any kind, physics sufficiently explains the dust ‘issue’.
In a low-gravity zero-atmosphere environment, all particles whether large or small will follow a parabolic trajectory if disturbed. They don’t go up “into the air” to mingle and later settle, because there is no air for that to happen.
This is why there is no (or very little) dust on the feet of the lander, according to physics.
Alas, they went on to play golf and drive a mini-moke kicking up heaps of dust on the moon...just like they were on earth! (Not that the parabolic trajectory disturbing without disturbing makes much sense to me. Maybe I need to watch more Dave videos.)
The Apollo 17 lander, the one that looked like a paint-sprayer, had its take off-filmed and tracked by some mysterious camera on the ground. There was a bunch of dust and sparks. Mind you, that could well have been a miniature, as budgets were shrinking by 17.
The rickety pile of junk used for 11 was likely life-sized. It was clearly made from bits of piping or rods, warped metal, cloth, foil and sticky tape...although I'm sure someone can show (maybe physics itself!) that it could have moved without falling down and apart. It was quite dustless. Maybe they had to be so gentle with the poor old junk pile they weren't even game to broom some dust about its curtain-rod legs.
Kubrick indeed! Whoever was in charge of the moon productions wouldn't have been allowed to make an episode of The Flying Nun.
Enough flippancy. I have no more sarcasm to give. The real problem here is that humans NEED a thing called GRAVITY and need it constantly. Space travel is not just a lie, it is a TRANS AGENDA. We need to focus on that.
What about the footprints, the dust did move leaving the print so lander should leave bigger prints and mechanically the dust should move, that's why craters have raised rims.
Not sure I understand how photographed boot prints of compressed regolith relate either to ‘dust’ on the lander, or to unphotographed lander feet impressions.
We can't see the prints left by the lander as the lander doesn't move for us to see them.
Can I suggest you pose your questions to people more knowledgeable than both of us or to AI. Of course, it doesn't mean you have to agree with the responses but doing due diligence means at least asking the question.
Ask yourself: What do I know about the moon landings?
Clearly you don't know nearly as much as Dave McKeegan seems to know at least. He can explain all manner of things such as how the landers were filmed ascending from the moon - he can give all the details of the camera that was used, how they ensured that it tracked the lander as it rose, etc, why it failed to do a good job the first two times (it was used 15-17). If you can debunk this explanation fine go ahead but I think the problem with sceptics is that that know so very, very little but are willing to place a lot of value on their doubts about what they think should / would / can / could / must have happened.
Why would fake AI (you shouldn't call a LLP an AI as its not) be an authority? Its a regurgitation of the controlled narrative from what's been allowed to exist on the web. The other day I showed how the entire Tehran episode of it being a 5G test site in March 2020 had been erased from the web.
Dave repeats bogus blah blah repeatedly. I watched a few of those vids and not impressed with him at all. Against someone like Benjamin Owens, he'd get shredded. Anyway, gotta move on...
I'm just saying mechanical force can move dust, I don't need to know anything about moon landings or appeal to authority to know that, you are concluding I am anti-moon landing from this simple statement.
I don't believe this stuff about craters being made by rocks from space, at least not the ones where I live. Its more likely the result of heat internally forcing itself up, like a hot gaseous bubble from below, and some burst and others don't.
On earth I can agree. In space, well anyone can see meteors burning up in the earth’s atmosphere on a clear night-meaning millions do so on earth every year. So it must be fact they hit the surface of the moon. Well maybe some internal heat did/does too. I’ve seen my share of volcanic craters living in Japan, they’re all on top of volcanic mountains, none of them look like moon craters (assuming the photos are real-though you can see the larger ones with a home telescope)
Have you done due diligence on whatever you and the four horsemen think is anomalous about the dust? Why not look at what Dave McKeegan says on the dust in the last video of his I posted. It's quite fascinating actually. I post the link below.
Petra, we've done this before. If you care to remember, you sent me to the site with the goth-chick who changed the subject to "no crater", a really blatant shift. After which, I made it very clear that there was no disturbance of the dust under the junk pile while golf clubs and mokes disturbed plenty of dust. You then insisted you could see dust on the landing pads, I doubted.
Me, if someone tells me there was a rocket engine pumping on some loose dust, I'll expect to see lots of disturbance impossible to ignore. My only question is why the fakers didn't bother. Were they worried about knocking over the junk pile called a lunar lander?
What you need to do is wonder about the trans thing. Have you ever questioned the notion of human bodies in space without gravity? Start there, forget clever Dave and tricky Sibrel and all the distractors. I've spent time with those guys. They're agents who reveal to conceal.
The globsters want us aspiring to trans everything. Space is a big part of that.
And please stop saying "due diligence" every time you want to win a point. It's not helpful.
WTF has any of this space stuff got to do with 'trans agenda'?!!
As for the gravity thing - there is gravity on the moon.
Second, although you are correct about humans not really functioning in zero-g, this is where the secret space programme comes in, using rotation to enable centrifugal force, as first described by Tsiolkovsky at the beginning of the 20th century.
There is no gravity on the way to the moon. Got it?
So pleased to hear about a secret space program. It's even been described. Described!
Space stuff is all trans agenda. All. If you think the moon landings, Mars Rover, Elon's Upholstery-in-Space and the International Spray Salon are real you may not see that agenda. So baby steps.
When someone tells you that humans function just fine without gravity, they are messing with your human identity. When they tell you your destiny is the stars - Mars first! - they are messing with your connection to earth, race and kin. When they say we need a desolation like Mars to continue our species there is, of course, a great green message behind that absurdity, but also a message that humans just need something, anything underfoot...and maybe a stuttering autist like Elon Musk to guide us with superior intelligence until all intelligence is artificial, and thus truly superior.
So much empty fakery is also an opportunity for money-grabbing, but the agenda is there. It is soon to climax with the alien fakery. And do you think aliens won't be much cooler than humans? M...M...Musk will tell you how c...c...cool they are.
They actually started this waaay back in time. Take the Victorian era for example... High collars to hide the adams apple. "Women" couldn't show their ankles... Only because REAL women have tree trunk sturdy ankles & men have slenderer, athletic ankles...Not cankles.
Bathing suits were prohibited on beaches due to the Adonis belt which is a dead giveaway for a tranny. Look into the obvious trans men as presidential "wives".
Then MEN invented the bra to disguise the giggle of REAL breasts.
Nowadays there is the debate over what a woman REALLY is.
Puh-lease. & the mutilation of private parts. ai does not "identify" as a gender, so this is an obvious tactic into bringing us into the new age of melding man & machine where there will be no gender & to have "autism" is to be admired.... but ai will "fix" that.... Just line up for these shots like a good robo-being.
What Robert is saying lines up perfectly with the ai transgender/non gender, bender gender agender.
Elon is very cryptic about the moon, giving answers in a double-negative, after pointing out the obvious flaws, like the above video. I don't see it addressed by Dave. Maybe its not the silver bullet, idk. Would like to hear the rebuttal.
I think everyone should get their own belief about these things, as none of us really knows for sure what they are lying about and what they are not. The moon, being plasmic, also has the map of this concave realm on its surface.
I agree with you on the first two, the Challenger being a psyop and those saying sats are fake a controlled opp -- easy not to care that they are launching laser sat-to-device if its fake!
The '60s gave us three terrific Mason sleight of hand tricks. The fake assassination of JFK, then the swapping out of Paul McCarthy after 9/11/66, and finally landing on the moon.
I gave it 50 years then have resorted to 'prove it' and the latest bullshit video by India makes me launch at it even more. 1972 and counting. That's 55 years now. Are you willing to take this belief with you to the grave without going again? Elon says we are going to Mars in two years as well. Could be, as the moon in my take is plasma and the planets are solid. Space is real, but its all inside.
One of Elon's jobs is to lie about going to space. He's obviously better at that than Bezos is, but that's like saying I'm better at basketball than Danny Devito.
No one is going to Mars, doesn't matter if it's solid when you can't even get there in the first place.
If you go back, each decade, there's another rich man in the club claiming that they will go to the Moon. Remember Ted Turner, Branson and his claims, all conveniently forgotten... someone will follow Musk and keep it going. I don't believe it either.
Millions upon millions of people believe the moon landings. I seem to be the only one of hardcore psyop analysts who believe them. Doesn’t make me wrong though. Numbers of people believing anything doesn’t mean anything.
Its been about 1/3rd of the population that has consistently realized the moon landing is fake in polling. Am surprised a bit that more haven't yet realized it.
But that's my point. Numbers of people believing something doesn't mean anything but I'm certainly not the only person who believes the moon landings - just stating that fact - not to imply that it means something, it's just a fact.
I don’t know and I don’t care - why don’t you ask AI or put it on a forum like Quora. It’s up to you to do the due diligence, not me. I’ve made my case. Why should I believe what anyone says about tonnage? How do I know what they say is accurate?
Why should anyone believe NASA who consistently lies? You take apart one of their lies, and digest entirely another. There's no consistency in your DD.
What is your response to the four horsemen of the moon landings hoax psyop not being picked up by any disbeliever, Jerome, as being agents and not having one word of truth about the moon landings between them?
I don't follow this topic enough to know how to respond as I don't see your presentation of them being agents. And what does that mean? That they are getting paid, or make money off of the topic? If that's all it is, then we have to dismiss all the NASA employed as well. It wouldn't surprise me to see them being agents some how, we know how psyops need controlled opps to direct the right questions to the narrative.
This is your strawman. You choose some controlled opps to take down instead of making an argument. Instead of challenging the idea, you challenge the messenger and prop up a space boy shill in Dave. Overall, a very weak argument.
