You're making an assertion based on precisely zero evidence. The thing about evidence is that to evaluate it you need to actually look at it ... and you can't ignore any ... such as every prominent naysayer hasn't said a single word that refutes the moon landings and they are all clearly agents.
and the recordings themselves are proof of nothing other than they are a recording between two men.
The fact that the men 'practiced' and simulated the entire mission ought to at least be examined much closer by yourself before you use these so called transmissions as an absolute.
Petra I do not always need exact evidence, proof...etc...etc... to conclude and deduce what is most likely or closer to the truth than not.
First off 'evidence' is something that is admissible in court and court is no bastion of what is moral, ethical or correct, also 'evidence' does not have to be 'true' evidence can be false, a lie....
What information do you have that says those are not the recording made during all the training, simulations and practice?
You do know that it is training, simulation and practice that allows for all these bizarre events to transpire.?
There was training on 9/11...right? -Vigilant Guardian- ATC's on that day did not know if it was a drill or live......Right?
There were authorities one year before the boston bombing training for exactly a bombing at the finish line and I could go on and on and on and on and on with the training, exercises, practice, drills, simulations. I was in the military, this IS how it is done!.....this is how the frauds are pulled off and NASA/Operation Paperclip is no different....and you should be aware of this Petra....actually you are aware of this...except for this notion that a capsule is going to be flung 240,000 miles through the emptiness of space landing on a cold dark rock and manage to lift back off and somehow fling itself 240,000 miles back to earth and splash down in the ocean.
Now I gave you the link to the apollo archives. I asked you to go to the Apollo 11 'pictures' blow the hi resolution pictures up and then go inch by inch over the pictures of the LM on the Moon.
Not sure after viewing the pictures how anyone can think that craft, vehicle or luna module whatever you want to call it is airtight after scrutinizing the archives pictures of the lunar module, let alone durable and strong enough to survive the hostile conditions that the module was supposedly to have encounter.
Here is some training pictures.....Ha Ha Ha...I do not know how anyone can take any of this seriously
Lastly all these events be it assassinations, wars, moon landings, terrorist attacks...etc....etc.... need funding.
Now who creates the money for the entire world?
Private Corporations, Central Bankers, Families with bloodlines that go deep....the 1% of the 1% that create the money supply owns and control 95% of the worlds wealth, resources, transportation, industry and holds sway over EVERY SINGLE government regardless of political ideology.
We can start with the obvious the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds, but there are more.
Knowing how the money is created, by whom and how governments and their citizens are indebted into this monopolistic scam that requires governments to go into debt paying only the interest (usury) on the debt, then having to borrow more money to cover all the services the government has indebted it's citizens to and to keep this scam up of continually borrowing money and only paying interest requires the government to start "Making Stuff Up" so as to have reasons to borrow more and more and more and more Federal Reserve Notes, thus it is easy to see, conclude, deduce as we have already discussed ad nauseum how these scams, psy ops, wars (a racket) occult rituals are CONducted. You need the bread and circus so the citizens do not see the truth and bread and circus needs funding too!
Maybe you should read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins, commissioned by Poet Ezra Pound.
Understanding the origins and history of how money works is necessary otherwise many will never realize the scams, psyops...etc.... that are fostered on the people, many times with approval. Hey.....it is not called "The Root of all Evil" for no reason at all.
Are you telling me that this Root does not extend to NASA/Apollo 11? ....and the mass amounts of Federal Reserve Notes used in this undertaking?
The Root of all Evil is what got Jesus nailed to the cross.
The sin that Jesus died for is each and everyone of us using Federal Reserve Notes that happen to be the root of all the evil in this world.
Jesus tried to shut the banker/money changers down due to their practice of "usury" the bankers just appealed to authority through the root of all evil and got the authorities (Romans) to make sure no one would ever try to run the bankers out of business and if so they were not going to be fined, jailed, executed, they were going to be crucified, so as to warn others don't mess with the bankers/money changers.
Authority/Government has protected, defended, shielded the money class always but trust government and their Apollo project that needs lots and lots and lots and I do mean 'lots' of fake created out of thin air Fed Notes.
Fed Notes that you, I and everybody else get stuck with the debt/interest but fail to act in our best interest due to the bread and circus moon landings, wars, terrorist events, sports, Tell A Vision and the like that give the people something to do other than think about the important issues at hand.
The thing about the disbelievers is that they don't actually consult the evidence. Listen to the communications for awhile and then come back and tell it's scripted. 1,000 hours of scripted communications with sometimes at least 15 people on the line?
The "moon landing" op still being sold as true is just plain retarded. The ship looked like it was made out of foil, over some pots and pans from my kitchen. That's all the evidence anyone *should* need. Matt Walsh is a retard.
Agreed, that lunar module being able to land and leave the moon with rocket propulsion is one of the easiest way to see through it. I can't believe people just look at that hunk of junk and think "yea, that can totally get the mass of the astronauts and their equipment off the moon with rocket propulsion and safely back to Earth"
And nevermind the idea of landing on the moon on that flimsy aluminum can. It's only now that they are faking catching rockets with rocket propulsion with the Musk bs, but back then the lunar module was able to land perfectly straight and not break one of those flimsy legs? Yeah, ok.
As a mechanical engineer, one of the things that gets me the most are the 'legs'. Why on Earth would you design it with legs like that? You would just design/make an enclosure that protects the module. The thing would end up looking more like a box with dampners than a flimsy hut. You have no need to have the module raised from the ground because your propulsion doesn't require you to burn air from the atmosphere. And then you wouldn't need a ladder just for coming out of the darned thing–you'd save on its weight. It's just ridiculous.
I think Petra is just a moron in technical matters, that's why she believes nonsense like that, which makes her sus, possibly controlled op, saying dumb stuff about the moon landing and 9/11.
A close look at NASA's own Hi Resolution Pictures is all that it is needed for the thinking mind, but those who allow STRANGERS to TELL A VISION of Moon landings are incapable of unthinking this notion that they were told to know and cannot think outside of due to the narrative and the propaganda that keeps you in that "Channel" of information.
According to your evaluation the diversity of opinion is cool .. those that question the holocaust as did a aged female Jewish Austwitz survivor jailed in the 80s in Germany for denying the holocaust .. only aspect of ww2 not open 4 debate ... why is this ?
Yep. The average person has their own, dumbed-down concept, of what constitutes evidence. 99% of people are very stupid, and to some degree, need a seemingly-smart "expert" to tell them how to interpret any given issue.
Random, and I'm not sure if this is even true, but I hear that Asians are legitimately a lot smarter, but obviously they aren't allowed to call out propaganda, so they play stupid all the time. This would only apply to Asians living in Asia, obviously. Westerners of all ethnicities, are morons.
I like the Stanley Kubrick Occult messaging theory. The child wearing an Apollo 11 jumper in The Shining represents innocence. Then in 1999 Kubrick releases Eyes Wide Shut ( In plain sight) on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11. The film shows who the power elite are. Then on 911 the perpetrators have George W Bush ( fool me once) surrounded by innocence. He references innocence as to his reason for inaction.The innocence on 911 is an invocation of the innocence from The Shining. This is known Occult MO. It also corresponds to their way of being in the world. They see themselves as God, they know that the Universe is mental and mock Gods inability to connect with humanity because humanity do not care and that is through mind control. We don’t know our enemy.
That's an exceptionally good comment with regards to the monsters hatred of innocence. It is part of the explanation for their child abuse network as well, of course. This is also why they hate humans per se - because deep down, humans too are innocent.
It is not always what is logical that make us believe or doubt. Something happened to me that made me trust your theory that no one died on 9/11. In 2008, I was taking a train from New York to Washington, DC. Next to me, sat a man with a huge, groomed moustache-- turned upside--and a multi-colored decorative handkerchief in his suit pocket. He was browsing through a binder with photos of the rubble. I asked him about them. He said his son died in the attack on the twin towers. He was part of the group that was going to meet with Congressmen in DC. looked at him expecting more information, such as that they were accusing the government of an involvement. He noticed my expression, grinned and said, "No, we are not those crazies."
The moustache was too groomed, the pocket square was too colorful, and his poking fun of those who supposedly lost their family members was strange. An encounter with a crisis actor was a powerful piece of evidence.
Very interesting, Sonja. The "crazies" were just another bunch of crisis actors :).
The thing about their narratives is: if you determine lies are being told why would you believe any part of the narrative without clear evidence? People are so indoctrinated with the "people died" narrative (on both sides) that they seem to think it's extraordinary to claim death and injury were staged but if you accept it was a demolition job then expectation of demolition jobs is full evacuation, nothing extraordinary about it. What really seems extraordinary to me is to kill people in a psyop when all you want is people's belief in their deaths.
