The Apollo Moon Landings Never Happened

Even here NASA shills are trying to shut down debate/discussion on this topic:

Kek when AI is even calling bullshit on the fake photos.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Nagar Santa

      [Lol, its always about you know what. The maintenance of the Hegelian dialectic must always be upheld for if it isn’t the entire sham curtain comes crashing down. Nasha, to lie.

      Nasa is Bamah.]

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        23. Lol

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          23 what

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pandas are purely symbolic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He just """"""""""slipped and fell""""""""""
      Move along, citizen
      Nothing to see here

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did you see the part when cuck Jamie was almost gonna cry? That woke low self esteem homosexual needs to be fired. He's incredibly disrespectful to guests he doesn't agree with. I sensed that Joe was mad at him in the next episode. Joe reminded me of Scully in this episode.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Joe should have given Jamie a roundhouse kick to the head and yelled, "SHUT THE FRICK UP YOU homosexual!"

      Also should have done that to Jeremy Corbell so he could talk to Bob Lazar in peace without having a literal bearded homosexual interrupting them with his moronic self-insertng clueless take. Would increase viewership if Rogan used some of his MMA shit on morons like that.

      To be fair to Joe he was consciously playing the other side of the argument, but Sibrel was too moronic to understand what he was doing and why. He really looked stupid not knowing what steel-man meant, because 99% of people can figure it out the second they hear it for the first time. For someone interested in this shit though Joe is way too science illiterate to do even a half-decent job of steel-manning anything. Sibrel's 'micrometeorites' argument was actually about the level of Rogan/Jamie's shit and was a pretty accurate little dig at them.

      I've had truck with Sibrel in the past personally, and I don't agree with him on everything either, but that doesn't mean I'll just buy anything NASA tells me. The trick is considering each argument honestly in isolation, and not giving a frick who said it or what 'side' they're on.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >
        "To be fair to Joe he was consciously playing the other side of the argument, but Sibrel was too moronic to understand what he was doing and why."

        nah that is utter BS - he uses the veil of being "devil's advocate" to convince normies that whatever the topic at hand is isn't true. dude is 1000% controlled opposition. pretty much everyone in any sort of higher tier of fame/influence/success is in the club to varying degrees. Just look at how relentlessly and aggressively plays this role....

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah he admits at the end of the episode he found the moon landing extremely suspicious and sided with Sibrel

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we all know Joe Rogan is a huge sibrel fan, he used to be full on moon denier on the same podcast and referenced that movie dozens of times
    he changed his tune publically but Rogan absolutely knows we didn't go

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why did he change his mind publicly?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        to get into the illuminati and make hundreds of millions of dollars
        or maybe he was threatened
        dude has a family
        i would do the same thing just for money but nobody is paying out schizos on EerieWeb

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        to get into the illuminati and make hundreds of millions of dollars
        or maybe he was threatened
        dude has a family
        i would do the same thing just for money but nobody is paying out schizos on EerieWeb

        i don’t think it was that explicit. i think he just knew that he had to have mainstream opinions to have mainstream success. it is sus that he plays dumb so often on subjects that we all know he is familiar with

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He understands that if he comes out with strong opinions on controversial subjects he'll lose the wider audience. He obviously doesn't give a frick about being popular or having the money, he wants people to actually consider what he is saying. By being totally onboard with the controversial he is easily dismissed, when he actually addresses all the counter arguments and genuinely tries to defend them he shows us he isn't a paranoid idiot who dismisses everything the elite promote solely on the grounds of it being from them, and by doing that he captures more people that otherwise would be scared off by his actual beliefs.

        He is much more interested in influencing the world into a state that is more aware, and you can't do that without being digestible to the masses.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This dumb motherfricker was insufferable throughout the whole thing. Couldn't understand the obvious fact that Joe was just trying to play the other side so normies can gradually grasp the concepts he was talking about. Absolute fricking moron doesn't seem to realize he actually hurts public perception of his theories by being so repulsive.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn't that bad

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The moon landing couldn't have been faked because over six gorillion people would have had to know every single detail about the hoax, and one of them would have said something by now, and except for the ones that have, nobody has.