What I'm specifically doing is "not taking down controlled ops" but pointing out that no disbeliever has noticed that the Four Horsemen do not say a single word of truth between them that refutes the reality of the moon landings. If you cannot appreciate that ...
-- 1. automatically this clear fact means that disbelievers have not done due diligence
-- 2. this fact presents a puzzle for the "they didn't go" hypothesis because we have to wonder how it would be possible NOT to say a single word of truth if astronauts really didn't land on the moon
That's what controlled opps do! They put together errors in order to discredit the truth of the topic.
"Please give a lie that Dave puts forward." -- that we landed on the moon. It's plasma, no one is landing on the moon. Look into Vibes of Cosmos for a more interesting and factual (empirically) topic about the moon
The four horsemen of the moon landing hoaxes have been picked up as controlled opposition by millions of people. Every single intelligent person automatically assumes any promoted opposition is controlled. In fact being promoted is part of the control and therefore 100 Percent proof on its own.
Now I am first to admit 95 plus Percent of people are very stupid. And on the internet (excluding controlled opposition) making comments in the conspiracy space it's well over 99 percent.
In order for any validity in claiming the Four Horsemen are controlled opposition, falsity in what they say needs to be identified. I have seen no mention of any falsity in what they say put forward in relation to the moon landings by any disbeliever. Can you point me to where it is.
Nukes/cold war and rock and roll music invasion were also ongoing big psyops in the 60s. All these served to distract from the war in SE Asia. They even call it the "Vietnam War" to distract from the larger war and genocide carried-out by their front men, as usual.
It was also the last of the Freemasons' heyday, when they could pull it off en masse. But they still make a generational push with most of those narratives.
The proof of going is in many, many things such as thousands of photographs and footage betraying the alienness of the lunar conditions, the machines used to go to the moon, etc.
Notes would be the least compelling kind of evidence.
They drown you in evidence, you just can't see it ... and look for completely superfluous stuff of zero importance.
Just a couple questions. Was Gus Grissom a critic of the state of the program and was he and his crew incinerated? How long has it been since men have gone to the moon? Is our technology better or worse than it was in the 70’s? How would you describe the affect of the crew of Apollo 11 during their post mission press conference? Thanks in advance for actually answering the questions I have asked in a direct and sincere manner.
Guess what, Kyle? The press conference anomaly is looking less anomalous.
There really wasn't any contradiction about seeing stars.
The question about stars related to when all three astronauts were in the spacecraft and saw the eclipse of the sun by the moon causing a solar corona.
Patrick Moore: "When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
Neil Armstrong responded: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see."
Michael Collins said to Neil: "I don't remember seeing any."
So after Neil Armstrong said he didn't recall WHAT stars they saw in the solar corona, Michael Collins simply said that he didn't remember seeing any. There's no contradiction. NA's "don't remember WHAT stars" does not particularly imply he saw any stars at all.
Please watch the short segment on the press conference. It is quite enlightening. Dave McKeegan also address the "muted" element.
And while we’re on the subject of “spam in a can.” We didn’t get to hear Aldrin, but tell me he wasn’t and is increasingly so, a wackado? Armstrong…was hardly ever heard from afterward. Glenn, the supposed boy scout, who really was a huge scum bag they made Senator for life. And Grissom, they allowed Wolfe to turn him into a joke.
I find that guy you keep linking to annoying as fuck. I can’t stand the salesmanship in his voice … and here, he doesn’t let the Astro Nots speak for themselves…weird. Also, can’t the question itself come off as planted - an explanation for the hoi poloi why no stars were visible?
Kyle, you really need to do some research. If Dave annoys you then simply look up textual comments. They were on the moon in lunar daytime. Do you see stars in the sky on earth in the day? Ignorance is what makes people disbelieve the moon landings. Plain ignorance.
Instead of wasting time trying to find anomalies from a place of total ignorance LEARN something.
So, Dave is of the same kind as Stew Peters and Alex Jones, just a different variety. As to “lunar day,” how come the astrophysicist didn’t know stars can’t be seen during “lunar day?” Or The whack, Buzz Aldrin? Did any of the Space Men say, “Hey, Man. It was lunar day.” So, they couldn’t see stars but they could see the beautful Blue Marble. Okey doke.
I take it you bieve everything we are told about the moon and the cosmos. So, the moon rotates and orbits in just such a way that the face always is towards earth. And it just happens to be…what, one fortieth the size if yhe sun and one fortieth the distance to the sun, so it just APPEARS to be the same size as the sun. That’s what you believe, right? How to you believe these wondrous circumstances came to be? You do admit, in order to believe in the moon landings you have to accept mainstream cosmology, yes?
What you're focusing on are things you don't understand well. When I started trying to determine the truth about the moon landings I focused on what was tangible, eg, the first thing to start persuading me that they were real was the authentic sound of the audio communications. The asinine argument against the reality of the audio communications is the dismissive:
--- "Oh, they could be faked."
What disbelievers really mean when they say: "could be faked" is "they could be faked without detection" - an entirely different phenomenon, however, although I didn't realise it at the time there is 1,000 hours of communications recorded for the moon landings which no disbeliever has bothered to acquaint themselves with and when I tell them 1,000 hours! their asinine response to that is:
--- "Have you listened to them to determine if there's no fakery?"
You seriously cannot get a more stupid response:
--- the 1,000 hours is purported evidence and the burden of proof is on the person wishing to claim fakery to prove that there is some. Of course, no disbeliever has bothered to try to do that.
--- How would it help if it was me who listened to it - disbelievers would have to take my word for it and they probably wouldn't, would they?
Unfortunately the word "could" can be quite misleading.
There's "could" that refers to a possibility rooted in reality and there is "could" that is wildly hypothetical.
If there's evidence that some of the people who allegedly died on 9/11 are made up then to say that more than have been analysed "could" be faked is rooted in reality. We have the example of made-up people - nothing says more couldn't be made up, unless of course we have evidence of their reality - and in some cases we certainly do, however, unless we do very detailed research it would be difficult to determine who's real and who's not ... but it doesn't matter we have no clear evidence that anyone died or was seriously injured and that is all we need to say that death and injury were staged (with the allowance for a few exceptions).
There is zero evidence of extensive communications of any kind that have been faked / scripted so the claim that the communications could have been faked (and we need to add "without detection") is wildly hypothetical. There is no evidence of it.
So the claim, "the audio communications could be faked without detection" is not a factual claim. There is nothing that suggests they could be, there is zero fact in that claim. Do you get it? Zero fact.
Plus why on earth would they fake so many hours when they really don't need to push any old nonsense at us to get the majority to believe it? Seriously, THINK!
Kyle, what you keep wanting to do is argue from your current font of vast ignorance. Please do some research. I will not respond to any more questions until you show that you've done some research and if you believe something to be true that supports fakery, why don't you run it by ChatGPT first. Of course, I'm not saying you should BELIEVE what it says - I certainly don't believe anything it says on 9/11 - it's just the process of checking that your thinking is correct instead of wasting my time with nonsense.
By “Blue Marble” I simply meant the Earth. And you are not being intellectually honest. If you can’t see stars during “lunar day” why would an astrophysicist ask about seeing stars? Plus, was every supposed mission conducted during “lunar day?” But, you know, I have asked you a number of questions you just avoid, suggesting they are irrelevant. Like I said before, maybe we discern truth and reality in different ways. But you thought that irrelevant as well. Anyways, until next time.
I got to “much more expensive, and stopped. You do know fiat currency is created out of thin air? And excess wealth and productivity is purposefully destroyed via warfare? No?
They're not contradictory facts. They are facts that can be accommodated by the "they went" hypothesis, they don't contradict it, they are possible. There could be a multitude of reasons why the three guys were muted in the press conference. Maybe there'd been some kind of argument prior, maybe they had discovered something there weren't meant to. Who knows? But a strangely muted press conference doesn't mean they didn't go.
I gave you just a few strange facts and curious occurrences. There are scores more. And they were just muted. They gave “inappropriate”answers. Big difference.
The cost is a very weak opening argument. As I mentioned above both Turner and Branson obv had the money, and put their cred on the line that they would do it. He does address the fuel, but not the tonnage (if you've done your DD and looked at the video I linked above) so no answer on that huge tonnage elephant in the room. Weak arguments overall, just making stuff up. "Its already been done" is pathetic. 55 years, not 50 haha. And how long will you hold out Petra? 80 years?
OK, second one. lol, he realized how pathetic his first one was. "Its politics" haha, ah, same argument. Why didn't Turner or Branson make it then? It wasn't money stopping them.
Have you addressed the tonnage with AI or with Apollo enthusiasts? DD means that when an argument is presented, you look to see if there’s any argument against it. I read dozens and dozens of seeming anomalies put forward by the disbelievers … and then I checked to see if there was a reasonable explanation … and there always was.
What proves without a shadow of a doubt that disbelievers have not done due diligence is that not one of them has picked up that the four horsemen of the moon landings psyop do not say a single word of truth between them on the subject.
If you think that doesn’t prove that disbelievers haven’t done due diligence please explain why, Jerome.
I didn’t pick it up myself, rather I PREDICTED it … and nothing supports an hypothesis better than prediction. When I could see that talking to my sister and a couple of disbeliever friends was like talking to a brick wall, the thought occurred to me that the first person to say we didn’t land on the moon, Bill Kaysing, might be an agent whose purpose was to both dupe anticipated disbelievers of the rather implausible achievement - because any chance to dupe they take, especially of the disbelievers - and undermine them when they called out the many real lies. And sure enough, Bill Kaysing, agent, leapt from the Wikipedia page like an evil-jack-in-the-box.
Much later I discovered the BBC drama, The News-Benders (1968), served as predictive programming targeting the disbelievers for the moon landings hoax lie.