One of the reasons they push out the multiple methods of destruction is to make it seem as if ordinary demolition professionals didn't do it, that some kind of clandestine group was responsible but you need professionals for what happened at the WTC and professionals aren't going to leave people behind in buildings, that's just not a thing. Professionals will inject people with toxic substances but that's because they've been propagandised (and coerced) - there's no propaganda equivalent for demolition professionals and without propaganda there's no coercion.
I don't think your 'not wanting to kill people' argument is one you should highlight, Petra. I say this because of the pyroclastic asbestos-filled clouds swarming through the surrounding streets of NYC ultimately causing thousands upon thousands of premature deaths from serious respiratory conditions. This effect would've been entirely predictable of course - so you really have your psychology totally wrong here. These people knew perfectly well that thousands of innocent people would die - that's even with your theory that there weren't any people in the buildings. In other words, it doesn't matter here whether there were or weren't people in the buildings, the perpetrators knew thousands of people would die - and this speaks volumes about their psychology.
Remember - as an objective thinker - that psychology is also an objective science.
That's only your superficial impression of a stranger on a train. You have no proof of any kind the man was a crisis actor and why a crisis actor would be on a train headed to a meeting in DC about his son's death in the towers.
This is likely why he said what he did in response to you.
I will say it again. I know people who died in the towers on 9/11. Whether it was an energy weapon or demolition or any other method, people did die.
I agree with most but I also want to point out that you fell into their trap, being so sure the moon landings were real and by arguing about it.
Let's be honest; you don't know they landed on the moon.
And you can't know for sure because you were not there and you are relying on second-hand information. However plausible you think it is.
I think they were faked, but I have no issue in admitting I am not 100% sure and I don't want to keep arguing about it. Because in the end, I don't really care, it is just one of the many stories they have given us that don't add up. It is just one of the symptoms of a deceitful, lying and destructive system. By arguing about details of the symptoms, we are doing exactly as they want.
I also think they were faked, but I have no issue admitting I'm not 100% sure.
It's funny that in my mind she's the one falling for the moonhoax.
There's just a bunch of evidence that doesn't add up: the interviews after apollo 11 came back and how it didn't quite looked like men that had just achieved one of the biggest achievements in human history but instead were beat up men who were extorted to be in the conference room; Wernher von Braun being specific about the impossibility of the mission to get to the moon and come back safely; images with the exact same backdrop that show the lunar module being in wildly different places; the maximum operating temperature of the battery of the rover being lower than the average temperature on the moon on its bright side (no designer would ever contemplate getting that wrong); image of a photograph of one of the astronaut's families on the moon's surface was not curled up (chances are it was hot enough for the image to not be possible: photographic film will curl up when heated); the faking of the Earth shot shown on the "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" documentary and the reaction of the astronauts when shown the footage.
It's funny how she mentions the "we should see stars in the photos - no we shouldn’t" when, if I recall correctly, there is a compilation somehwere where the astronauts that allegedly went to the moon are hesitant to answer and in some cases contradicted each other. Shouldn't it be pretty easy to answer that question without hesitation and without contradictions?
Nevermind the freemasonic connection of many of the astronauts or the fact that we've seen NASA fake a bunch of shit before with regards to getting humans to space (see the "Astronauts Gone Wild" documentary, where we clearly see that the astronauts that allegedly died on the challenger disaster can be seen alive and kicking)
I know the Challenger disaster was a fake so I KNOW NASA lies but that doesn't mean the moon landings were faked.
Their behaviour in the press conference? This was after three weeks in quarantine. Also, it must be borne in mind that they already had a moonhoax propaganda campaign started BEFORE the astronauts landed on the moon as I mention in my article. So people involved will be pushing the moonhoax psyop in subtle ways. They could have even engineered it so the astronauts gave their press conference in a muted kind of mood and used this later to say, "Hey look at these guys behaving so differently from what we'd expect."
You cannot use behaviour in a press conference as evidence when there are mountains of much more important evidence that says the moon landings happened.
"They could have even engineered it so the astronauts gave their press conference in a muted kind of mood and used this later to say, "Hey look at these guys behaving so differently from what we'd expect.""
Maybe. Or maybe they're just down because they feel like frauds, or something along those lines. You can't discard that possibility, and if you do, you're a fraud. Don't act like it's true what you're saying just because you want it to be.
I'm saying the evidence doesn't add up, you seem to be saying something along the lines of, "hah! they're fooling you too! The propaganda started *before* they even went to the moon"
Yeah, ok. And some propaganda for January 6 being a hoax began a lot earlier January 6. It still was a hoax. Some propagand saying Trump was going to be fake shot began before Trump was fake shot. It still didn't happen.
What's more important is the evidence of the events, not if they were engineering propaganda beforehand. You're falling into the psyop psyop. They want you to endlessly bicker about the deep psyop aspect instead of talking about the insconsistencies that show it's possibly fake.
Wake up and focus on evidence, not on psyop narratives.
Funny how you don't mention the other points. Here they are again, in case you are interested in talking about evidence.
Wernher von Braun being specific about the impossibility of the mission to get to the moon and come back safely; images with the exact same backdrop that show the lunar module being in wildly different places; the maximum operating temperature of the battery of the rover being lower than the average temperature on the moon on its bright side (no designer would ever contemplate getting that wrong); image of a photograph of one of the astronaut's families on the moon's surface was not curled up (chances are it was hot enough for the image to not be possible: photographic film will curl up when heated); the faking of the Earth shot shown on the "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" documentary and the reaction of the astronauts when shown the footage.
There's no reason to think Neil Armstrong is lying and just because there's an image that says this is what the sky would look like with no atmosphere doesn't mean it would. Why would the atmosphere be blocking our view of some stars and not others?
The astronauts definitely wouldn't have seen stars from the moon because they were on the surface in lunar daytime just as we don't see stars in earth daytime.
Observatories are "built on high mountains so there is less atmosphere to obscure viewing." https://space.fm/astronomy/planetarysystems/observatories.html Doesn't fit the narrative. Also does explain why some astronauts think you can see stars in space, while others say you cannot.
Yes, the problem for me is not that one can't see stars while being bombarded with photons. The surface of the moon in daylight without atmosphere would be a sheer starless hell (the other side being a different hell, with lots of stars if you survived a few seconds to see them). The problem lies in the dithering over stars.
Wan't to know the real reason I disbelieve all of it? In my clunky, globe-earth way I'm a believer in gravity. I simply don't believe you can remove something as pervasive and fundamental as gravity from the workings of the human body. Those astronauts are supposed to be on a permanent vomit comet. Nope. No improvements in hairspray can convince me.
I don't really care if they went to the moon either, IR, I'm really only interested in the mind control that they exert over both the believers and the disbelievers and the thing is that the mind control is obvious regardless of whether astronauts really landed on the moon or not.
It is clear that all the prominent moonhoaxers are agents whose purpose is to encourage those predisposed to disbelieve the authorities (mostly correctly, of course) to disbelieve the moon landings. Now if astronauts really didn't land on the moon why would they employ those agents? And why is it that no disbeliever has picked it up?
Also, I don't believe you have to be there (nor is being there even a guarantee) of being able to know something to be true or false at least 99.9%. Reality has a signature and there are pieces of evidence that seem so utterly alien to fakery such as the audio mentioned but also images showing particles on the landing pads only visible in high res and the faintest radial exhaust pattern underneath the lunar module. Fakery simply isn't done like that. You don't fake stuff so people can barely see it. So comin' atcha from all directions is clear evidence they went to the moon, including the agents telling us they didn't!
I don't see that the moon landings story doesn't add up. A bunch of men (mostly) with all the right attributes got together and made it happen. I have to say I do admire that achievement. It is astonishing. I highly recommend the Moon Machines series, it's fascinating.
"Now if astronauts really didn't land on the moon why would they employ those agents?"
Come on, Petra, why Alex Jones? Why David Icke? Why Corbett Report? It is the controlled alternative media, it is what they do. Loose Change, Zeitgeist etc etc, they are all examples of truths being told by the controllers (but mixed with lies, propaganda, brainwashing, organised religious bullshit and so on).
Big difference, big, big, big, big difference, IR.
Those guys say SOME truth, the moonhoax guys say NONE.
Those guys have been identified by some of us for who they are.
The moonhoax guys have only been identified by one person as far as I know - me, although some Apollo enthusiasts have identified or suspected actual lying rather than their simply getting it wrong in the case of Bart Sibrel and Dave McGowan.
That is simply incorrect; they mix truths with lies, like they always do. Both talk about the issues with the Van Allen belt, for instance; even NASA admitted it is a problem.
But there were no issues with the VABs, the "issues" are a fabrication.
American Moon asks the question:
If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?
The answer:
The NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, who says the Van Allen belts are dangerous in the clip starting at 1:09:44 actually explains the reason. He says "radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion". Smith does not say that the radiation is a danger to humans. NASA scientist David Sibeck gives more detail here (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/studying-the-van-allen-belts-60-years-after-america-s-first-spacecraft), stating that "Our current technology is ever more susceptible to these accelerated particles because even a single hit from a particle can upset our ever smaller instruments and electronics." It is the threat to sensitive electronics, not to people, which is the problem.