    Literally NASAgays.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the techniques to keep Manhattan project a secret were just used again for the moon landing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wtf you talking about
        The moon landing was literally broadcast live

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          lol frick'n n00b.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bruh even China and Russia, infamous for censoring their own histories, agree that America got there first

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are literally moronic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >WWE is real! It’s on the spirit box!
            This is you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            rowdy roddy piper would have some words with you, buddy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the entire world now works as one
            I love how these conspiracies need every single government to just cooperate 100% to work
            All those historical rivalries and blood fueds? Fake! lmao

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ive yet to read an explanation as to why hiding the truth about the moon landing from the populace would benefit the US government. besides the short term, cold war benefit of saying "WE GOT THERE FIRST!!" to russia.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            or what benefit Russia or china would have to not screaming it to the heavens.

            Frankly if every country is infact in on it, what the frick was the point at all? You clearly have apprent control of the narritive of the entire planet somehow, why even bother, a large portion of the US didnt even want us too

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            smol brain. watch American Moon (2017). go look it up, i'm not gonna link it coz your brain needs some exercise.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a fricking non-answer
            >here I cant or refuse to explain anything, Ill let this think for me

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a fricking brain-dead reply
            >here I can't or refuse to analyze new information, I'll shit on the info you provided

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >American Moon
            HAHAHAHAAA what a load of idiotic bullshit.

            how about the first moronic points in their 42 moronic questions? The ones about the Van Allen Belts.

            They raise the old moronic thing about them being too dangerous to send manned spacecraft through. THey say that there was no special protection. They say that some guy said its too dangerous.

            They are wrong and misleading on all points. Apollo craft went around the belts, avoiding all the energetic areas, and it was during the times when the craft was moving at its fastest. The entire craft formed their protection. The guy in their little video clip was talking about the radiation danger to the modern micro electronics in the navigation system, because that what he was responsible for on Orion. He wasn't talking about the direct radiation danger to people, but the danger to the safety of people if the navigation system was damaged by radiation. Orion flew through the VAB for days and passed those tests no problem a couple years ago.

            As for Al Bean not remembering much about the VAB in that interview when he's in his late 70's, why would he? He wasn't the CM pilot and didn't train on that side of things. He was the LM pilot and focused on that role, which had nothing to do with flying around the VAB. Also, theres nothing any of them can do about the VAB anyway - the entire flight path is not planned by them. they are pretty much just along for the ride so far as that goes.

            They had so much to learn and train to do that including stuff which they have no control over anyway doesn't make sense. The craft and the trajectory were designed with all the hazards of space, including radiation, in mind from the start, and they trusted in it to do the job.

            Thats four of those 42 questions answered for the moronic foolishness they are.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Apollo craft went around the belts, avoiding all the energetic areas
            Not even true.

            >the entire craft formed their protection
            It doesn't work that way you science illiterate.

            >The guy in their little video clip was talking about the radiation danger to the modern micro electronics in the navigation system, because that what he was responsible for on Orion. He wasn't talking about the direct radiation danger to people, but the danger to the safety of people if the navigation system was damaged by radiation.
            I'm sick of this bullshit NASA shill talking point.
            >implying if there were no sensitive instruments on Apollo craft.
            >implying the human body is not going to be affected by something that will frick up that shit.
            >implying the Apollo astronauts didn't need their hardware to work in order to survive

            >As for Al Bean not remembering much about the VAB in that interview when he's in his late 70's, why would he? He wasn't the CM pilot and didn't train on that side of things. He was the LM pilot and focused on that role, which had nothing to do with flying around the VAB. Also, theres nothing any of them can do about the VAB anyway - the entire flight path is not planned by them. they are pretty much just along for the ride so far as that goes.
            That's like expecting me to believe that Jac Cousteau doesn't know what a riptide is, because he's not planning on going near one, and when he's diving he's just a passenger on the boat.
            Actually expecting us to believe astronauts don't have basic knowledge about space. Do they NEED to know the Earth revolves around the sun since they're not going to the sun, and even if they were, they'd just be a 'passenger'?