I was just asking if in the 1000's of hours of your fanboy Dave, if you came across his DD on it and could point to it, as that's the authority you believe. I really thought this was satire, lol.
Actually, I totally disagree. Something may not make sense because you lack the knowledge to understand why it, in fact, makes perfect sense. I emphasised doing due diligence in my article. Please look at Dave's videos on why astronauts haven't gone again that I linked to in my comment above.
Even before I had taken a single look at the moon landings to determine if they happened or not I didn't think the "not going again" argument was compelling. Since I have looked I realise the argument: "if we'd gone we would have gone again falls into the logical fallacy, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
The Apollo 1 fire/murder is of course a very important aspect of the whole thing - Grissom, as the most senior astronaut, would've commanded the first lunar landing mission. Clearly he couldn't be trusted. Either that or he couldn't be mind-controlled adequately. From what I have read about Grissom's personality, he is really not the kind of person who would've gone along with a fake.
There is obviously a lot of misdirection involved in all this stuff, especially in keeping people arguing about whether or not people went to the moon.
This sort of stuff distracts people from understanding the real physics (see Miles Mathis) and most importantly the implications of that real physics, which is the secret space programme (Caesium-137 & electrogravitics etc.). Other implications of real physics are effectively free energy - if everyone can have free energy then the cabal cannot control the commodities market and therefore the global economy and therefore people (cf. Kissinger's infamous statement about global control).
This is the reason they had to prevent knowledge of real physics (most likely starting with Einstein).
It goes a bit deeper than this though when we consider (far more powerful) extraterrestrial intelligences and the cabal's certain knowledge of them (see SETI & the Brookings Report), as well as the ETI's attitude towards them, and this planet - i.e. quarantine for obvious self-defensive purposes. You have to consider the psychological effect of the cabal not being able to deny the existence of bigger fish, and knowing they will never be allowed out of this solar system. See also incoming asteroid Apophis (impact day Friday 13/4/2029 - 2+2+9 also equals 13/4). If the cabal do not want Apophis to hit then they may have to use their unofficial space programme's capabilities to divert it, thus exposing themselves.
As for your 'four horsemen' - this is where I do get a little angry because by making Dave McGowan out to be an agent you are seriously trying to discredit the other (more important) stuff he wrote about, namely 'Programmed to Kill', which is a brilliant and devastating and seriously disturbing introduction into the truly evil stuff that goes on - MK-Ultra, the child abuse network, deliberately induced multiple personality disorder via obscene torture of children, programmed serial killers (you need to think about that one versus your 'it's all fake/staged' argument - the 'fakery' explanation being another classic misdirection). Sure, it may be that as a result of Programmed to Kill Dave was given the proverbial 'offer you can't refuse', but that absolutely does not discredit all that important stuff he wrote about. So while you bang on about 'fake events' and 'psyops', how about sparing a thought for the millions of child victims of the Network?
How come people who accuse Dave McGowan of being an agent never seem to talk about Programmed to Kill? One of the most vitally important books of the last fifty years which should be a must-read for every member of the conspiracy theory subculture.
Here you go again Petra with your "moon landings happened" push. Why on why? I should know it's to get comments and publicity cos you know it's a hot topic. I shouldnt fall for it but I'm still a baby truther in many ways so here I am telling you to STOP!! NOBODY went to the moon - it is NOT a solid object. Soooo much evidence to show this. I like so many of your articles then you go and do this and show me that you just can't be a real psyop detective. I hereby promise to make no more comments on any of your provocative moon posts.
Mary, while I may be pretty much on my own among the truthers saying the moon landings happened, you're a bit of an outlier yourself saying it's not a solid object. I've seen someone else say it but I think most anti-moon landing people think the moon is solid ... or at least they don't deny it is. So you see, there's simply no agreement on anything!
The beautiful girl (a model) with long hair and manicured fingernails with extensions is clearly PR of some strange type, considering the ship looks like a man's thing....a fertility ritual!
Yes Proton! You nailed it! Katy Perry is kicking off her Satanic whirled tour. The Patches on their uniforms are uteruses with fallopian tubes, so it makes sense to send a bunch of parasitic witch wombs up in a penis shaped "probe" to ritually impregnate the matrix womb.
"Women in Space (Low Earth Orbit aka: The Katy Perry LIFETIMES TOUR kick-off promotional event of fearless females"
I was just using that as one example.
I'm glad I know you're still stuck on understanding that all space exploration is fake. The abundance of evidence anyone would present to you wouldn't matter - you are obviously having cognitive dissonance on the matter. Do you have an emotional attachment to space exploration or something? As if people like Bart Sibrel are even needed to debunk stuff like this?
The Why Files is one of the biggest deep state-controlled, baby-truther shows on YouTube (which is saying a *lot*) - they want people to believe the moon landing was likely real. They also said we didn't go back, because there were aliens living there. You really think Bart Sibrel is as much conop as Why Files, lol?
Also, con-op doesn't mean Bart is wrong: I don't need Bart for anything anymore, this stuff is all just down to basic common sense.
Haha, silly me ... I thought that we didn't go back because they taped over the evidence or lost the technology to get back to the moon & it is just to laborious & difficult to remanufacture.
According to my telescope, The moon is a scam ... I see luminaries in the sky. It's impossible to land on a hologram. A friend of mine noted a mechanical frying pan type of mechanism hovering in front of the moon during the big 4/8 X-Clipse..... Eluding to a CONstruct up there as noted by the Gnostics.
Nothing will ever leave low earth orbit due to the Van Halen 🎶 Belts. lol
Either way, it's not as represented. Most SIMS are pretty bad fakes of the real. Peace :)
The Blue Sky Maiden posted about what the Luminaries most probably are-
you must have missed it?
https://substack.com/@theblueskymaiden1/p-158116364
Thanx, You may have missed the part where I state that I have my own telescope.
My conclusion has always been that these images are dancing frequencies of sound or sine waves.
composed of what ?
It's my thought that it must be plasma, But If you follow a fallen star to the ground....The impact site leaves a gelatinous GEL of matter accompanied by a foul odor. It's still a mystery to me. Any thoughts?
Where specifically in gnostic literature might I find allusion to the moon being constructed?
My question is put forth sincerely, not antagonistically. I'm very curious to read more about this.
No problem, 2000 years ago a book was written called The Sophia (the wisdom of) of Jesus Christ where Jesus himself figured out this whole place is a construct, (Not just the moon) a simulation, The church was so mortified by this info, that they banned the book & persecuted anybody that had it.
Edit... The Gospel of Mary also alludes to how to exit the simulated nature of this reality. Hope this helps.
"Also, con-op doesn't mean Bart is wrong: I don't need Bart for anything anymore, this stuff is all just down to basic common sense."
Lucas, just more and more nonsense.
It makes not a jot of difference if you "don't need Bart".
My argument isn't that you or any other individual hasn't recognised the Four Horsemen as only-tell-lies/push-propaganda people.
My argument is that not a single disbeliever of the moon landings has recognised that none of these people say a single thing that refutes the reality of the moon landings.
Not one. And yet they are popular among disbelievers and my first port of call in studying the moon landings was reading Wagging the Moondoggie by agent, Dave McGowan, as recommended by a disbeliever friend.
Nowhere in the many comments here has anyone defended a single thing that any of the Four Horsemen say on the moon landings.
"... doesn't mean Bart is wrong."
OK, where is he right? Give me one thing.
If you're going to mention the "cut-out window" can I advise some due diligence watching Dave McKeegan's exposure of the falsity of the claim - because I will certainly be back at you with it if you do mention it.
https://youtu.be/M2g4e6kXASQ
A very bad example that exposes embarrassing ignorance.
[Note: this comment was in response to Lucas's comment about the impossibility of the Nixon phone call that he deleted. So his deletion indicates he recognises the stupidity of his comment but obviously has no further effect. It doesn't set him back on his heels as it should and reflect. He just keeps pushing out more nonsense.]
You think space exploration might be real, to the point at least of defending it.
Enough said.
Looks as if you deleted your original comment about the Nixon phone call that exposed your embarrassing ignorance. Seriously?
You think space exploration is fake and to defend that belief you pull out objection to the phone call from Nixon ... exposing your embarrassing ignorance that the phone call from Nixon didn't go directly from him and therefore if you want to argue against communication then it's not about Nixon's communication it's about communications in general between earth and the moon.
Why don't you reveal all your great knowledge on that subject, Lucas? Why don't you show what an authority you are but my question is: why haven't you already revealed your knowledge of how communications between earth and the moon aren't possible?
I was struck by how small the mission control room in Houston was.
Also, by the fact that the last crewed landing was in 1972, 53 years ago.
Also, I detect a certain squishiness when I ask how the astronauts passed safely through the Van Allen belts.
In other words, you have zero to say the moon landings didn't happen.
I have zero to prove they did.
What do you need that's missing from the evidence available?
I think that what you call “evidence” is used to engage in stereotyping.
That doesn't answer my question. What do you need to show you the moon landings happened that isn't available?
What do you need to show you they did happen?
whoever opened that door from the inside didn't get the memo.
That was pretty funny. My goodness is Bezos a wanker of the highest order.
the richer they are, the more childish they get.
Wankerous is the word.
Astro-NOT ??????
💯
I think it's time to consider that the "space" they are trying to invade, is the space between our ears.
We must always consider their definitions of words & then read between the LIES.
Invading the “space between our ears” is what interests me, JM. What is so obvious is that they have us profiled and they knew even before the moon landings happened that those with a tendency to disbelieve the authorities would be easy to persuade that an implausible event was fake.