The big problem with this event is that it is not like any other. According to the law of free expansion, rocketry should not even be possible in a vacuum but hey, on 911 Newton was looking the other way, so why not.
All the subjects you can argue about (pictures/absence of stars/the way the moon dust falls when the rover drives through it) have that mystical extra ingredient being 'space'. We have to rely on so-called experts to tell us what is what and I have been misled often enough by 'experts' to know they have no difficulty lying or misrepresenting things. And even worse, many do purely theoretical work, meaning they might be correct in their understanding, but the underlying theory might be wrong.
'By arguing about details of the symptoms, we are doing exactly as they want' - absolutely totally spot on.
Most of what the cognitive infiltrators do is about keeping the dissidents occupied, and preventing a true understanding of the big picture, misdirecting them away from the genuinely important conspiracies, fucking with their psychology, creating learned helplessness, discrediting them in the eyes of the public, and generally keeping them occupied with what ultimately amounts to little more than window dressing compared to the big picture.
I think the most important of these tasks is the classic espionage art practiced by the likes of F-section (ironically named 'counter-subversion'), which is to infiltrate and then divide into factions - in other words, it's all about preventing the kind of solidarity required to mount a successful opposition. Notice likewise the cognitive infiltrators/influencers never provide any 'solutions' to the big picture problem.
Conspiracies and theories are a fact of life thinking outside the box .evaluating all information 2 reach best conclusion is classic Einstein tesla plato etc is way forward .. watching BBC (mk ultra via TV programming) news religiously has folk believing that bat soup consumption in China = must stick a sheet of paper on face inject poison into you and your family or die a weather tax 4 the peasants or humanity is doomed..however I do belive in thermonucleur cattle flattulance will end humanity by next Xmas plus I believe in the holocaust because we are not allowed debate .big ears the King had no idea about SIR Jimmy saville being uks no 1 DJ child rapist and everything corpse. Kier starmer (uncle sweets ) did not meet his wife at www.rentawife.com the anti terrorist scheme 4 young radicals PREVENT has nothing to do with Southport psycho jihad who slayed tory mp during the bubonic bat soup pandemic and westmin8ster terrorist..ira pub bombings cops framed innocent Irish folk.muslims are innocent of 9 11 ted heath half of thatchers cabinet were paedos. Finally I have no arms but plenty of bullets ..
They 'poison the well' with foolish conspiracies - like Trump legitimately getting shot at, just not by one shooter, etc. No one is "shooting" him, or any president, as they're all WEF UN Bilderberg CFR puppets and actors, in Trump's case pretending to be a victim.
This "poisoning the well," along with general information overload, prevents the people who are smarter-than-average (still retards) to understand it's all (news, podcasts, entertainment, YouTube, why files/"fact-checkers" you name it) complete bogus.
Exactly. There are levels to it; in the past I have sent many people links to video's or articles of the Corbett Report. It took me a long time to realize he is controlled and luckily it did not do a lot of damage. Most probably only 10% of the links I've send were looked at and his misdirection is pretty harmless.
We are not dealing with amateurs, they make sure they put the right poison in each well; a bit of poison aimed at Christians, some poison for the average IQ, some for the smarter people around; poisons perfectly designed for the specific category of cattle.
If some are aware of the lies and become more spiritual? Gently push them to 'the soul trap' or the 'Jesus saves' direction.
Angry about mass immigration? Try to get them to believe Hitler was actually a good guy and not a controlled actor (as is EVERYONE in the top of politics/media etc).
Interesting take on moon landings. I have to say I still can't believe men travelled to the moon in a piece of junk made from curtain rods, canvas, warped metal, sticky tape etc. My problem is: why not fake it properly?
Why not have an industrial grade lander, something on the same level as any car or plane of the era? Why talk of major Hollywood directors when no C-director would proceed with a backyard-quality space jalopy looking like it could barely stand up?
Why not have some disturbance under the lander, and some dust on the pads? Why talk of the absence of a crater when the problem is lack of any definite disturbance? I could go on, and without reference to craters, antennas and other non-issues amplified for debunking.
Like the initial hairspray jobs on the ISS (now improved with better bounce!), like Elon's showroom conditions for his factory-standard roadster gliding by earth...Why not do a better job of fakery?
My question is: why not try less, reveal less or, alternatively, do a better job with the massive budgets available? I was fooled and distracted by the Sideshow Bob hairdo disintegration of the twin towers till I watched more calmly and could see it was a cheesy 90s disaster movie substituted for a normal demolition behind lots of smoke.
Serious question re psyops: are the globsters merely lazy and tight with their resources...or are things done badly on purpose? Are we in a test?
I put to you, Robert, that you haven't done due diligence. Simply casting a look at a vehicle to dismiss it because it looks like a jalopy is not good enough. I recommend the video on the lunar rover from the series, Moon Machines. The first prototypes were hilarious and, in fact, look nothing like the jeep-like vehicle they finally ended up with.
The reason for the faintest of radial exhaust patterns under the lander rather than clear disturbance and barely visible regolith particles is given here:
Because they want people to forever bicker about whether or not we went to the moon. That is the best outcome possible. That way people get stuck at level one of the grift; one that goes much much deeper than most suspect.
They are as much testing themselves to see how much they can get away with. They are, after all, so vastly outnumbered by normal people that they could never feel safe without total control. Most of what they do which comes across as 'revelation of the method' is about wanting to feel safe. One has to understand the psychology of these monsters to be able to read them properly.
Petra, I was wondering if you were controlled opposition. Thank you for this article, it gives me the clarity I needed. Unsubscribed and all those who follow you are now on my suspect list.
It's your “cursory glance” at flat earth and subsequent assertion that it “makes sense” it's a psyop. I understand why writers might avoid a topic so prone to ridicule but to make a point to dismiss it makes me not trust you. We clearly live on a flat plane, beyond that I don't know. You are either ignoring your senses, deliberately deceiving or are too lazy to actually look into the cruelest pysop of all - deliberate lies about the nature of our existence and how we were created. This is why I no longer trust you.
I should edit my article because when I say "cursory glance" I mean it to apply to Flat Earth being a psyop rather than people genuinely believing the earth is flat. I have asked believers of Flat Earth to explain things such as why a flight from Sydney to New York via Hawaii or via Dubai involves different time periods and to explain darkness and light at the poles for six months and a few other things but I've never got an answer so I feel as though I've made some effort to look at the Flat Earth hypothesis and because "sphere" seems to perfectly fit everything I know I haven't spent a huge amount of time investigating.
What I haven't really looked at at all is whether it's a psyop or whether people simply believe the earth is flat but I have to say that the name, Flat Earth, right off the bat does strike me as being a psyop because an object has sides, each of which may be flat, but to call an object itself flat doesn't make good sense. The surface of the earth we live on may be a flat plane but what about the rest of the earth object? If one side of the earth is a plane then that side needs to have an edge. Where's the edge? I have to say I find the term Flat Earth very dubious because whoever came up with it simply ignored the fact that earth is an object not a plane, it's a three-dimensional object which has a shape that cannot simply be described as flat.
Unsubscribing is a bit harsh - and counter-productive for that matter. If you think you have identified an agent then you should definitely continue to subscribe and read what they say, because then you will continue to have access to the narratives the agents wish to promote. You will keep yourself informed, in other words - which otherwise you wouldn't be - so unsubscribing appears a lot like shooting yourself in the foot. There's also the comments section to consider - some of the commenters are agents too, of course, but it's their interactions with non-agents which are really interesting. Aside from anything else, the whole thing is highly entertaining - so I'd keep subscribing if I were you.
This is the kind of classic self-confident aspect of the arts of counter-espionage, which the Russians have always been much better at than the western agencies - who are far more paranoid and will often remove double agents, rather than turning them into assets by feeding them misinformation and barium meals and such like.
I'm not saying Petra is or isn't an agent, by the way. I'm only speaking hypothetically. Just for the record. Besides, Petra is an Aussie and I have a great joke about the Aussie intelligence services. Petra is far too competent to be an Aussie spy.
I see your point but there are already too many untrustworthy folk to choose from. My gut tells me that anyone who says they think flat earth is a psyop without even looking into it is not someone to be trusted. We live on a flat plane, NASA lies about EVERYTHING because it is a satanic cult not a space agency.
Can someone comment on the technology of the day? In 1968 I took a Fortran programming class. I punched in problems on computer punch cards, (which took some time in itself - for an equation that required no brainpower to figure out) walked them over to the computer building and turned them in. Next day I went to get the results - which frequently resulted in bugs. How sophisticated were NASA's computers and programmers? I honestly can't think of a reason why "they" would lie to us about the moon landing, but I am skeptical about most things.