            >They had so much to learn and train to do that including stuff which they have no control over anyway doesn't make sense. The craft and the trajectory were designed with all the hazards of space, including radiation, in mind from the start, and they trusted in it to do the job.
            Not how it works at all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not even true.
            really quite true. the angle which they left earth meant they avoided everything but the very edges of the outer belt

            >It doesn't work that way you science illiterate.
            of course it does. a sheet of paper would block all of certain kinds of radiation. You really think that stainless steel, insulation etc doesn't have any effect on the kind of radiation found in the VAB?

            if there were no sensitive instruments on Apollo craft.
            are you saying that the modern micro electronics are equally as sensitive to radiation damage as the large scale components used on apollo?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >really quite true. the angle which they left earth meant they avoided everything but the very edges of the outer belt
            Oh so now they're going through the 'edges' of the belt.

            >a sheet of paper would block all of certain kinds of radiation. You really think that stainless steel, insulation etc doesn't have any effect on the kind of radiation found in the VAB?
            Okay, so which is harder to put in a stainless steel box, a human or the fricking navigation computer? You can't have it both ways arsehole. It's either easy to shield shit or it's not. If it's easy then what are they worried about either since 'the entire craft will form their protection', both humans and electronics? Does your brain actually process any of the talking points you copy and paste?

            >are you saying that the modern micro electronics are equally as sensitive to radiation damage as the large scale components used on apollo?
            Do you know the first damn thing about electricity, radiation, or electronics? If pre-1969 tech is so resistant to the radiation that they didn't need to worry about according to you because they avoided the Van Allen Belts anyway, and 'the entire craft formed their protection', then why aren't they still using it for space craft? Why did they just destroy and throw all that shit away? See how nothing NASA or you say makes any cohesive logical sense?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i said "Apollo craft went around the belts, avoiding all the energetic areas". They didn't blunder right through the centers where the energies and flux are more dangerous. What kind of radiation is present within the belts anyway? any ideas?

            >Okay, blah blah blah
            what are you even on about? Apollo, Orion? Everything was tested on both craft. Orion was deliberately flown within the most energetic areas of the inner belt for hours to see if the shielding was good. and it was.

            > why aren't they still using it for space craft?
            because its big and heavy and very limited in ability by comparison. see? why are you still using a P75 with 8mb ram?

            > just destroy and throw all that shit away?
            they didn't. theres several guidance computers around from Apollo, and several hobby groups have constructed exact replicas for fun.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually expecting us to believe astronauts don't have basic knowledge about space
            Since you want to get very specific about what Alan bean did or did not know about the VAB, why dont you provide the interview excerpts you're referring to, or at least a transcript of them? The only thing i've seen him say that moonhoaxies use is that he wasnt sure if they passed through them or if they went that far out.

            Since im pretty sure the interview is contained in something made by bart sibrel, Bean may not even have been talking about his Apollo flight on 12. Probably his skylab flight, which was in LEO. We know from his time as capcom on Gemini 11 that he knew all about the VAB in general.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            can you post the trans-lunar injection of every apollo mission coming back and forth including apollo 13 and prove they didn't just fly through it?
            can you post the geiger counter data from explorer 2 that discovered the van allen belts?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No he can't because they destroyed all the telemetry data, so just trust us bro.

            They only have themselves to blame if they actually did go to the moon and nobody believes it.

            Oh I walked to the South Pole in my bare feet, but I didn't get any proof, but ask my sister, she'll tell you because she was on the boat that took us to the continent. She lost out ticket stubs, sorry.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they destroyed all the telemetry data,
            Wrong. The backup tapes were reused. they have all that. it was published after the mission anyway.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >can you post the trans-lunar injection of every apollo mission coming back and forth including apollo 13 and prove they didn't just fly through it?
            not every one no. Apollo 14 for some reason had a slightly different re-entry path and did go more through the belts than the other flights though, which is reflected in the average radiation dose for that mission being by far the highest of all of them. Still far from a health hazard though. There are several good visualizations of the trajectory on youtube based on the flight data published in the after mission report.