Moon hoaxers are divided on Flat Earth - some believe it and some recognise it as a psyop - I certainly don’t believe it and I haven’t checked to see if the FE movement was started by genuine disbelievers or agents but my instincts say agents. Interestingly, the commenters on Dave’s videos (who does a lot debunking of FE) lump moon hoaxers and Flat Earthers together. Whether the video is about the moon landings or FE they refer to the disbelievers as flerfers.
Yes Petra. I agree it ALL feels Psyopy.
I have a standard copy paste I created to cover MY personal stance.
I can't fully commit to FE because I feel there is mind illusion (simulation) thought construct & simulacrum qualities to this realm.
The EARTH is a DOMED CLOSED SYSTEM with several DIMENSIONS & a Multi-tiered holographic lightshow above. We can ONLY move within this artificial snow "globe" system🌐.
THAT 💯% COVERS the ROUND & FLAT discussion.
The Lightshow above is a calendar that runs this system. There is NO outer space, ONLY low earth orbit... which NASA has proven that we cannot leave.
The space they want to invade is between our ears.
This is a lie .... 🗺️
So is this .... 🌎
THAT is the TRUTH. ღ
P.S. My Grandpa's Girlfriend who is 102 was taught Flat Earth in school as a girl. She remembers them inundating public schools with globes.
So is globe earth the secondary Psyop after they realized what lies beyond the ice wall .... OR is the human experiment a larger psyop of the human condition where several different land masses are mind controlled for thought experiments?? I don't think they ever plan on telling us this is a machine that resets the experiment every couple hundred years or so & repopulates with "orphans" or lab grown human creations with different gene technology & blood type variants.
How does one civilization go from horse & buggy to Hadron collider in less then 200 years & the Congo tribes are still spearheading their dinner?
https://themillenniumreport.com/2017/11/fake-flat-earth-conspiracy-finally-outed-as-cia-psyop/
The Blue Sky maiden told you about the LIE of Dimensions
You must be asleep still ?
You're subscribed but wasting time on this & ignoring posts that would actually inform you ?
https://substack.com/@theblueskymaiden1/p-153878345
I read it .... as I AM subscribed & I AGREE. "Dimension" is a term we can all agree on. There are 12 different senses of measurement in all DIMENSIONS.
The whirled is NOT what you think.
Troll somebody else.
Ephesians 5:16
"Redeeming the time because the days are evil."
One of the things God expects us to steward is our time. I don't investigate everything. I prioritize as best I can.
One topic I don't investigate is the moon landings. Now, I choose to believe it was a hoax. I just don't promote it because I haven't done research on it. I just expect to be lied to by just about anything the gubmint promotes.
I believe if we went there, we would have been back. Billions have been sent to NASA for decades. What had been accomplished?
It's easy to tell it's all fake, though - no rabbit holes or research is even necessary. For example, the president pretended to talk to the Astro-Nots using a landline... lol! How funny is that? A *landline* - getting service with literal Freemasons hanging out on the moon!
You shouldn't hesitate to conclude it's all fake, since space travel (curiously, an *absurdly* common theme in film/movies, cartoons, video games, music, comics, anime, disney pixar... you name it) is ultimately there to keep people from God. And - it's worked!
The truth, and I'd honestly bet any amount of money on this: We haven't even gotten machines up to the moon - and if we somehow have--and again, we haven't--we didn't get them back - nevermind people. No one ever has, nor ever will, step foot on the moon. It follows that Mars is obviously a complete joke, get ready for that lie because the "Mars landing" is coming this year like Trump announced.
(What a clown world we live in, people seem to like being complete idiots, don't they?)
Does Nixon's Phone call debunk the Moon landings?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkJk76wh4-4
Here’s another example of you giving yourself away. Of course, a faked phone call - and that’s what it was. You can’t have an actual conversation from landline to Australia to the moon and back- does not prove we didn’t go to the moon. It is, however, in how it was presented, another glaring example of the unrealness of the whole show. You at least admit the production as shown to the world via Telescreens was substantially unreal, do you not? (Edit: by actual conversation, I mean, even based on what they claim are the capabilities and taking into mind our own experiences, a natural conversation with just a slight delay, such asxwas presented.)
You're only giving yourself away kyle talking nonsense.
Who said anything about a phone call from a landline to the moon? That's the whole point. It wasn't a call from a landline to the moon, it was a call from a landline that went to mission control and was patched to the moon.
If you're going to argue against phone calls then you need to argue against communications between mission control and the moon.
Why don't you regale us with your authoritative knowledge on that, kyle? Mission control to the moon - how was it alleged that it happened and how was that impossible?
Petra, read what i actually write please. And it supposedly went through Australia not Houston. Getting back to you with those questions.
Actually, I've read more carefully but I'm not sure what you're claiming. Are you claiming that what has been said is the call went by landline from Australia to the moon and that is impossible. If this is what you're saying, that is not the claim. The claim is that the call was transmitted via S-band radio frequencies from Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra to the moon.
Perhaps you know about S-band radio frequencies and how they couldn't travel from Honeysuckle Creek to the moon.
Pray, do explain how that's not possible, kyle ... or please tell how you know whatever it is that is said about the phone call wasn't possible. No doubt you're a great expert on S-band radio frequencies.
And before we go much further with this, to me the “phone call” is hardly the biggest deal. It again, is just more evidence of a “show.”
Oh shit, here we go again..
Only prompted by Blue Origin ... but also because my main interest is propaganda and mind control and the moon landings is the only real thing I'm aware of that has been made to look fake so it is of extreme importance. Flat Earth is a psyop of a similar type but in that case it's just a physical reality that is said to be different from what it is, not an event.
Hehe, I have learned my lesson and I am not going to debate it. Good luck with the comments, I guess it will be a wild one again!
Why on earth would "they" take a real thing and make it look fake?
Because they like to control our minds and making a real thing look fake is a perfect way to dupe those who tend to disbelieve them. They like to dupe us all, believers and disbelievers alike, and in the case of the disbelievers, in addition to duping them it helps undermine them when they call out the very many real lies.
okay, yeah, but as if going to the moon is not technically exacting enough, you think they actually did that, got everything right the first time, had the technical capability AND balls to video it and talk to the Astronauts along their journey live in front of a naive and enthralled audience, succeeded in all this risk, AND said oh by the way we need to make this look fake. I don't buy that.
When my sister tried to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job, I shouted her down with, "They wouldn't have had the confidence they could get away with it."
Do you see how your argument is of the same type?
This video may help: Did NASA really go to the Moon on the first try?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtUDHgPlWMI
They did it with ocean travel for thousands of years. If you can't think of one reason that the powers that are would make interplanetary space travel look fake you aren't really thinking.
Now just because they faked the tv moon landings doesn't mean there were real ones. But it is definitely how I would cover up space travel if I was getting started. And because there is such a huge gap in intelligence between people some will actually believe the landings were real (these people are ALL non technically minded and are no threat in developing their own systems. Then others (more technically minded) will believe they were impossible, simply because they see the obvious fakery and technical lies. Very few will automatically realise the first century or more of space travel as seen by most always had to be faked. Most of these people are systems thinkers and less the engineering types so are also very little threat
Our ruling class would not intentionally give away the secret to space travel on their first trip to the moon. Only the most nieve peasants would even consider that a possibility.
I think it’s you I have to thank, Petra, for bringing me out of my “space is fake” stupor.
I’m not quite at the point where I’m willing to say the moon landings fully happened as described, but I’m open minded to it. People like yourself and Dave McKeegan deserve credit for patiently explaining the frivolous noise and lies propagated by the “space is fake” brigade/cult.
One of the key evidence barriers both you and Dave have identified is the use of “point and declare” reasoning. An example of this is ‘pointing’ at shadows not being parallel and ‘declaring’ it to be because of artificial lighting, when the same effect is easily explained and recreated with similar camera optics and perspective.
This is why I like Dave McKeegan. His expertise with cameras has allowed him to personally debunk a lot of ‘point and declare’ nonsense.
Do keep this in mind as you get more acquainted with other topics, like 9/11 and the shenanigans over at cluesforum. Consider how much of that ‘evidence’ is, in fact, just more point-and-declare nonsense waiting for someone with Dave McKeegan’s patience to debunk it…
Oh my goodness, dbuser. I have a very poor memory so although I recognise your name I cannot remember what conversation we’ve had in the past. I cannot believe my argument has had an influence on someone. I keep thinking whatever side of the psyop fence I’m arguing on it’s like talking to a brick wall so thank you!
With regard to CF I think most of the stuff they say on 9/11 holds water (but not on the moon landings obviously). In fact, I’m most grateful to CF for being introduced to the idea of staged death and injury and learning that the footage of the building destructions was faked. Do you not agree with what they put forward on 9/11?
You and I have chatted on various platforms over the years. Pieceofmindful, Reddit, fakeologist, and a few others.
I use this username, and several others. I vary it for a few reasons, including to reduce the doxxing risks to myself and my family, but also to separate myself/prior associations from the argument being made — it’s the content of the argument that should matter, not who is saying it.
You certainly changed my perspective on space and in particular the moon landing missions. It was a combination of seeing you transparently and honestly journaling your own learning journey combined with the thorough approach to DD that swayed me — real independent research, checking facts, verifying (and falsifying) claims, and so on.
This is also why I made the point about Cluesforum (CF).
It has led many an earnest and curious researcher astray, myself included. I mention it to draw your attention to some fundamental issues with their analysis approach, and a cult-like following that extends to other platforms.
I could go into detail about how I got to this point, and the many conversations I have had with CF members on these issues. Little progress can be made persuading anyone attached to the foundational theories of CF, which is why I describe it as “cult-like”— it’s a forum for attracting and retaining pseudo-rational discussion masquerading as actual logical discourse.
EDIT: posted too soon — that new submit button keeps catching me out!