Here's an interesting thought regarding the moon landing thing, just as a sort of aside. One of the most important conspiracies - which few cognitive infiltrators talk about (except to misdirect, perhaps) - is the existence of secret technological research (which isn't limited to space exploration). This is probably one of the purposes of the K2/C (Miles Mathis Committee) limited hangout.
As Adam Smith noted even 250 years ago, technological progress should be a liberating force for humanity - people not having to work hard or long hours and so on. Having enough free time to socialise and indulge in cultural pursuits, and to fundamentally better themselves. In terms of Maslow's so-called hierarchy of needs, it's the pursuit of 'self-actualisation'.
The important point being that a self-actualised person, or people, simply can't be socially controlled. The cabal's feudalist system simply wouldn't be possible anymore. And this feudalist system is what they depend on for their very survival, as it protects them from humanity. This is the crucial reason why they have to prevent publicly accessible advanced technology.
This insight is interesting when we apply it to the moon landings and associated theories (misdirection and distraction, for example). The secret tech research would've easily gotten to the stage by 1969 where, at the very least, automated/remote controlled probes could've done extensive exploration of the moon (especially the dark side - see also Mars and Venus). I would imagine they would have resolved the fatal G-forces problem of electrogravitics by then as well, meaning human advanced spaceflight. So it is indeed plausible to say that 'we went to the moon' - but in a completely different way. Whether the crew of Apollo 11 were that particular crew is another, albeit intriguing question (it would, however, explain their apparently bizarre attitude during that infamous press conference).
All of so-called spaceflight since then is a distraction from the advanced research programme. Musk's ridiculous rockets (now there's a great name for a company) being a case in point.
The glaring anomaly in spaceflight is indeed 'microgravity'. Conducting space exploration in microgravity is an obvious dead end. You have to recreate the conditions to which humans are adapted/evolved. And that means artificial gravity by rotation. This should've been achieved long ago. It's telling that they've hardly even done any basic experiments with it. Your previous citation about Gemini 8 (I think it was 8) and it's getting into a spin, creating artificial gravity in other words, is extremely relevant here... And that was a certain Commander Armstrong...
Petra, I just tried the Vintage Space re crater video. It's pure distraction (as always) from the problem of no disturbance. Why debunk an extravagant claim that may have validity but is completely needless? The problem is no disturbance, not even dust on the pads.
On the other hand, wedge shots (with pressurised gloves) and jaunts in dune buggies (they were a sixties thing!) do produce plenty of disturbance of moon dust.
Petra, I'm familiar with the detailed photo and Armstrong's account. I can't see why you are presenting these as proof of something. If we peer hard enough at the magnified pad we see tiny streaks of grey which may be dust...or may be tiny exposed slivers of the grey paper or foil which seems to be some kind of first layer.
Well, we're both happy that there's no question of crater...and we're both happy to see the focus on disturbance of dust. If that Goth chick on Vintage Space said "crater" one more time...
Look, here's an article which mentions (at the end) the problem of dust for the Artemis program. I'm only linking it because it shows just how willing-to-believe many educated people are when they feel their status or livelihood depends on belief. Behold this picture of my very own Wide Brown Land, made super-wide courtesy of Intuitive Machines and NASA. Now, no red-blooded Aussie will mind the elimination of New Zealand from our hemisphere, but the elimination of Antarctica, New Guinea, Oceania and all of Southern Asia seems a bit harsh. And, now that Australia comes super-size, couldn't we keep poor little Tasmania?
It's not so much that they're proof as that they provide an argument against "there should be ..." You say that the grey streaks "may be dust...or may be tiny exposed slivers of the grey paper or foil which seems to be some kind of first layer". As there is zero inconsistency with what we might expect of regolith particles collecting in the wrinkles in the mylar/kapton covering then the image simply acts as defence against the argument "there should be ... " There is nothing suggesting that they are slivers of grey paper rather than regolith particles so the argument "there should be ... " simply has no validity.
Robert, you seem to not recognise that the burden of proof is on you to show that there's fakery. As long as whatever is presented is consistent with expectations you have no argument.
As I also say but the disbelievers never seem to take onboard - this level of subtlety is not expected of fakery. Can you not see that? They don't fake things so that you can hardly see them.
As there is zero inconsistency with what we might expect of grey paper or foil exposed in wrinkles...I could go on.
You see how it works, Petra.
Just check the astronauts playing golf or getting around in their buggy and you'll see lots of dust. There is no clear evidence of any disturbance under the lander while there ought to be plenty. Even with magnification, there is no clear evidence, just desperate pettifogging. The harping on "crater" is meant to distract us from this. Can you not see that? Goth girl at Vintage Science sees it, so she says "crater" as often as possible.
At least we're past pseudo-scientific scolding about due diligence etc. You're down to belting out speculative personal opinions like the best of us (eg "As I also say but the disbelievers never seem to take onboard - this level of subtlety is not expected of fakery"). Now I don't mind that, so long as it's not dressed up as anything else. It's your site, so have fun.
As I've said above (and it's just my own speculative personal opinion) my biggest problem with the whole space show is gravity. Whatever that fundamental and pervasive force is, I believe that you cannot remove humans from gravity for longer than a few nauseating minutes, or maybe even seconds. You can feed 'em heart-healthy seed oils for years before they keel over from the acrylamide. But don't take their gravity.
Yes, I find the moon landings, the International Spray Salon and Elon's Upholstery In Space to be utterly ludicrous. Maybe you don't. But what makes me doubt the merest possibility that any of this is real is...
"As there is zero inconsistency with what we might expect of grey paper or foil exposed in wrinkles...I could go on.
You see how it works, Petra."
That isn't how it works, Robert.
For the moon landings evidence has been provided that is perfectly consistent with expectations, eg, what there is zero reason to doubt are particles of regolith in the wrinkles of the mylar/kapton covering of the landing pads.
The burden of proof is on you to show how what we see is not particles of regolith. Possible alternatives do not meet the burden of proof, you need to show WHY whatever you suggest is a better explanation than particles of regolith or why what we see isn't consistent with "particles of regolith".
And now I get to say that the burden of proof is on you to show how regolith might lodge "subtly" in the folds but not leave a trace anywhere else.
I did endure a tertiary education where we were encouraged to triumph through bloviating about "burden of proof", "due diligence", "logical fallacy" and the like. But my heart wasn't in it. As now.
The blast should have disturbed lots of dust and left lots of dust all over the pads and legs of the lander. Why the fakers didn't bother is uncertain. If they did bother to fake "subtly" for some reason, they were certainly subtle. But they did fake, hence the lack of dust and disturbance under a rocket blast. Hence the debunking of a "crater" to distract.
Anyway, if there is any uncertainty about what I mean by "lots of dust" and "dust all over" let me know. I can just believe in subtle fakers pinching tiny amounts of dust into the folds. I can't believe in subtle rockets.
Weapons of mass destruction FACT ? muslim terrorists coked up jet hijackers .unblemished passport that survived plane that crashed into twin towers reducing thick steel girders 2 dust ..landed at fbi agents feet .. I fully believe that thermonuclear cattle flattulance ..9r cows farts 4 short is biggest threat to humanity .UNLESS we get the worlds unwashed peasants give loads of cash to WEF .. and the Chinese eating bat soup in thoer wet markets nearly wiped us all out if not 4 the genius professor Dr Bill Gates (in Welsh prononced village idiot ) experimental safe and effective vaccines ... and I could go on but am a tad pissed ..well it is my birthday ...BURRRP
"communications between the astronauts and mission control which sounded so authentic"
Considering these actornauts spent many of hours practicing, I would not doubt it sounds authentic.
You're making an assertion based on precisely zero evidence. The thing about evidence is that to evaluate it you need to actually look at it ... and you can't ignore any ... such as every prominent naysayer hasn't said a single word that refutes the moon landings and they are all clearly agents.
and the recordings themselves are proof of nothing other than they are a recording between two men.
The fact that the men 'practiced' and simulated the entire mission ought to at least be examined much closer by yourself before you use these so called transmissions as an absolute.
Petra I do not always need exact evidence, proof...etc...etc... to conclude and deduce what is most likely or closer to the truth than not.
First off 'evidence' is something that is admissible in court and court is no bastion of what is moral, ethical or correct, also 'evidence' does not have to be 'true' evidence can be false, a lie....
What information do you have that says those are not the recording made during all the training, simulations and practice?
You do know that it is training, simulation and practice that allows for all these bizarre events to transpire.?
There was training on 9/11...right? -Vigilant Guardian- ATC's on that day did not know if it was a drill or live......Right?
There were authorities one year before the boston bombing training for exactly a bombing at the finish line and I could go on and on and on and on and on with the training, exercises, practice, drills, simulations. I was in the military, this IS how it is done!.....this is how the frauds are pulled off and NASA/Operation Paperclip is no different....and you should be aware of this Petra....actually you are aware of this...except for this notion that a capsule is going to be flung 240,000 miles through the emptiness of space landing on a cold dark rock and manage to lift back off and somehow fling itself 240,000 miles back to earth and splash down in the ocean.