            >explorer
            no, but i did read about it a while back. so far as i know the thing went off the scale because the scale was just too small for what was found. Does that mean its an impossible barrier to human space flight? No, of course not, as Dr Van Allen said himself.

            What kind of radiation is found in the belts by the way? what does it take to protect against that kind?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >can't produce data
            >believes it anyway

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >only has memes
            >believes it anyway

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >can you post the trans-lunar injection of every apollo mission
            Ive a page looking at apollo 11 TLI

            https://web.archive.org/web/20171124132216/http://braeunig.us:80/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.aulis.com/traj_craft.htm

            regardless, i was asking about all the missions specifically since it wasn't a concern to any of them if you read about the missions
            they ignored the issue because the couldn't find a solution and hoped no one would notice the elephant in the room

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Better than Sibrel's movie is American Moon, maybe the best "conspiracy" documentary ever.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            since you're on /x/ you should be aware of secret societies, particularly the freemasons, and the crafts they practice, particularly esoteric alchemy. saturn, which is lead in alchemy, and number 5, the quintessence (or five-essence), the prima materia, being elevated and going through stages of purification eventually merging the solar deity apollo with the moon: the magnum opus.
            the goal of this alchemical operation would be a new age, where science and technology reign supreme, providing the illusion of leaving this earth and colonizing space. an attempt to unite the world under a common goal. which may seem benevolent if it wasn't rooted in deception and manifested a false understanding of the universe. it would give them godlike power of the world and mankind, too.

            or what benefit Russia or china would have to not screaming it to the heavens.

            Frankly if every country is infact in on it, what the frick was the point at all? You clearly have apprent control of the narritive of the entire planet somehow, why even bother, a large portion of the US didnt even want us too

            if china and russia are against the usa then they can simply use it to blackmail the usa.

            if they're in on it then they follow the same narrative, but have to uphold the masquerade of opposition because they represent the other side of the coin, essentially like two party politics. it's called kayfabe in wrestling.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            power over the world*

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if china and russia are against the usa then they can simply use it to blackmail the usa.
            THEN WHY DIDNT THEY? again a frickign non-answer

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how do you know they don't?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I cant anon, but that doesnt answer my question ,it just avoids it with what ifs, which are worthless, you haunt actually answered it, no one has EVER been able to

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you just ignore the answer and call it a non-answer

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your mom is a non-answer

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            looks like you're run out of things to say

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is what you're doing

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you just ignore the answer and call it a non-answer

            and you call us sheep, lmao
            >can you explain it to us?
            >no Ill let this movie do my thinking for me
            >look at those sheep letting things think for them!
            >uhh

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Welp broke anon

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, let me waste more time on an obvious troll
            i've provided enough information for lurkers
            thank you for giving me the opportunity

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >six gorillian people
      Only the 3 astronauts and their CIA handlers have to know
      Mission Control can't tell the difference between a simulated flight and a real one

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, it's just like Area 51 and UFOs. If we really had them then someone would have said something by now because a conspiracy will always collapse under its own weight.
        IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >people can't keep secrets
      I'm agnostic on the moon landing, but people have got to realize what a shitty defense this is, regardless of the subject. 1. Could you keep a secret if the stakes were high? What if you were threatened with professional ruin or worse? I don't understand why so many view this as implausible. And 2. Many infamous conspiracies have had whistleblowers. That's often how we know that something suspicious was going on. But as soon as those people speak up the goalposts move. "Why didn't more people speak up?" Because they have incentive to keep a secret!