I won’t go into detail now, maybe later we can get into the weeds, but I’ll just point out a couple of things that convinced me that CF and Simon Shack in particular are either knowingly or unknowingly propagating nonsense.
Firstly, I have firsthand experience of the 3/11 Japan Tohoku M9.0 earthquake, having lived in Japan for many years. CF did a post on that event and the footage that came out immediately in the aftermath, declaring most of it to be fake, and they used the same reasoning as for the 9/11 footage that they also claim to be fake.
I didn’t stumble across that post until many years later, sometime during the Covid years.
This is what tipped me off to CF being largely full of charlatans. I personally visited locations shown in the Tohoku ‘fake’ footage myself a week or two after the earthquake and tsunami and verified the destruction for myself. The claims these idiots were making were outright wrong, but they were all ‘seeing’ the same ‘artifacts and anomalies’ that were, according to them, dead giveaways of composite and CGI imagery.
Except, the videos they were referring to were all real, unless one tries to argue (without evidence) that a shady and incredibly capable government agency was able to prep a whole bunch of fake imagery that also happens to actually line up with real locations and their actual destruction after a gigantic earthquake and tsunami.
Utterly preposterous.
So, I went back to look at the 9/11 posts and they were all full of similar reasoning. “The video shows the same black lines around the towers” and “look at the pixelation in this video Vs this video”, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of comments along those lines yourself.
Their worst and most common offense is using point-and-declare reasoning: “look at this video, it looks wrong to me” then all nodding along with how sketchy it looks.
You will never see an equivalent known-good video of the same vintage and type, with similar lighting etc, used as a baseline to definitely show these supposed ‘artifacts’ — ever. Not even once in the entire forum has Simon or any of his sycophantic followers bothered to test these theories to see if they actually withstand scrutiny.
This is a huge tell as to their thought process and also possibly to their motivations with respect to actually determining the truth of the events of 9/11, and in particular an honest analysis of the imagery.
Very interesting about Japan. Unfortunately, I think it’s easy for genuine people to seem like agents because they get a lot of things wrong due to their biases and tendency to the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have an identical twin sister who disbelieves everything and will say about anything and everything, “That looks fake,” but I know for a fact she’s not an agent (or only an unwitting one) :). I have to say I don’t think Simon is an agent just a victim of strong bias and D-K … but he could be. One thing is that I’ve applied to be a member a few times but never get given membership and I can see that members have been banned whose comments don’t seem indicative of people who would deserve that treatment, not to mention that I’m a little suspicious of the “need” to ban anyone.
With regard to the building destructions, I went to the footage shown on YT directly and it clearly is faked - which only makes the most perfect sense - and even Ground Zero images are clearly faked too … however, you may well be right about some of the claims Simon makes with regard to the buildings. Rather than rely on other people’s analyses of fakery when I’m not really up on photography, I like to look for irrefutable examples, eg, in the footage of the South Tower destruction we have the Chrysler Building peekabooing behind the Twin Towers when, in reality, it’s 50 blocks uptown on 42nd street, just a speck in the distance in photos taken from One World Observatory. I can’t help it - it really makes me chuckle. And then we have the vantage point move from West St to Liberty St as we see the building come down - another laugh.
In the case of WTC-7 it’s interesting - it’s only in hindsight that I recognise a sense of awareness that the movement of the mechanical penthouse at the top prior to destruction didn’t seem right.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
All I’ll say for now is, reserve judgment on 9/11 imagery.
I do agree that some of it is likely tampered with or even outright faked, but certainly not all of it.
The CF stance is that all extant imagery is fake, every last video and photo published into the public consciousness. The members of CF have never, to my knowledge, agreed that any image or footage of the towers burning or coming down is genuine.
The main reason for this refusal to accept any such imagery as real is Simon’s ‘smokescreen’ theory — he contends that an enormous smokescreen completely obscured the towers on the day, it’s one of his foundational arguments.
Unfortunately for Simon, there is no evidence of such a smokescreen. He merely invokes it, alongside imagery of the huge dust clouds that followed their destruction, so he can proceed with the other main premise: all imagery must therefore be fake, because there was a huge smokescreen.
It’s classic circular reasoning.
There is no evidence of that smokescreen, unless you first internalize that all extant imagery of the towers on fire and coming down is fake, therefore “maybe a giant smokescreen really was in place, but nobody captured it.”
One idea serves the other.
It’s extremely silly, but it’s also the prevailing belief on CF.
You've just given me a brainwave. Your doubt about military obscurants has made me think of a magic trick I just saw and how it explains what they could have done.
One person tells the other they can read their mind.
Here it is - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B6jj4TXaXiA
So what they could have done was used the military obscurants to hide the destructions and then run the footage as if it was taken AFTER the destructions - I seem to remember very thick smoke. I mean when you destroy a building loads of smoke and gas is produced anyway. If people are filming how are they to say, "This is the footage of the buildings coming down." It could be footage taken after.
I replied to the wrong comment about the photo map and the smokescreen theory, interested to read your thoughts on it though.
To keep up this theme of commenting on the wrong reply, I’ll just leave here my own pet theory about what happened on the day…
CDI (aka the Loizeaux family) is a demolition company that does most if not all major demolitions in the US. I posit that it was CDI that carried out the destruction of the towers and other WTC complex buildings, including WTC7, and this is why.
CDI has stated in at least a couple of documentaries that the reason demolitions are done ‘bottom up’ instead of ‘top down’ is not for technical reasons. The timing of the charges is the same, all the infrastructure is the same. The reason is purely down to safety and cleanup, which also equates to cost.
That is, they can do top-down demolitions if they want to — they just don’t because bottom-up is better for almost every regular client.
Every client, that is, except the people behind 9/11. Presumably that client actually wanted a spectacular, visually unique and messy demolition for the TV cameras, and was willing to sacrifice a certain amount of safety to get exactly what they wanted.
This is what CDI delivered. The twin towers were evidently both demolished top-down, creating the most unimaginable TV scenes and cleanup operation (all funded by the taxpayer, no big deal).
WTC7 was demolished in the conventional manner, because it would have made no sense at all to do that one top-down.
Just by having two different demolition techniques at the same event would be enough to cause endless speculation about the means of destruction.
Few if any viewers had ever seen a top-down demolition before 9/11 so there was nothing to compare it with. This is what fueled all the outlandish destruction theories, like those from Judy Wood, the mini nukes, etc.
This is my own theory, I haven’t seen anyone else post this, and I welcome your thoughts on it too :)
With regard to the 9/11 buildings, completely independently of anything that CF says you can see for yourself. I never would have looked through the fakery lens if it hadn't been for CF but nevertheless, in the main, I simply went to the imagery myself and used what I looked at first-hand. Also, even before I looked which was actually quite a long time after I saw it first mentioned on CF, the notion that it would be faked struck me as highly likely ... cos I know they just love fakin' it as much as possible.
Probably the main reason that the majority of 9/11 analysts don't even think of fakery is that they came down in broad daylight where everyone could see them ... so how possible to fake?
We cannot know what they did to hide the actual destructions (if they did, in fact, hide them) but I think military obscurants is not a bad theory - you think there would be film of it? but there probably is film of it but people think it's from AFTER the destructions. It makes no difference though what they did or whether somehow they just managed to stop people filming them or managed to get rid of any film - who knows? - I think the evidence is clear they faked them.
THE GOLDILOCKS ANALOGY
I think what they gave us in the twin towers and WTC-7 was two impossible extremes to represent controlled demolition because the real thing would give itself away too much. The propaganda is very clever because you think, "Well the twin towers are a little odd but WTC-7 looks like a PERFECT implosion" ... but I really don't think any of the building destructions represent reality.
The twin towers’ imagery equates to Father Bear: It’s a top down destruction where it seems the building is being destroyed floor by floor. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, etc, but as explained on CF is against reality - I admit I don't really understand what is said but it seems to make sense.
https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=802
WTC-7 equates to Mama Bear: Seemingly, the only weakening is at the base which causes the building to sink ever so gracefully with no signs of destruction until the end.
The reality - Baby Bear (just right): Very tall steel frame buildings aren’t destroyed floor by floor but we may speculate that in the case of both the twin towers and WTC-7 charges weren’t laid only at the base but also at intervals as we see in the demolition of Mina Plaza, Abu Dhabi in 2020. Assuming this to be the case, if we’d been shown the real destructions, the ejection of explosive material at intervals would have been too obvious.
Mina Plaza destruction - https://youtu.be/hCxKGjXUjhs
If you wish to entertain the smokescreen theory, this is a large chunk of the ‘fake’ evidence to eliminate:
https://archdisk.com/911/photomap.html
View on a real computer and tap/click the ‘full screen’ / broken square icon on top right to see the legend and photo timeline categories.
So, all of those photos (not to mention the videos, whose events align with these photos) are all fake, all of it, OR…
Most of it is fake, except a tiny percentage that can be retrospectively reconciled with the CF smokescreen theory via a timeline ‘magic trick’ of claiming post-destruction imagery as pre-destruction, OR…
Most of those thousands of photos are, in fact, real, and they reconcile with the main events captured on video, namely the manner in which the buildings were destroyed.
It quickly becomes a numbers game.
The odds of 9/11 being all fakery, and nobody faithfully capturing the real events of the day, including the smokescreen that could not possibly have instantly materialised, it falls close to zero chance upon scrutiny.
There is far too much evidence that aligns, from far too many different sources to simply handwave all of it away as “it’s all fake, and a smokescreen explains it”.
There is little to no evidence that can even charitably be described as showing a smokescreen gigantic enough to (eventually — not instantly) fully encapsulate the twin towers from all eyes in one of the largest population centers in the world.