Now I gave you the link to the apollo archives. I asked you to go to the Apollo 11 'pictures' blow the hi resolution pictures up and then go inch by inch over the pictures of the LM on the Moon.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/
Not sure after viewing the pictures how anyone can think that craft, vehicle or luna module whatever you want to call it is airtight after scrutinizing the archives pictures of the lunar module, let alone durable and strong enough to survive the hostile conditions that the module was supposedly to have encounter.
Here is some training pictures.....Ha Ha Ha...I do not know how anyone can take any of this seriously
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157709595379256/with/48264741967
Lastly all these events be it assassinations, wars, moon landings, terrorist attacks...etc....etc.... need funding.
Now who creates the money for the entire world?
Private Corporations, Central Bankers, Families with bloodlines that go deep....the 1% of the 1% that create the money supply owns and control 95% of the worlds wealth, resources, transportation, industry and holds sway over EVERY SINGLE government regardless of political ideology.
We can start with the obvious the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds, but there are more.
Knowing how the money is created, by whom and how governments and their citizens are indebted into this monopolistic scam that requires governments to go into debt paying only the interest (usury) on the debt, then having to borrow more money to cover all the services the government has indebted it's citizens to and to keep this scam up of continually borrowing money and only paying interest requires the government to start "Making Stuff Up" so as to have reasons to borrow more and more and more and more Federal Reserve Notes, thus it is easy to see, conclude, deduce as we have already discussed ad nauseum how these scams, psy ops, wars (a racket) occult rituals are CONducted. You need the bread and circus so the citizens do not see the truth and bread and circus needs funding too!
Maybe you should read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins, commissioned by Poet Ezra Pound.
Understanding the origins and history of how money works is necessary otherwise many will never realize the scams, psyops...etc.... that are fostered on the people, many times with approval. Hey.....it is not called "The Root of all Evil" for no reason at all.
Are you telling me that this Root does not extend to NASA/Apollo 11? ....and the mass amounts of Federal Reserve Notes used in this undertaking?
The Root of all Evil is what got Jesus nailed to the cross.
The sin that Jesus died for is each and everyone of us using Federal Reserve Notes that happen to be the root of all the evil in this world.
Jesus tried to shut the banker/money changers down due to their practice of "usury" the bankers just appealed to authority through the root of all evil and got the authorities (Romans) to make sure no one would ever try to run the bankers out of business and if so they were not going to be fined, jailed, executed, they were going to be crucified, so as to warn others don't mess with the bankers/money changers.
Authority/Government has protected, defended, shielded the money class always but trust government and their Apollo project that needs lots and lots and lots and I do mean 'lots' of fake created out of thin air Fed Notes.
Fed Notes that you, I and everybody else get stuck with the debt/interest but fail to act in our best interest due to the bread and circus moon landings, wars, terrorist events, sports, Tell A Vision and the like that give the people something to do other than think about the important issues at hand.
Military pilots learn their scripts early.
The thing about the disbelievers is that they don't actually consult the evidence. Listen to the communications for awhile and then come back and tell it's scripted. 1,000 hours of scripted communications with sometimes at least 15 people on the line?
The "moon landing" op still being sold as true is just plain retarded. The ship looked like it was made out of foil, over some pots and pans from my kitchen. That's all the evidence anyone *should* need. Matt Walsh is a retard.
Agreed, that lunar module being able to land and leave the moon with rocket propulsion is one of the easiest way to see through it. I can't believe people just look at that hunk of junk and think "yea, that can totally get the mass of the astronauts and their equipment off the moon with rocket propulsion and safely back to Earth"
And nevermind the idea of landing on the moon on that flimsy aluminum can. It's only now that they are faking catching rockets with rocket propulsion with the Musk bs, but back then the lunar module was able to land perfectly straight and not break one of those flimsy legs? Yeah, ok.
As a mechanical engineer, one of the things that gets me the most are the 'legs'. Why on Earth would you design it with legs like that? You would just design/make an enclosure that protects the module. The thing would end up looking more like a box with dampners than a flimsy hut. You have no need to have the module raised from the ground because your propulsion doesn't require you to burn air from the atmosphere. And then you wouldn't need a ladder just for coming out of the darned thing–you'd save on its weight. It's just ridiculous.
I think Petra is just a moron in technical matters, that's why she believes nonsense like that, which makes her sus, possibly controlled op, saying dumb stuff about the moon landing and 9/11.
A close look at NASA's own Hi Resolution Pictures is all that it is needed for the thinking mind, but those who allow STRANGERS to TELL A VISION of Moon landings are incapable of unthinking this notion that they were told to know and cannot think outside of due to the narrative and the propaganda that keeps you in that "Channel" of information.
According to your evaluation the diversity of opinion is cool .. those that question the holocaust as did a aged female Jewish Austwitz survivor jailed in the 80s in Germany for denying the holocaust .. only aspect of ww2 not open 4 debate ... why is this ?
What's her name? Never heard sucha story.
Why don't amateur astronomers routinely show photographs of the debris left on the moon if it was left on the moon?
Yep. The average person has their own, dumbed-down concept, of what constitutes evidence. 99% of people are very stupid, and to some degree, need a seemingly-smart "expert" to tell them how to interpret any given issue.
Random, and I'm not sure if this is even true, but I hear that Asians are legitimately a lot smarter, but obviously they aren't allowed to call out propaganda, so they play stupid all the time. This would only apply to Asians living in Asia, obviously. Westerners of all ethnicities, are morons.
All they has to do was run it down a noisy telephone line.
I like the Stanley Kubrick Occult messaging theory. The child wearing an Apollo 11 jumper in The Shining represents innocence. Then in 1999 Kubrick releases Eyes Wide Shut ( In plain sight) on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11. The film shows who the power elite are. Then on 911 the perpetrators have George W Bush ( fool me once) surrounded by innocence. He references innocence as to his reason for inaction.The innocence on 911 is an invocation of the innocence from The Shining. This is known Occult MO. It also corresponds to their way of being in the world. They see themselves as God, they know that the Universe is mental and mock Gods inability to connect with humanity because humanity do not care and that is through mind control. We don’t know our enemy.
That's an exceptionally good comment with regards to the monsters hatred of innocence. It is part of the explanation for their child abuse network as well, of course. This is also why they hate humans per se - because deep down, humans too are innocent.
It is not always what is logical that make us believe or doubt. Something happened to me that made me trust your theory that no one died on 9/11. In 2008, I was taking a train from New York to Washington, DC. Next to me, sat a man with a huge, groomed moustache-- turned upside--and a multi-colored decorative handkerchief in his suit pocket. He was browsing through a binder with photos of the rubble. I asked him about them. He said his son died in the attack on the twin towers. He was part of the group that was going to meet with Congressmen in DC. looked at him expecting more information, such as that they were accusing the government of an involvement. He noticed my expression, grinned and said, "No, we are not those crazies."
The moustache was too groomed, the pocket square was too colorful, and his poking fun of those who supposedly lost their family members was strange. An encounter with a crisis actor was a powerful piece of evidence.
Very interesting, Sonja. The "crazies" were just another bunch of crisis actors :).
The thing about their narratives is: if you determine lies are being told why would you believe any part of the narrative without clear evidence? People are so indoctrinated with the "people died" narrative (on both sides) that they seem to think it's extraordinary to claim death and injury were staged but if you accept it was a demolition job then expectation of demolition jobs is full evacuation, nothing extraordinary about it. What really seems extraordinary to me is to kill people in a psyop when all you want is people's belief in their deaths.
One of the reasons they push out the multiple methods of destruction is to make it seem as if ordinary demolition professionals didn't do it, that some kind of clandestine group was responsible but you need professionals for what happened at the WTC and professionals aren't going to leave people behind in buildings, that's just not a thing. Professionals will inject people with toxic substances but that's because they've been propagandised (and coerced) - there's no propaganda equivalent for demolition professionals and without propaganda there's no coercion.
I don't think your 'not wanting to kill people' argument is one you should highlight, Petra. I say this because of the pyroclastic asbestos-filled clouds swarming through the surrounding streets of NYC ultimately causing thousands upon thousands of premature deaths from serious respiratory conditions. This effect would've been entirely predictable of course - so you really have your psychology totally wrong here. These people knew perfectly well that thousands of innocent people would die - that's even with your theory that there weren't any people in the buildings. In other words, it doesn't matter here whether there were or weren't people in the buildings, the perpetrators knew thousands of people would die - and this speaks volumes about their psychology.
Remember - as an objective thinker - that psychology is also an objective science.
NYC-OCME is some of the same folks who brought us CovidHoax.
"Victim identification and body completeness based on last known location at the World Trade Center"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822002705
That's only your superficial impression of a stranger on a train. You have no proof of any kind the man was a crisis actor and why a crisis actor would be on a train headed to a meeting in DC about his son's death in the towers.