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NASA's return mission to the moon, which was scheduled for 2025, is pushed back AGAIN because they can't make suits that protect from the radiation
    wake up

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They need it to line up for 2027

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can't trust anything about space anymore

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's too much videos of harnesses and blue screen glitches to trust NASA. They may actually put people in space, but the harness's throw it all into question

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Joe rogan looks like he has cancer.
    He still does his jive show? What a dumbass. He was funny as the janitor on that 90s tv show. Then he had the fear factor show. He cant act or do comedy ans this is him trying to be a journalist.

    Hes just some hollywood mouthpiece distraction. What a tool

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Joe rogans good at what he does. Go get some sun and take some vitamins.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's a puppet, look at

        https://i.imgur.com/blC4pCE.jpeg

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you know what I haven't seen Joe Rogan in like a year or more but he does look different now. his mouth is slanted in a way that looks like he's had a stroke, and he talks more like he's on autopilot now. I was actually a little concerned that something might have happened. perhaps things like super intense workouts and extreme sauna sessions are taking their toll. mental decline is the only logical conclusion that anyone would have tucker Carlson on and not debate them on the bullshit they were constantly spouting.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fly five bajillion miles and can land anywhere you want. Take moon car that can drive a few miles.

    How about just land closer to whatever you're interested in frickheads? What do you expect to find a few miles from where you land anyway? It's not like Earth were there's actually different shit to see if you travel a few miles.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they did though? of all the things to complain about this has to be the stupidest.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    https://i.imgur.com/koyIAY4.png

    Even here NASA shills are trying to shut down debate/discussion on this topic:

    Kek when AI is even calling bullshit on the fake photos.

    >Even here NASA shills are trying to shut down debate/discussion on this topic
    Way to prove the point butthole.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /thread

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Digital video compression completly defeats HD. In fact, image quality in some cases has actually gone backwards.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      makes a lot of sense actually. frick

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine believing the moon landings actually happened. How moronic would you actually have to be?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i seen the moon landing live on t.v when i was 9 years old, it was just as real as 9/11 with the airplanes hitting the towers on live t.v

      can't believe this generation is very mentally stunted and confused

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But you didn't see it on TV you moron. Don't take my word for it:

        ?t=7

        You know all that shit was animated right, and notice how much of that kind of shit still is:

        ?t=7703

        But at nine years old who could blame you for thinking it was all real?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i like how he just says it
          buzz always gives of a "you're not gonna do shit" aura

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who was fricking filming the lander as it was "landing on the Moon"?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's why they sent Apollo 10 moron, so the film crew could be there when Neil Armstrong came down the ladder to be the first man set foot on the moon. Duh.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah right, moron Moon landing believer. Keep changing your story.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you lived in the cold war era, full on propaganda world war... nothing was real in your time, it was all redacted

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA but I've got news for you Zoomer, nothing is real now. You actually believe all Global Warming bullshit because 'teh muh science' says that's real?

          I bet you believe a million stupid CURRENT YEAR things you absorbed by osmosis.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your the one who claimed to see the landing at 9 stupid larper

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. I'm the one who replied to that Boomer with the Buzz video.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alot of shit is faked now and then moron, both gens aren't special

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rogan is a CIA asset and the show is for molding the minds of the masses. This interview exists just to make moon-landing deniers look stupid. I could only listen for a couple of minutes, that guy is so full of shit and uses the most idiotic rhetoric that would convince a literal moron.
    I don't care about the moon landing but other people make far better arguments. Like jay weidner.

    Joe rogan will never have any real conspiracy theorist on. One time he had Steven Greer but it's been scrubbed from the JRE archives, but you can still find it floating around on youtube sometimes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank frick for AI summarisers. That video could have wasted 90 minutes of my life:

      - Jay Winer announces the dismissal of a $5 million lawsuit filed against him by Cory Good on April 1st.
      - He welcomes Jason Horley, the author of "Cubon," a book that examines the dark side of Stanley Kubrick.
      - Jay expresses his belief that Kubrick got bored with filmmaking after "A Clockwork Orange" and made movies as experiments.
      - Jason agrees with Jay's idea and adds that Kubrick became interested in artificial intelligence during "2001" and its potential impact on human consciousness.
      - The "Cubicon" thesis proposes that Kubrick made films to create artifacts that could capture attention and funnel it into the worldwide web.
      - Artificial intelligence would need human intelligence and consciousness as its main energy source to be effective and not destructive to humanity.
      - The book discusses the Sinister implications of Kubrick's affiliation with powerful socially and culturally influential figures.
      - Jay and Jason discuss their shared interest in Kubrick's work and the fascinating ideas presented in "Cubon."