It's been clear to many of us that people like Sibrel are agents supporting the critical narrative. What narrative? The ISS, Mars and Blue Origin fakery for starters. It's a lot like Assange's defence of the official 9/11 narrative. Sibrel and Assange take up the sceptic space on selected issues only. They win cred to spend cred. The globsters lose a few points to win the game.
Anyone doing due diligence would know that there are numerous doubters of the Four Horsemen who also deny or question the moon landings. Those whistle-blowers tell their biggest fibs on other subjects because the moon landings are such lame fakery they don't have to distort much there.
But we've been here before, haven't we? It's down to whoever gets to say "due diligence" first, isn't it?
Now, if anyone out there wants to disagree with me, make sure you have done your due diligence...and I'll decide what's due diligence here. I said it first!
"Those whistle-blowers tell their biggest fibs on other subjects because the moon landings are such lame fakery they don't have to distort much there."
They don't have to distort much there? They say not a single word of truth. If astronauts really didn't land on the moon why wouldn't they say ONE thing that was true on the subject? How are they able to ONLY say lies if astronauts really didn't land on the moon? Don't you see how it makes no sense?
Nobody flies to the moon on a permanent vomit comet which then deposits a junk pile that fails to disturb the dust. Yeah, the same dust which is greatly disturbed by golf clubs and a 1960s moke. The same dust which defenders ask us to peer for when we don't get sucked into the no-crater narrative.
The controlled whistle-blowers do tell the truth to a degree about these matters. But nobody in-the-pay is to question whether the human body can function without something as basic as gravity. Because that would impede all future Mars nonsense.
I'll say it here. Your blood circulation, lymph system, digestion and respiration cannot function properly for longer than a few moments without something as basic as gravity, (or whatever determines up/down on whatever shape of earth you fancy). That's the thing we are being distracted from in a myriad of ways. Space travel is another "trans" imposture, maybe the biggest one.
Without even testing it or having evidence of any kind, physics sufficiently explains the dust ‘issue’.
In a low-gravity zero-atmosphere environment, all particles whether large or small will follow a parabolic trajectory if disturbed. They don’t go up “into the air” to mingle and later settle, because there is no air for that to happen.
This is why there is no (or very little) dust on the feet of the lander, according to physics.
I so appreciate your defence of the reality of the moon landings, dbuser, otherwise I'd be completely on my own here. Thank you.
Alas, they went on to play golf and drive a mini-moke kicking up heaps of dust on the moon...just like they were on earth! (Not that the parabolic trajectory disturbing without disturbing makes much sense to me. Maybe I need to watch more Dave videos.)
The Apollo 17 lander, the one that looked like a paint-sprayer, had its take off-filmed and tracked by some mysterious camera on the ground. There was a bunch of dust and sparks. Mind you, that could well have been a miniature, as budgets were shrinking by 17.
The rickety pile of junk used for 11 was likely life-sized. It was clearly made from bits of piping or rods, warped metal, cloth, foil and sticky tape...although I'm sure someone can show (maybe physics itself!) that it could have moved without falling down and apart. It was quite dustless. Maybe they had to be so gentle with the poor old junk pile they weren't even game to broom some dust about its curtain-rod legs.
Kubrick indeed! Whoever was in charge of the moon productions wouldn't have been allowed to make an episode of The Flying Nun.
Enough flippancy. I have no more sarcasm to give. The real problem here is that humans NEED a thing called GRAVITY and need it constantly. Space travel is not just a lie, it is a TRANS AGENDA. We need to focus on that.
The rooster tails from the buggy follow a parabola as expected, they do not behave like they would in an atmosphere.
The other comments are point-and-declare assertions, basically your opinion.
What about the footprints, the dust did move leaving the print so lander should leave bigger prints and mechanically the dust should move, that's why craters have raised rims.
Not sure I understand how photographed boot prints of compressed regolith relate either to ‘dust’ on the lander, or to unphotographed lander feet impressions.
It means mechanical force can move dust, not only whether there is an atmosphere or not.
We can't see the prints left by the lander as the lander doesn't move for us to see them.
Can I suggest you pose your questions to people more knowledgeable than both of us or to AI. Of course, it doesn't mean you have to agree with the responses but doing due diligence means at least asking the question.
Ask yourself: What do I know about the moon landings?
Clearly you don't know nearly as much as Dave McKeegan seems to know at least. He can explain all manner of things such as how the landers were filmed ascending from the moon - he can give all the details of the camera that was used, how they ensured that it tracked the lander as it rose, etc, why it failed to do a good job the first two times (it was used 15-17). If you can debunk this explanation fine go ahead but I think the problem with sceptics is that that know so very, very little but are willing to place a lot of value on their doubts about what they think should / would / can / could / must have happened.
Why would fake AI (you shouldn't call a LLP an AI as its not) be an authority? Its a regurgitation of the controlled narrative from what's been allowed to exist on the web. The other day I showed how the entire Tehran episode of it being a 5G test site in March 2020 had been erased from the web.
Dave repeats bogus blah blah repeatedly. I watched a few of those vids and not impressed with him at all. Against someone like Benjamin Owens, he'd get shredded. Anyway, gotta move on...
I'm just saying mechanical force can move dust, I don't need to know anything about moon landings or appeal to authority to know that, you are concluding I am anti-moon landing from this simple statement.
I don't believe this stuff about craters being made by rocks from space, at least not the ones where I live. Its more likely the result of heat internally forcing itself up, like a hot gaseous bubble from below, and some burst and others don't.
Yes, The gas bubbles create salt burps in succession, eventually creating the crater.
I've been waiting on an asteroid or comet to hit & decimate earth nearly my whole life! It's ALL a LIE!
On earth I can agree. In space, well anyone can see meteors burning up in the earth’s atmosphere on a clear night-meaning millions do so on earth every year. So it must be fact they hit the surface of the moon. Well maybe some internal heat did/does too. I’ve seen my share of volcanic craters living in Japan, they’re all on top of volcanic mountains, none of them look like moon craters (assuming the photos are real-though you can see the larger ones with a home telescope)
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=volcanic+craters+japan&ia=images&iax=images
these dont look like the moon’s craters
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=craters+on+the+moon&ia=images&iax=images
"The controlled whistle-blowers do tell the truth to a degree about these matters."
Please give a single instance of truth from the four horsemen on the moon landings.
dust
Have you done due diligence on whatever you and the four horsemen think is anomalous about the dust? Why not look at what Dave McKeegan says on the dust in the last video of his I posted. It's quite fascinating actually. I post the link below.
https://youtu.be/HKL_ThQQ_VA
Petra, we've done this before. If you care to remember, you sent me to the site with the goth-chick who changed the subject to "no crater", a really blatant shift. After which, I made it very clear that there was no disturbance of the dust under the junk pile while golf clubs and mokes disturbed plenty of dust. You then insisted you could see dust on the landing pads, I doubted.
Me, if someone tells me there was a rocket engine pumping on some loose dust, I'll expect to see lots of disturbance impossible to ignore. My only question is why the fakers didn't bother. Were they worried about knocking over the junk pile called a lunar lander?
What you need to do is wonder about the trans thing. Have you ever questioned the notion of human bodies in space without gravity? Start there, forget clever Dave and tricky Sibrel and all the distractors. I've spent time with those guys. They're agents who reveal to conceal.
The globsters want us aspiring to trans everything. Space is a big part of that.
And please stop saying "due diligence" every time you want to win a point. It's not helpful.
Very good point about physiology!
WTF has any of this space stuff got to do with 'trans agenda'?!!
As for the gravity thing - there is gravity on the moon.
Second, although you are correct about humans not really functioning in zero-g, this is where the secret space programme comes in, using rotation to enable centrifugal force, as first described by Tsiolkovsky at the beginning of the 20th century.
There is no gravity on the way to the moon. Got it?
So pleased to hear about a secret space program. It's even been described. Described!
Space stuff is all trans agenda. All. If you think the moon landings, Mars Rover, Elon's Upholstery-in-Space and the International Spray Salon are real you may not see that agenda. So baby steps.
You didn't answer my question about WTF this has to do with 'trans agenda'. Please be specific.
Sorry about that.
When someone tells you that humans function just fine without gravity, they are messing with your human identity. When they tell you your destiny is the stars - Mars first! - they are messing with your connection to earth, race and kin. When they say we need a desolation like Mars to continue our species there is, of course, a great green message behind that absurdity, but also a message that humans just need something, anything underfoot...and maybe a stuttering autist like Elon Musk to guide us with superior intelligence until all intelligence is artificial, and thus truly superior.
So much empty fakery is also an opportunity for money-grabbing, but the agenda is there. It is soon to climax with the alien fakery. And do you think aliens won't be much cooler than humans? M...M...Musk will tell you how c...c...cool they are.
They actually started this waaay back in time. Take the Victorian era for example... High collars to hide the adams apple. "Women" couldn't show their ankles... Only because REAL women have tree trunk sturdy ankles & men have slenderer, athletic ankles...Not cankles.
Bathing suits were prohibited on beaches due to the Adonis belt which is a dead giveaway for a tranny. Look into the obvious trans men as presidential "wives".
Then MEN invented the bra to disguise the giggle of REAL breasts.
Nowadays there is the debate over what a woman REALLY is.
Puh-lease. & the mutilation of private parts. ai does not "identify" as a gender, so this is an obvious tactic into bringing us into the new age of melding man & machine where there will be no gender & to have "autism" is to be admired.... but ai will "fix" that.... Just line up for these shots like a good robo-being.
What Robert is saying lines up perfectly with the ai transgender/non gender, bender gender agender.