This is likely why he said what he did in response to you.
I will say it again. I know people who died in the towers on 9/11. Whether it was an energy weapon or demolition or any other method, people did die.
What are their names?
I'm not listing the names of people I know who died.
That's disrespectful and none of your business.
Was his name "Pirate Studebaker" ?
Are you naked in your photo?
You're on the wrong website again. Did the "x" break on your keyboard again?
I agree with most but I also want to point out that you fell into their trap, being so sure the moon landings were real and by arguing about it.
Let's be honest; you don't know they landed on the moon.
And you can't know for sure because you were not there and you are relying on second-hand information. However plausible you think it is.
I think they were faked, but I have no issue in admitting I am not 100% sure and I don't want to keep arguing about it. Because in the end, I don't really care, it is just one of the many stories they have given us that don't add up. It is just one of the symptoms of a deceitful, lying and destructive system. By arguing about details of the symptoms, we are doing exactly as they want.
Yep. Totally agree with you
I also think they were faked, but I have no issue admitting I'm not 100% sure.
It's funny that in my mind she's the one falling for the moonhoax.
There's just a bunch of evidence that doesn't add up: the interviews after apollo 11 came back and how it didn't quite looked like men that had just achieved one of the biggest achievements in human history but instead were beat up men who were extorted to be in the conference room; Wernher von Braun being specific about the impossibility of the mission to get to the moon and come back safely; images with the exact same backdrop that show the lunar module being in wildly different places; the maximum operating temperature of the battery of the rover being lower than the average temperature on the moon on its bright side (no designer would ever contemplate getting that wrong); image of a photograph of one of the astronaut's families on the moon's surface was not curled up (chances are it was hot enough for the image to not be possible: photographic film will curl up when heated); the faking of the Earth shot shown on the "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" documentary and the reaction of the astronauts when shown the footage.
It's funny how she mentions the "we should see stars in the photos - no we shouldn’t" when, if I recall correctly, there is a compilation somehwere where the astronauts that allegedly went to the moon are hesitant to answer and in some cases contradicted each other. Shouldn't it be pretty easy to answer that question without hesitation and without contradictions?
Nevermind the freemasonic connection of many of the astronauts or the fact that we've seen NASA fake a bunch of shit before with regards to getting humans to space (see the "Astronauts Gone Wild" documentary, where we clearly see that the astronauts that allegedly died on the challenger disaster can be seen alive and kicking)
I know the Challenger disaster was a fake so I KNOW NASA lies but that doesn't mean the moon landings were faked.
Their behaviour in the press conference? This was after three weeks in quarantine. Also, it must be borne in mind that they already had a moonhoax propaganda campaign started BEFORE the astronauts landed on the moon as I mention in my article. So people involved will be pushing the moonhoax psyop in subtle ways. They could have even engineered it so the astronauts gave their press conference in a muted kind of mood and used this later to say, "Hey look at these guys behaving so differently from what we'd expect."
You cannot use behaviour in a press conference as evidence when there are mountains of much more important evidence that says the moon landings happened.
"They could have even engineered it so the astronauts gave their press conference in a muted kind of mood and used this later to say, "Hey look at these guys behaving so differently from what we'd expect.""
Maybe. Or maybe they're just down because they feel like frauds, or something along those lines. You can't discard that possibility, and if you do, you're a fraud. Don't act like it's true what you're saying just because you want it to be.
I'm saying the evidence doesn't add up, you seem to be saying something along the lines of, "hah! they're fooling you too! The propaganda started *before* they even went to the moon"
Yeah, ok. And some propaganda for January 6 being a hoax began a lot earlier January 6. It still was a hoax. Some propagand saying Trump was going to be fake shot began before Trump was fake shot. It still didn't happen.
What's more important is the evidence of the events, not if they were engineering propaganda beforehand. You're falling into the psyop psyop. They want you to endlessly bicker about the deep psyop aspect instead of talking about the insconsistencies that show it's possibly fake.
Wake up and focus on evidence, not on psyop narratives.
Funny how you don't mention the other points. Here they are again, in case you are interested in talking about evidence.
Wernher von Braun being specific about the impossibility of the mission to get to the moon and come back safely; images with the exact same backdrop that show the lunar module being in wildly different places; the maximum operating temperature of the battery of the rover being lower than the average temperature on the moon on its bright side (no designer would ever contemplate getting that wrong); image of a photograph of one of the astronaut's families on the moon's surface was not curled up (chances are it was hot enough for the image to not be possible: photographic film will curl up when heated); the faking of the Earth shot shown on the "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" documentary and the reaction of the astronauts when shown the footage.
Here's that video about the lies about stars in space. Yep, they are lying--why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrw&list=PLmgH9CC5ZMHNbV5TzfnpkUvaA-MyjiTNn&index=3
There's no reason to think Neil Armstrong is lying and just because there's an image that says this is what the sky would look like with no atmosphere doesn't mean it would. Why would the atmosphere be blocking our view of some stars and not others?
The astronauts definitely wouldn't have seen stars from the moon because they were on the surface in lunar daytime just as we don't see stars in earth daytime.
Observatories are "built on high mountains so there is less atmosphere to obscure viewing." https://space.fm/astronomy/planetarysystems/observatories.html Doesn't fit the narrative. Also does explain why some astronauts think you can see stars in space, while others say you cannot.
Yes, the problem for me is not that one can't see stars while being bombarded with photons. The surface of the moon in daylight without atmosphere would be a sheer starless hell (the other side being a different hell, with lots of stars if you survived a few seconds to see them). The problem lies in the dithering over stars.
Wan't to know the real reason I disbelieve all of it? In my clunky, globe-earth way I'm a believer in gravity. I simply don't believe you can remove something as pervasive and fundamental as gravity from the workings of the human body. Those astronauts are supposed to be on a permanent vomit comet. Nope. No improvements in hairspray can convince me.
It's because the astronauts don't bring with them adjustable cameras -
https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars#:~:text=Look%20up%20at%20space%20at,too%20faint%20to%20show%20up.
Major Matt Mason 1966
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qwI3uwWRzk
I don't really care if they went to the moon either, IR, I'm really only interested in the mind control that they exert over both the believers and the disbelievers and the thing is that the mind control is obvious regardless of whether astronauts really landed on the moon or not.
It is clear that all the prominent moonhoaxers are agents whose purpose is to encourage those predisposed to disbelieve the authorities (mostly correctly, of course) to disbelieve the moon landings. Now if astronauts really didn't land on the moon why would they employ those agents? And why is it that no disbeliever has picked it up?
Also, I don't believe you have to be there (nor is being there even a guarantee) of being able to know something to be true or false at least 99.9%. Reality has a signature and there are pieces of evidence that seem so utterly alien to fakery such as the audio mentioned but also images showing particles on the landing pads only visible in high res and the faintest radial exhaust pattern underneath the lunar module. Fakery simply isn't done like that. You don't fake stuff so people can barely see it. So comin' atcha from all directions is clear evidence they went to the moon, including the agents telling us they didn't!
I don't see that the moon landings story doesn't add up. A bunch of men (mostly) with all the right attributes got together and made it happen. I have to say I do admire that achievement. It is astonishing. I highly recommend the Moon Machines series, it's fascinating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6syfevpG-1U&list=PLZJna6W59fFr04zJ3Pp3CJ4TtXMRkGPMV
"Now if astronauts really didn't land on the moon why would they employ those agents?"
Come on, Petra, why Alex Jones? Why David Icke? Why Corbett Report? It is the controlled alternative media, it is what they do. Loose Change, Zeitgeist etc etc, they are all examples of truths being told by the controllers (but mixed with lies, propaganda, brainwashing, organised religious bullshit and so on).
Big difference, big, big, big, big difference, IR.
Those guys say SOME truth, the moonhoax guys say NONE.
Those guys have been identified by some of us for who they are.
The moonhoax guys have only been identified by one person as far as I know - me, although some Apollo enthusiasts have identified or suspected actual lying rather than their simply getting it wrong in the case of Bart Sibrel and Dave McGowan.
That is simply incorrect; they mix truths with lies, like they always do. Both talk about the issues with the Van Allen belt, for instance; even NASA admitted it is a problem.
"The issues with the Van Allen Belts."
But there were no issues with the VABs, the "issues" are a fabrication.
American Moon asks the question:
If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?
The answer:
The NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, who says the Van Allen belts are dangerous in the clip starting at 1:09:44 actually explains the reason. He says "radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion". Smith does not say that the radiation is a danger to humans. NASA scientist David Sibeck gives more detail here (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/studying-the-van-allen-belts-60-years-after-america-s-first-spacecraft), stating that "Our current technology is ever more susceptible to these accelerated particles because even a single hit from a particle can upset our ever smaller instruments and electronics." It is the threat to sensitive electronics, not to people, which is the problem.