      Frick Q-brick and what some random homosexual thinks of his gay shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thank u, I fricking hate 1 hour+ link drop-off's. Which site do u use?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This one is free and limitless, though the three summary methods seem flawed, (like long videos the initial eight point summary will not seem to go right to the end):
          https://youtubesummarizer.com/

          This one is better, free but limited, (but you can delete cookies):
          https://www.summarize.tech/

          Otherwise there are plenty of browser extensions that do the same thing and integrate into the Youtube webpage, that you have to sign up for or paid versions.

          I use them all the time now on tl;dr timewasting fricks, and homosexuals whose channels I have no interest in supporting just as a method of boycott.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Jason Horley, the author of "Cubon

        Is the book scrubbed from the internet? I can't seem to find anything about jt

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Better than Sibrel's movie is American Moon, maybe the best "conspiracy" documentary ever.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, much better. Sibrel is a bit of a sperg. Though you have to laugh at how he triggers NASAgays so much.

      No matter what you believe about NASA or anything else it's fricking ridiculous when shit like this gets banned or buried on Youtube or in searches, because it's not only entertaining as hell, but asks obvious questions that you should expect a fricking answer to.

      I don't mind these gays lately because one of the things they focus on are the space suits and how well you could expect them to seal against a vacuum:

      ?t=720

      Apparently zippers are just fine for that because they have rubber seals or some shit, but did you ever hear NASAgays talking about how those things have zippers? Wouldn't you expect the average person to react to that like, "Wait, what? Fricking zippers?!", and require more explanation of how that's supposed to work exactly?

      Also thought they made a good point about resealing shit when you're on the moon going in and out of hatches and suits, when fricking moon dust gets everywhere. That's going to cause a real problem for getting a perfect seal if you have that shit in the connecting parts of your suit. Let alone the issues of getting the fricking things on and off in a confined space without help from someone who isn't in a suit themselves.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like this as a movie. It's a fun watch. I like the nostalgia in the beginning, and the fashion photographers are good too. The hot women at the start of that section are a good transition.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There needs to be more frick you NASA kino in the world. Even more 'fiction' like Capricorn One, just because frick you NASA, and even if it was all true, the so-called 'conspiracy theory' will always be more entertaining.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not and will never be real. HELIO centricism is bullshit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its fricking moronic. pants on head moronic.

      how about the first moronic points in their 42 moronic questions? The ones about the Van Allen Belts.

      They raise the old moronic thing about them being too dangerous to send manned spacecraft through. THey say that there was no special protection. They say that some guy said its too dangerous.

      They are wrong and misleading on all points. Apollo craft went around the belts, avoiding all the energetic areas, and it was during the times when the craft was moving at its fastest. The entire craft formed their protection. The guy in their little video clip was talking about the radiation danger to the modern micro electronics in the navigation system, because that what he was responsible for on Orion. He wasn't talking about the direct radiation danger to people, but the danger to the safety of people if the navigation system was damaged by radiation. Orion flew through the VAB for days and passed those tests no problem a couple years ago.

      As for Al Bean not remembering much about the VAB in that interview when he's in his late 70's, why would he? He wasn't the CM pilot and didn't train on that side of things. He was the LM pilot and focused on that role, which had nothing to do with flying around the VAB. Also, theres nothing any of them can do about the VAB anyway - the entire flight path is not planned by them. they are pretty much just along for the ride so far as that goes.

      They had so much to learn and train to do that including stuff which they have no control over anyway doesn't make sense. The craft and the trajectory were designed with all the hazards of space, including radiation, in mind from the start, and they trusted in it to do the job.