Does Dave McKeegan discusses the revelation that it would take 8 rockets, maybe 24, filled with gazillion tons of fuel, to get there?
https://youtu.be/C4i8VPiyFvw?si=_sr_UI6o59uL_4uR&t=431
Elon is very cryptic about the moon, giving answers in a double-negative, after pointing out the obvious flaws, like the above video. I don't see it addressed by Dave. Maybe its not the silver bullet, idk. Would like to hear the rebuttal.
I think everyone should get their own belief about these things, as none of us really knows for sure what they are lying about and what they are not. The moon, being plasmic, also has the map of this concave realm on its surface.
I agree with you on the first two, the Challenger being a psyop and those saying sats are fake a controlled opp -- easy not to care that they are launching laser sat-to-device if its fake!
The '60s gave us three terrific Mason sleight of hand tricks. The fake assassination of JFK, then the swapping out of Paul McCarthy after 9/11/66, and finally landing on the moon.
I gave it 50 years then have resorted to 'prove it' and the latest bullshit video by India makes me launch at it even more. 1972 and counting. That's 55 years now. Are you willing to take this belief with you to the grave without going again? Elon says we are going to Mars in two years as well. Could be, as the moon in my take is plasma and the planets are solid. Space is real, but its all inside.
One of Elon's jobs is to lie about going to space. He's obviously better at that than Bezos is, but that's like saying I'm better at basketball than Danny Devito.
No one is going to Mars, doesn't matter if it's solid when you can't even get there in the first place.
If you go back, each decade, there's another rich man in the club claiming that they will go to the Moon. Remember Ted Turner, Branson and his claims, all conveniently forgotten... someone will follow Musk and keep it going. I don't believe it either.
Petra is the only one that believes it
Millions upon millions of people believe the moon landings. I seem to be the only one of hardcore psyop analysts who believe them. Doesn’t make me wrong though. Numbers of people believing anything doesn’t mean anything.
Its been about 1/3rd of the population that has consistently realized the moon landing is fake in polling. Am surprised a bit that more haven't yet realized it.
We both know full well, Jerome, that numbers of people believing anything is completely and utterly meaningless.
This isn't a good comeback Petra, millions believe in easily proven fake covid virus.
But that's my point. Numbers of people believing something doesn't mean anything but I'm certainly not the only person who believes the moon landings - just stating that fact - not to imply that it means something, it's just a fact.
That's not Dave McKeegan, that's Bart Sibrel, one of the four horsemen of the moon landings hoax psyop.
Ah, my mistake, I somehow deleted the "Does" to lead the first sentence question.
I know that, I was asking you whether dave addressed the claim in the time stamped video, and its not Bart, but a different researcher.
I don’t know and I don’t care - why don’t you ask AI or put it on a forum like Quora. It’s up to you to do the due diligence, not me. I’ve made my case. Why should I believe what anyone says about tonnage? How do I know what they say is accurate?
Why should anyone believe NASA who consistently lies? You take apart one of their lies, and digest entirely another. There's no consistency in your DD.
What is your response to the four horsemen of the moon landings hoax psyop not being picked up by any disbeliever, Jerome, as being agents and not having one word of truth about the moon landings between them?
I don't follow this topic enough to know how to respond as I don't see your presentation of them being agents. And what does that mean? That they are getting paid, or make money off of the topic? If that's all it is, then we have to dismiss all the NASA employed as well. It wouldn't surprise me to see them being agents some how, we know how psyops need controlled opps to direct the right questions to the narrative.
I linked to the post on them being agents.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
This is your strawman. You choose some controlled opps to take down instead of making an argument. Instead of challenging the idea, you challenge the messenger and prop up a space boy shill in Dave. Overall, a very weak argument.
Please give a lie that Dave puts forward.
What I'm specifically doing is "not taking down controlled ops" but pointing out that no disbeliever has noticed that the Four Horsemen do not say a single word of truth between them that refutes the reality of the moon landings. If you cannot appreciate that ...
-- 1. automatically this clear fact means that disbelievers have not done due diligence
-- 2. this fact presents a puzzle for the "they didn't go" hypothesis because we have to wonder how it would be possible NOT to say a single word of truth if astronauts really didn't land on the moon
... so be it, Jerome
That's what controlled opps do! They put together errors in order to discredit the truth of the topic.
"Please give a lie that Dave puts forward." -- that we landed on the moon. It's plasma, no one is landing on the moon. Look into Vibes of Cosmos for a more interesting and factual (empirically) topic about the moon
The four horsemen of the moon landing hoaxes have been picked up as controlled opposition by millions of people. Every single intelligent person automatically assumes any promoted opposition is controlled. In fact being promoted is part of the control and therefore 100 Percent proof on its own.
Now I am first to admit 95 plus Percent of people are very stupid. And on the internet (excluding controlled opposition) making comments in the conspiracy space it's well over 99 percent.
In order for any validity in claiming the Four Horsemen are controlled opposition, falsity in what they say needs to be identified. I have seen no mention of any falsity in what they say put forward in relation to the moon landings by any disbeliever. Can you point me to where it is.
Nukes/cold war and rock and roll music invasion were also ongoing big psyops in the 60s. All these served to distract from the war in SE Asia. They even call it the "Vietnam War" to distract from the larger war and genocide carried-out by their front men, as usual.
I believe Dave McGowan wrote a lot about this...
It was also the last of the Freemasons' heyday, when they could pull it off en masse. But they still make a generational push with most of those narratives.
It's not possible to prove a negative, but that's not my job, it's NASA's job to prove they went but they can't because they burned their notes
The proof of going is in many, many things such as thousands of photographs and footage betraying the alienness of the lunar conditions, the machines used to go to the moon, etc.
Notes would be the least compelling kind of evidence.
They drown you in evidence, you just can't see it ... and look for completely superfluous stuff of zero importance.
The dust.
Have you done due diligence on the subject, Robert, or are you just listening to what Bart says. He's the expert, is he?
Just a couple questions. Was Gus Grissom a critic of the state of the program and was he and his crew incinerated? How long has it been since men have gone to the moon? Is our technology better or worse than it was in the 70’s? How would you describe the affect of the crew of Apollo 11 during their post mission press conference? Thanks in advance for actually answering the questions I have asked in a direct and sincere manner.
Guess what, Kyle? The press conference anomaly is looking less anomalous.
There really wasn't any contradiction about seeing stars.
The question about stars related to when all three astronauts were in the spacecraft and saw the eclipse of the sun by the moon causing a solar corona.
Patrick Moore: "When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
Neil Armstrong responded: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see."
Michael Collins said to Neil: "I don't remember seeing any."
So after Neil Armstrong said he didn't recall WHAT stars they saw in the solar corona, Michael Collins simply said that he didn't remember seeing any. There's no contradiction. NA's "don't remember WHAT stars" does not particularly imply he saw any stars at all.
Please watch the short segment on the press conference. It is quite enlightening. Dave McKeegan also address the "muted" element.
https://youtu.be/hLXHrQ1Keac?si=P4HgPs7onQu7uxuA&t=1624
Sorry, but you started this again😄. What’s with the quarantining for “viruses” upon return? You recognize the virus lie,no?
It dawns on me we haven’t mentioned Apollo 13. Is that story legit?
And while we’re on the subject of “spam in a can.” We didn’t get to hear Aldrin, but tell me he wasn’t and is increasingly so, a wackado? Armstrong…was hardly ever heard from afterward. Glenn, the supposed boy scout, who really was a huge scum bag they made Senator for life. And Grissom, they allowed Wolfe to turn him into a joke.
I find that guy you keep linking to annoying as fuck. I can’t stand the salesmanship in his voice … and here, he doesn’t let the Astro Nots speak for themselves…weird. Also, can’t the question itself come off as planted - an explanation for the hoi poloi why no stars were visible?
Kyle, you really need to do some research. If Dave annoys you then simply look up textual comments. They were on the moon in lunar daytime. Do you see stars in the sky on earth in the day? Ignorance is what makes people disbelieve the moon landings. Plain ignorance.
Instead of wasting time trying to find anomalies from a place of total ignorance LEARN something.
So, Dave is of the same kind as Stew Peters and Alex Jones, just a different variety. As to “lunar day,” how come the astrophysicist didn’t know stars can’t be seen during “lunar day?” Or The whack, Buzz Aldrin? Did any of the Space Men say, “Hey, Man. It was lunar day.” So, they couldn’t see stars but they could see the beautful Blue Marble. Okey doke.
I take it you bieve everything we are told about the moon and the cosmos. So, the moon rotates and orbits in just such a way that the face always is towards earth. And it just happens to be…what, one fortieth the size if yhe sun and one fortieth the distance to the sun, so it just APPEARS to be the same size as the sun. That’s what you believe, right? How to you believe these wondrous circumstances came to be? You do admit, in order to believe in the moon landings you have to accept mainstream cosmology, yes?
Neither the Blue Marble nor the Earthrise photos were taken from the lunar surface. For more:
https://chatgpt.com/share/681185f0-3008-800a-907f-c619dcd3ddca
What you're focusing on are things you don't understand well. When I started trying to determine the truth about the moon landings I focused on what was tangible, eg, the first thing to start persuading me that they were real was the authentic sound of the audio communications. The asinine argument against the reality of the audio communications is the dismissive:
--- "Oh, they could be faked."
What disbelievers really mean when they say: "could be faked" is "they could be faked without detection" - an entirely different phenomenon, however, although I didn't realise it at the time there is 1,000 hours of communications recorded for the moon landings which no disbeliever has bothered to acquaint themselves with and when I tell them 1,000 hours! their asinine response to that is:
--- "Have you listened to them to determine if there's no fakery?"
You seriously cannot get a more stupid response:
--- the 1,000 hours is purported evidence and the burden of proof is on the person wishing to claim fakery to prove that there is some. Of course, no disbeliever has bothered to try to do that.