The big problem with this event is that it is not like any other. According to the law of free expansion, rocketry should not even be possible in a vacuum but hey, on 911 Newton was looking the other way, so why not.
All the subjects you can argue about (pictures/absence of stars/the way the moon dust falls when the rover drives through it) have that mystical extra ingredient being 'space'. We have to rely on so-called experts to tell us what is what and I have been misled often enough by 'experts' to know they have no difficulty lying or misrepresenting things. And even worse, many do purely theoretical work, meaning they might be correct in their understanding, but the underlying theory might be wrong.
'By arguing about details of the symptoms, we are doing exactly as they want' - absolutely totally spot on.
Most of what the cognitive infiltrators do is about keeping the dissidents occupied, and preventing a true understanding of the big picture, misdirecting them away from the genuinely important conspiracies, fucking with their psychology, creating learned helplessness, discrediting them in the eyes of the public, and generally keeping them occupied with what ultimately amounts to little more than window dressing compared to the big picture.
I think the most important of these tasks is the classic espionage art practiced by the likes of F-section (ironically named 'counter-subversion'), which is to infiltrate and then divide into factions - in other words, it's all about preventing the kind of solidarity required to mount a successful opposition. Notice likewise the cognitive infiltrators/influencers never provide any 'solutions' to the big picture problem.
Conspiracies and theories are a fact of life thinking outside the box .evaluating all information 2 reach best conclusion is classic Einstein tesla plato etc is way forward .. watching BBC (mk ultra via TV programming) news religiously has folk believing that bat soup consumption in China = must stick a sheet of paper on face inject poison into you and your family or die a weather tax 4 the peasants or humanity is doomed..however I do belive in thermonucleur cattle flattulance will end humanity by next Xmas plus I believe in the holocaust because we are not allowed debate .big ears the King had no idea about SIR Jimmy saville being uks no 1 DJ child rapist and everything corpse. Kier starmer (uncle sweets ) did not meet his wife at www.rentawife.com the anti terrorist scheme 4 young radicals PREVENT has nothing to do with Southport psycho jihad who slayed tory mp during the bubonic bat soup pandemic and westmin8ster terrorist..ira pub bombings cops framed innocent Irish folk.muslims are innocent of 9 11 ted heath half of thatchers cabinet were paedos. Finally I have no arms but plenty of bullets ..
LOL.
They 'poison the well' with foolish conspiracies - like Trump legitimately getting shot at, just not by one shooter, etc. No one is "shooting" him, or any president, as they're all WEF UN Bilderberg CFR puppets and actors, in Trump's case pretending to be a victim.
This "poisoning the well," along with general information overload, prevents the people who are smarter-than-average (still retards) to understand it's all (news, podcasts, entertainment, YouTube, why files/"fact-checkers" you name it) complete bogus.
Exactly. There are levels to it; in the past I have sent many people links to video's or articles of the Corbett Report. It took me a long time to realize he is controlled and luckily it did not do a lot of damage. Most probably only 10% of the links I've send were looked at and his misdirection is pretty harmless.
We are not dealing with amateurs, they make sure they put the right poison in each well; a bit of poison aimed at Christians, some poison for the average IQ, some for the smarter people around; poisons perfectly designed for the specific category of cattle.
If some are aware of the lies and become more spiritual? Gently push them to 'the soul trap' or the 'Jesus saves' direction.
Angry about mass immigration? Try to get them to believe Hitler was actually a good guy and not a controlled actor (as is EVERYONE in the top of politics/media etc).
Interesting take on moon landings. I have to say I still can't believe men travelled to the moon in a piece of junk made from curtain rods, canvas, warped metal, sticky tape etc. My problem is: why not fake it properly?
Why not have an industrial grade lander, something on the same level as any car or plane of the era? Why talk of major Hollywood directors when no C-director would proceed with a backyard-quality space jalopy looking like it could barely stand up?
Why not have some disturbance under the lander, and some dust on the pads? Why talk of the absence of a crater when the problem is lack of any definite disturbance? I could go on, and without reference to craters, antennas and other non-issues amplified for debunking.
Like the initial hairspray jobs on the ISS (now improved with better bounce!), like Elon's showroom conditions for his factory-standard roadster gliding by earth...Why not do a better job of fakery?
My question is: why not try less, reveal less or, alternatively, do a better job with the massive budgets available? I was fooled and distracted by the Sideshow Bob hairdo disintegration of the twin towers till I watched more calmly and could see it was a cheesy 90s disaster movie substituted for a normal demolition behind lots of smoke.
Serious question re psyops: are the globsters merely lazy and tight with their resources...or are things done badly on purpose? Are we in a test?
I put to you, Robert, that you haven't done due diligence. Simply casting a look at a vehicle to dismiss it because it looks like a jalopy is not good enough. I recommend the video on the lunar rover from the series, Moon Machines. The first prototypes were hilarious and, in fact, look nothing like the jeep-like vehicle they finally ended up with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DwBlVM39Jg&list=PLZJna6W59fFr04zJ3Pp3CJ4TtXMRkGPMV&index=2
The reason for the faintest of radial exhaust patterns under the lander rather than clear disturbance and barely visible regolith particles is given here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyH4Zaz3mEE
You obviously are not curious about why there was no disturbance under the lander because the question has been answered all over the internet.
My question is: why don't the disbelievers do due diligence and look up all the things that appear to them as anomalies. It's what I did.
42 questions are asked in the film, American Moon, made by agent Massimo Mazzucco.
All 42 questions are responded to here:
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
“My problem is: why not fake it properly?”
Because they want people to forever bicker about whether or not we went to the moon. That is the best outcome possible. That way people get stuck at level one of the grift; one that goes much much deeper than most suspect.
They are as much testing themselves to see how much they can get away with. They are, after all, so vastly outnumbered by normal people that they could never feel safe without total control. Most of what they do which comes across as 'revelation of the method' is about wanting to feel safe. One has to understand the psychology of these monsters to be able to read them properly.
Petra, I was wondering if you were controlled opposition. Thank you for this article, it gives me the clarity I needed. Unsubscribed and all those who follow you are now on my suspect list.
Mary, Can I ask you what about my article makes you believe that I'm controlled opposition?
It's your “cursory glance” at flat earth and subsequent assertion that it “makes sense” it's a psyop. I understand why writers might avoid a topic so prone to ridicule but to make a point to dismiss it makes me not trust you. We clearly live on a flat plane, beyond that I don't know. You are either ignoring your senses, deliberately deceiving or are too lazy to actually look into the cruelest pysop of all - deliberate lies about the nature of our existence and how we were created. This is why I no longer trust you.
I should edit my article because when I say "cursory glance" I mean it to apply to Flat Earth being a psyop rather than people genuinely believing the earth is flat. I have asked believers of Flat Earth to explain things such as why a flight from Sydney to New York via Hawaii or via Dubai involves different time periods and to explain darkness and light at the poles for six months and a few other things but I've never got an answer so I feel as though I've made some effort to look at the Flat Earth hypothesis and because "sphere" seems to perfectly fit everything I know I haven't spent a huge amount of time investigating.
What I haven't really looked at at all is whether it's a psyop or whether people simply believe the earth is flat but I have to say that the name, Flat Earth, right off the bat does strike me as being a psyop because an object has sides, each of which may be flat, but to call an object itself flat doesn't make good sense. The surface of the earth we live on may be a flat plane but what about the rest of the earth object? If one side of the earth is a plane then that side needs to have an edge. Where's the edge? I have to say I find the term Flat Earth very dubious because whoever came up with it simply ignored the fact that earth is an object not a plane, it's a three-dimensional object which has a shape that cannot simply be described as flat.
Unsubscribing is a bit harsh - and counter-productive for that matter. If you think you have identified an agent then you should definitely continue to subscribe and read what they say, because then you will continue to have access to the narratives the agents wish to promote. You will keep yourself informed, in other words - which otherwise you wouldn't be - so unsubscribing appears a lot like shooting yourself in the foot. There's also the comments section to consider - some of the commenters are agents too, of course, but it's their interactions with non-agents which are really interesting. Aside from anything else, the whole thing is highly entertaining - so I'd keep subscribing if I were you.
This is the kind of classic self-confident aspect of the arts of counter-espionage, which the Russians have always been much better at than the western agencies - who are far more paranoid and will often remove double agents, rather than turning them into assets by feeding them misinformation and barium meals and such like.
I'm not saying Petra is or isn't an agent, by the way. I'm only speaking hypothetically. Just for the record. Besides, Petra is an Aussie and I have a great joke about the Aussie intelligence services. Petra is far too competent to be an Aussie spy.
I see your point but there are already too many untrustworthy folk to choose from. My gut tells me that anyone who says they think flat earth is a psyop without even looking into it is not someone to be trusted. We live on a flat plane, NASA lies about EVERYTHING because it is a satanic cult not a space agency.
I think you answered my question, Evelyn. I just read it now. I was wondering about that.