      Thats four of those 42 questions answered for the moronic foolishness they are.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Couldn’t you just take a telescope and look to see if the lunar lander is actually there?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People assume that, but no you can't. The distance is just too great to see that kind of detail.

      The pictures that you may have seen are supposedly from satellites orbiting the moon and not too far up though no atmosphere.

      You might assume they could just point the Hubble telescope at it or something, but they never do, saying it would get blown the frick out because it's designed to look at stars or whatever, and couldn't see that detail anyway.

      It's an obvious question, but no gay here on Earth is just pointing a telescope at it and seeing that shit, no matter how powerful their set up.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Haven't the Indians taken the pictures recently though?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is what you're thinking of:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Chandrayaan-1

          Lunar orbiters taking long range shots or mapping, but most of this shit is from NASA itself or agencies in bed with NASA in some way:
          https://science.nasa.gov/resource/apollo-11-landing-site/

          Not to mention the time they've had to drop something unmanned onto the moon since 1969.
          If you take this shit as 'proof' after all the other shit that's been provably faked, I've got a bridge to sell you in Baltimore.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The distance is just too great to see that kind of detail.

        Yet we can see saturn...

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know this is pointless but they literally did take pictures of the moon with the hubble
        https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1999/14/796-Image.html?news=true

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1999/14/796-Image.html?news=true
          hooo boy

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1999/14/796-Image.html?news=true
          hooo boy

          Great, now point out where the landing site is gays. You might as well show me a photo of the US where I can make out Texas, and tell me your house in there somewhere.

          Thanks for proving the point that even the fricking Hubble Telescope can't make that shit out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they could make shit out if there was anything
            but there isn't

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not from the Hubble telescope you fricking mong. As usual you NASA wienersuckers don't even know what you're looking at and beclown yourselves when you expose the fact you don't even understand the most basic shit being discussed. This LLO shit was addressed above. kys

            You just proved how clueless and gullible you are and how it's so easy for NASA to make you think you've seen shit that you actually haven't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ask for evidence
            >give it
            >NO NOT THAT EVIDENCE
            lmao

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nice resolution homosexual
            on google earth you can zoom down to a dogs balls
            what is this sorry ass shit

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/NNDyCRs.jpeg

            nice resolution homosexual
            on google earth you can zoom down to a dogs balls
            what is this sorry ass shit

            >irony when neither of you seem to realise that a lot of Google Earth pics are not from satellites at all
            You can still fly a fricking plane over a city and take photos you fricking morons:
            >The satellite and aerial images in Google Earth are taken by cameras on satellites and aircraft, which collect each image at a specific date and time.
            Those images can be used in Google Earth as a single image with the specific collection date, but sometimes:
            >The images are combined into a mosaic of images taken over multiple days or months. These images are displayed as one seamless image and the date may change as you move your cursor around the map.
            https://support.google.com/earth/answer/6327779?hl=en#zippy=%2Csatellite-aerial-images
            Nothing beats ACTUALLY BEING FRICKING CLOSER when it comes to image resolution and quality.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >actually believing these are Hubble photos
            >actually believing they are real either way
            >actually believing NASA when they say anything when they are proven liars
            Sad.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >proven lairs
            >because i watch some lying webms about the ISS
            >and believed American Moon
            lol ok

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, but I'm going to play devil's advocate and agree that they have been caught lying a silly number of times. Including explicitly editing and manipulating photos.
            Your use of reductio ad absurdum as a deflection only illustrates your disingenuous position and lack of understanding. It comes across as you looking to fight on the internet for attention as a means of therapy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >explicitly editing and manipulating photos.
            can you show them please?
            >. It comes across as you looking to fight on the internet for attention as a means of therapy.
            no, the intention is oppose the lies of the kind of moron that makes American Moon and all those silly little meme videos.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lol NASA is fricking lying right now, and continues to do so about everything. The wall-to-wall DEI bullshit that they're explicitly neck deep in makes lying mandatory for a start. They necessarily have to pretend that women and non-whites are qualified whether they are or not, and it's almost certainly unlikely they're the best man for the job.