--- How would it help if it was me who listened to it - disbelievers would have to take my word for it and they probably wouldn't, would they?
Unfortunately the word "could" can be quite misleading.
There's "could" that refers to a possibility rooted in reality and there is "could" that is wildly hypothetical.
If there's evidence that some of the people who allegedly died on 9/11 are made up then to say that more than have been analysed "could" be faked is rooted in reality. We have the example of made-up people - nothing says more couldn't be made up, unless of course we have evidence of their reality - and in some cases we certainly do, however, unless we do very detailed research it would be difficult to determine who's real and who's not ... but it doesn't matter we have no clear evidence that anyone died or was seriously injured and that is all we need to say that death and injury were staged (with the allowance for a few exceptions).
There is zero evidence of extensive communications of any kind that have been faked / scripted so the claim that the communications could have been faked (and we need to add "without detection") is wildly hypothetical. There is no evidence of it.
So the claim, "the audio communications could be faked without detection" is not a factual claim. There is nothing that suggests they could be, there is zero fact in that claim. Do you get it? Zero fact.
Plus why on earth would they fake so many hours when they really don't need to push any old nonsense at us to get the majority to believe it? Seriously, THINK!
Kyle, what you keep wanting to do is argue from your current font of vast ignorance. Please do some research. I will not respond to any more questions until you show that you've done some research and if you believe something to be true that supports fakery, why don't you run it by ChatGPT first. Of course, I'm not saying you should BELIEVE what it says - I certainly don't believe anything it says on 9/11 - it's just the process of checking that your thinking is correct instead of wasting my time with nonsense.
By “Blue Marble” I simply meant the Earth. And you are not being intellectually honest. If you can’t see stars during “lunar day” why would an astrophysicist ask about seeing stars? Plus, was every supposed mission conducted during “lunar day?” But, you know, I have asked you a number of questions you just avoid, suggesting they are irrelevant. Like I said before, maybe we discern truth and reality in different ways. But you thought that irrelevant as well. Anyways, until next time.
I believe Gus Grissom was a critic.
You can work that out yourself.
Our technology is better.
I’d say their behaviour was strangely muted.
Thanks. Do these set of facts/observations argue for the truth or falsity of the narrative?
They have no relevance in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the reality of the moon landings. I recommend Dave's videos on "not going again."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XmxDea3JhE&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81usIJu8R4I
I got to “much more expensive, and stopped. You do know fiat currency is created out of thin air? And excess wealth and productivity is purposefully destroyed via warfare? No?
You gotta wonder where nasa is actually shoving these billions if not trillions of dollars now-- some off-realm elohim stash idk
So contradictory facts have no relevance? I see your problem.
They're not contradictory facts. They are facts that can be accommodated by the "they went" hypothesis, they don't contradict it, they are possible. There could be a multitude of reasons why the three guys were muted in the press conference. Maybe there'd been some kind of argument prior, maybe they had discovered something there weren't meant to. Who knows? But a strangely muted press conference doesn't mean they didn't go.
I gave you just a few strange facts and curious occurrences. There are scores more. And they were just muted. They gave “inappropriate”answers. Big difference.
Possible in a “bizarro world.” Ok, we live in a “bizzaro world,” but in this instance you don’t get to use that in this argument.
The cost is a very weak opening argument. As I mentioned above both Turner and Branson obv had the money, and put their cred on the line that they would do it. He does address the fuel, but not the tonnage (if you've done your DD and looked at the video I linked above) so no answer on that huge tonnage elephant in the room. Weak arguments overall, just making stuff up. "Its already been done" is pathetic. 55 years, not 50 haha. And how long will you hold out Petra? 80 years?
OK, second one. lol, he realized how pathetic his first one was. "Its politics" haha, ah, same argument. Why didn't Turner or Branson make it then? It wasn't money stopping them.
Have you addressed the tonnage with AI or with Apollo enthusiasts? DD means that when an argument is presented, you look to see if there’s any argument against it. I read dozens and dozens of seeming anomalies put forward by the disbelievers … and then I checked to see if there was a reasonable explanation … and there always was.
What proves without a shadow of a doubt that disbelievers have not done due diligence is that not one of them has picked up that the four horsemen of the moon landings psyop do not say a single word of truth between them on the subject.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
If you think that doesn’t prove that disbelievers haven’t done due diligence please explain why, Jerome.
I didn’t pick it up myself, rather I PREDICTED it … and nothing supports an hypothesis better than prediction. When I could see that talking to my sister and a couple of disbeliever friends was like talking to a brick wall, the thought occurred to me that the first person to say we didn’t land on the moon, Bill Kaysing, might be an agent whose purpose was to both dupe anticipated disbelievers of the rather implausible achievement - because any chance to dupe they take, especially of the disbelievers - and undermine them when they called out the many real lies. And sure enough, Bill Kaysing, agent, leapt from the Wikipedia page like an evil-jack-in-the-box.
Much later I discovered the BBC drama, The News-Benders (1968), served as predictive programming targeting the disbelievers for the moon landings hoax lie.
I was just asking if in the 1000's of hours of your fanboy Dave, if you came across his DD on it and could point to it, as that's the authority you believe. I really thought this was satire, lol.
The great American philosopher of the early 21st century, Judge Judith Sheindlin, summed it up best, “If it doesn’t make sense, it ain’t true.”
Actually, I totally disagree. Something may not make sense because you lack the knowledge to understand why it, in fact, makes perfect sense. I emphasised doing due diligence in my article. Please look at Dave's videos on why astronauts haven't gone again that I linked to in my comment above.
Even before I had taken a single look at the moon landings to determine if they happened or not I didn't think the "not going again" argument was compelling. Since I have looked I realise the argument: "if we'd gone we would have gone again falls into the logical fallacy, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
I completely disagree with that. Name another comparable experience in the history of mankind and technology?
Baloney I believe is the word.
Bert would agree, I am sure. He always agreed with JJ.
Gus and the crew were asphyxiated, not incinerated.
The Apollo 1 fire/murder is of course a very important aspect of the whole thing - Grissom, as the most senior astronaut, would've commanded the first lunar landing mission. Clearly he couldn't be trusted. Either that or he couldn't be mind-controlled adequately. From what I have read about Grissom's personality, he is really not the kind of person who would've gone along with a fake.
There is obviously a lot of misdirection involved in all this stuff, especially in keeping people arguing about whether or not people went to the moon.
This sort of stuff distracts people from understanding the real physics (see Miles Mathis) and most importantly the implications of that real physics, which is the secret space programme (Caesium-137 & electrogravitics etc.). Other implications of real physics are effectively free energy - if everyone can have free energy then the cabal cannot control the commodities market and therefore the global economy and therefore people (cf. Kissinger's infamous statement about global control).
This is the reason they had to prevent knowledge of real physics (most likely starting with Einstein).
It goes a bit deeper than this though when we consider (far more powerful) extraterrestrial intelligences and the cabal's certain knowledge of them (see SETI & the Brookings Report), as well as the ETI's attitude towards them, and this planet - i.e. quarantine for obvious self-defensive purposes. You have to consider the psychological effect of the cabal not being able to deny the existence of bigger fish, and knowing they will never be allowed out of this solar system. See also incoming asteroid Apophis (impact day Friday 13/4/2029 - 2+2+9 also equals 13/4). If the cabal do not want Apophis to hit then they may have to use their unofficial space programme's capabilities to divert it, thus exposing themselves.
As for your 'four horsemen' - this is where I do get a little angry because by making Dave McGowan out to be an agent you are seriously trying to discredit the other (more important) stuff he wrote about, namely 'Programmed to Kill', which is a brilliant and devastating and seriously disturbing introduction into the truly evil stuff that goes on - MK-Ultra, the child abuse network, deliberately induced multiple personality disorder via obscene torture of children, programmed serial killers (you need to think about that one versus your 'it's all fake/staged' argument - the 'fakery' explanation being another classic misdirection). Sure, it may be that as a result of Programmed to Kill Dave was given the proverbial 'offer you can't refuse', but that absolutely does not discredit all that important stuff he wrote about. So while you bang on about 'fake events' and 'psyops', how about sparing a thought for the millions of child victims of the Network?
How come people who accuse Dave McGowan of being an agent never seem to talk about Programmed to Kill? One of the most vitally important books of the last fifty years which should be a must-read for every member of the conspiracy theory subculture.
Here you go again Petra with your "moon landings happened" push. Why on why? I should know it's to get comments and publicity cos you know it's a hot topic. I shouldnt fall for it but I'm still a baby truther in many ways so here I am telling you to STOP!! NOBODY went to the moon - it is NOT a solid object. Soooo much evidence to show this. I like so many of your articles then you go and do this and show me that you just can't be a real psyop detective. I hereby promise to make no more comments on any of your provocative moon posts.
Mary, while I may be pretty much on my own among the truthers saying the moon landings happened, you're a bit of an outlier yourself saying it's not a solid object. I've seen someone else say it but I think most anti-moon landing people think the moon is solid ... or at least they don't deny it is. So you see, there's simply no agreement on anything!
The beautiful girl (a model) with long hair and manicured fingernails with extensions is clearly PR of some strange type, considering the ship looks like a man's thing....a fertility ritual!
Yes Proton! You nailed it! Katy Perry is kicking off her Satanic whirled tour. The Patches on their uniforms are uteruses with fallopian tubes, so it makes sense to send a bunch of parasitic witch wombs up in a penis shaped "probe" to ritually impregnate the matrix womb.
"Women in Space (Low Earth Orbit aka: The Katy Perry LIFETIMES TOUR kick-off promotional event of fearless females"
Thanks and hope all is well with you.
Gravity is fake, but Covid is real.
for many, yes.