Can someone comment on the technology of the day? In 1968 I took a Fortran programming class. I punched in problems on computer punch cards, (which took some time in itself - for an equation that required no brainpower to figure out) walked them over to the computer building and turned them in. Next day I went to get the results - which frequently resulted in bugs. How sophisticated were NASA's computers and programmers? I honestly can't think of a reason why "they" would lie to us about the moon landing, but I am skeptical about most things.
Here's an interesting thought regarding the moon landing thing, just as a sort of aside. One of the most important conspiracies - which few cognitive infiltrators talk about (except to misdirect, perhaps) - is the existence of secret technological research (which isn't limited to space exploration). This is probably one of the purposes of the K2/C (Miles Mathis Committee) limited hangout.
As Adam Smith noted even 250 years ago, technological progress should be a liberating force for humanity - people not having to work hard or long hours and so on. Having enough free time to socialise and indulge in cultural pursuits, and to fundamentally better themselves. In terms of Maslow's so-called hierarchy of needs, it's the pursuit of 'self-actualisation'.
The important point being that a self-actualised person, or people, simply can't be socially controlled. The cabal's feudalist system simply wouldn't be possible anymore. And this feudalist system is what they depend on for their very survival, as it protects them from humanity. This is the crucial reason why they have to prevent publicly accessible advanced technology.
This insight is interesting when we apply it to the moon landings and associated theories (misdirection and distraction, for example). The secret tech research would've easily gotten to the stage by 1969 where, at the very least, automated/remote controlled probes could've done extensive exploration of the moon (especially the dark side - see also Mars and Venus). I would imagine they would have resolved the fatal G-forces problem of electrogravitics by then as well, meaning human advanced spaceflight. So it is indeed plausible to say that 'we went to the moon' - but in a completely different way. Whether the crew of Apollo 11 were that particular crew is another, albeit intriguing question (it would, however, explain their apparently bizarre attitude during that infamous press conference).
All of so-called spaceflight since then is a distraction from the advanced research programme. Musk's ridiculous rockets (now there's a great name for a company) being a case in point.
The glaring anomaly in spaceflight is indeed 'microgravity'. Conducting space exploration in microgravity is an obvious dead end. You have to recreate the conditions to which humans are adapted/evolved. And that means artificial gravity by rotation. This should've been achieved long ago. It's telling that they've hardly even done any basic experiments with it. Your previous citation about Gemini 8 (I think it was 8) and it's getting into a spin, creating artificial gravity in other words, is extremely relevant here... And that was a certain Commander Armstrong...
Petra, I just tried the Vintage Space re crater video. It's pure distraction (as always) from the problem of no disturbance. Why debunk an extravagant claim that may have validity but is completely needless? The problem is no disturbance, not even dust on the pads.
On the other hand, wedge shots (with pressurised gloves) and jaunts in dune buggies (they were a sixties thing!) do produce plenty of disturbance of moon dust.
I could go on. You may not want me to.
There is, in fact, trace amounts of dust on the pads which can only be seen in high res photos. This kind of subtlety is completely alien to fakery.
Click image with the magnifying tool and scroll to left.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5926.jpg
As the lunar module lands we do see some disturbance - right at the end.
Neil Armstrong going through the final three minutes of landing and comparing against google moon.
https://youtu.be/Qqe7-rFRrkc?si=SYLF556KwPUMdNuY&t=198
Petra, I'm familiar with the detailed photo and Armstrong's account. I can't see why you are presenting these as proof of something. If we peer hard enough at the magnified pad we see tiny streaks of grey which may be dust...or may be tiny exposed slivers of the grey paper or foil which seems to be some kind of first layer.
Well, we're both happy that there's no question of crater...and we're both happy to see the focus on disturbance of dust. If that Goth chick on Vintage Space said "crater" one more time...
Look, here's an article which mentions (at the end) the problem of dust for the Artemis program. I'm only linking it because it shows just how willing-to-believe many educated people are when they feel their status or livelihood depends on belief. Behold this picture of my very own Wide Brown Land, made super-wide courtesy of Intuitive Machines and NASA. Now, no red-blooded Aussie will mind the elimination of New Zealand from our hemisphere, but the elimination of Antarctica, New Guinea, Oceania and all of Southern Asia seems a bit harsh. And, now that Australia comes super-size, couldn't we keep poor little Tasmania?
https://petapixel.com/2024/02/21/odysseus-lunar-lander-captures-brilliant-photos-as-it-prepares-for-a-historic-landing/
It's not so much that they're proof as that they provide an argument against "there should be ..." You say that the grey streaks "may be dust...or may be tiny exposed slivers of the grey paper or foil which seems to be some kind of first layer". As there is zero inconsistency with what we might expect of regolith particles collecting in the wrinkles in the mylar/kapton covering then the image simply acts as defence against the argument "there should be ... " There is nothing suggesting that they are slivers of grey paper rather than regolith particles so the argument "there should be ... " simply has no validity.
Robert, you seem to not recognise that the burden of proof is on you to show that there's fakery. As long as whatever is presented is consistent with expectations you have no argument.
As I also say but the disbelievers never seem to take onboard - this level of subtlety is not expected of fakery. Can you not see that? They don't fake things so that you can hardly see them.
As there is zero inconsistency with what we might expect of grey paper or foil exposed in wrinkles...I could go on.
You see how it works, Petra.
Just check the astronauts playing golf or getting around in their buggy and you'll see lots of dust. There is no clear evidence of any disturbance under the lander while there ought to be plenty. Even with magnification, there is no clear evidence, just desperate pettifogging. The harping on "crater" is meant to distract us from this. Can you not see that? Goth girl at Vintage Science sees it, so she says "crater" as often as possible.
At least we're past pseudo-scientific scolding about due diligence etc. You're down to belting out speculative personal opinions like the best of us (eg "As I also say but the disbelievers never seem to take onboard - this level of subtlety is not expected of fakery"). Now I don't mind that, so long as it's not dressed up as anything else. It's your site, so have fun.
As I've said above (and it's just my own speculative personal opinion) my biggest problem with the whole space show is gravity. Whatever that fundamental and pervasive force is, I believe that you cannot remove humans from gravity for longer than a few nauseating minutes, or maybe even seconds. You can feed 'em heart-healthy seed oils for years before they keel over from the acrylamide. But don't take their gravity.
Yes, I find the moon landings, the International Spray Salon and Elon's Upholstery In Space to be utterly ludicrous. Maybe you don't. But what makes me doubt the merest possibility that any of this is real is...
Gravity!
"As there is zero inconsistency with what we might expect of grey paper or foil exposed in wrinkles...I could go on.
You see how it works, Petra."
That isn't how it works, Robert.
For the moon landings evidence has been provided that is perfectly consistent with expectations, eg, what there is zero reason to doubt are particles of regolith in the wrinkles of the mylar/kapton covering of the landing pads.
The burden of proof is on you to show how what we see is not particles of regolith. Possible alternatives do not meet the burden of proof, you need to show WHY whatever you suggest is a better explanation than particles of regolith or why what we see isn't consistent with "particles of regolith".
And now I get to say that the burden of proof is on you to show how regolith might lodge "subtly" in the folds but not leave a trace anywhere else.
I did endure a tertiary education where we were encouraged to triumph through bloviating about "burden of proof", "due diligence", "logical fallacy" and the like. But my heart wasn't in it. As now.
The blast should have disturbed lots of dust and left lots of dust all over the pads and legs of the lander. Why the fakers didn't bother is uncertain. If they did bother to fake "subtly" for some reason, they were certainly subtle. But they did fake, hence the lack of dust and disturbance under a rocket blast. Hence the debunking of a "crater" to distract.
Anyway, if there is any uncertainty about what I mean by "lots of dust" and "dust all over" let me know. I can just believe in subtle fakers pinching tiny amounts of dust into the folds. I can't believe in subtle rockets.
Oh, Petra... :-(
Weapons of mass destruction FACT ? muslim terrorists coked up jet hijackers .unblemished passport that survived plane that crashed into twin towers reducing thick steel girders 2 dust ..landed at fbi agents feet .. I fully believe that thermonuclear cattle flattulance ..9r cows farts 4 short is biggest threat to humanity .UNLESS we get the worlds unwashed peasants give loads of cash to WEF .. and the Chinese eating bat soup in thoer wet markets nearly wiped us all out if not 4 the genius professor Dr Bill Gates (in Welsh prononced village idiot ) experimental safe and effective vaccines ... and I could go on but am a tad pissed ..well it is my birthday ...BURRRP
How do You account for the lack of debris - and LOTS of dust - on 9/11? From My study, the only thing that covers those facts is DEW.
You might want to check out 9/11 Revisionist's work.
https://911revision.substack.com/
It can't be a conspiracy if you don't use anyone else.
Anyone who thinks that politics and big business are devoid of conspiracy need 2 get another booster ..thats my theory