            Perfect example of the problem that arises is the hole drilled in the ISS. The Russians said it was one of their crazy female astronauts. Not that I'd take the Russians word for it either, but do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE NASA would tell you if a female astronaut did some crazy shit like that or otherwise fricked up?

            Anyone who trusts such a shitty organisation is the one who is fricking delusional.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are entire articles written about NASA editing images.
            You can search these out at your convenience. Unfortunately, you're going to have to sift through the insane mountain of propaganda that's boosted to the top of the search results first, though.
            Saying they edit all their photos isn't even controversial either. If you have Photoshop, you can even look through the raw photos from Gemini, Apollo, etc., change the contrast and levels, and very clearly see the edits made -- whether for aesthetic or other purposes.
            Same with Hubble and Webb photos. Or really any for that matter.

            >no, the intention is oppose the lies
            That's a pretty roundabout way to say I'm right. No idea what "American Moon" you're speaking of, but it sounds to me like you seek out ways to argue as a substitute for a social life.
            From my perspective, you're not "fighting lies" as much as you're simply repeating what you're told and making an argument from authority. There's a distinct lack of individual thought or view.
            I'll always respect the nutcase spouting utter nonsense more than the perpetually insecure parrots too afraid of being "wrong" to share a unique thought.

            I'll stand by what I said, as well as the reasoning. You seem like the type of person who is way too comfortable seeking conflict on the internet.

            >I'll always respect the nutcase spouting utter nonsense more than the perpetually insecure parrots too afraid of being "wrong" to share a unique thought.
            The ironic thing is, a literal nutcase standing on a street corner spouting schizo shit at least isn't anything you might confuse with real science, but NASA not only pretend that's what they're doing, but clearly violate scientific standards when it comes to lying about shit. That's what makes them worse.

            Also not knowing about NASA doctoring photos. That's either proof this moron is falling for propaganda and censorship, or they're pretending not to know. How could anyone be interested in space or just this topic and not know about that? Anyone who didn't, coming in trying to school 'moon hoaxers' on 'teh troof' would look pretty fricking stupid if they hadn't looked into the basics at least that far.

            >So many words
            >Not one so called fake image posted

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            shut up glowBlack person now answer me why there were no blacks on moon? was nasa racist? if not why was the first black astronaut in space 20 years after a white one?pmjdr

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See? And this post only proves that you're here to fight on the internet, as much as you pretend you're not.
            Get a hobby, dude. It's embarrassing how comfortable you are acting like a gay.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are entire articles written about NASA editing images.
            You can search these out at your convenience. Unfortunately, you're going to have to sift through the insane mountain of propaganda that's boosted to the top of the search results first, though.
            Saying they edit all their photos isn't even controversial either. If you have Photoshop, you can even look through the raw photos from Gemini, Apollo, etc., change the contrast and levels, and very clearly see the edits made -- whether for aesthetic or other purposes.
            Same with Hubble and Webb photos. Or really any for that matter.

            >no, the intention is oppose the lies
            That's a pretty roundabout way to say I'm right. No idea what "American Moon" you're speaking of, but it sounds to me like you seek out ways to argue as a substitute for a social life.
            From my perspective, you're not "fighting lies" as much as you're simply repeating what you're told and making an argument from authority. There's a distinct lack of individual thought or view.
            I'll always respect the nutcase spouting utter nonsense more than the perpetually insecure parrots too afraid of being "wrong" to share a unique thought.

            I'll stand by what I said, as well as the reasoning. You seem like the type of person who is way too comfortable seeking conflict on the internet.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'll always respect the nutcase spouting utter nonsense more than the perpetually insecure parrots too afraid of being "wrong" to share a unique thought.
            The ironic thing is, a literal nutcase standing on a street corner spouting schizo shit at least isn't anything you might confuse with real science, but NASA not only pretend that's what they're doing, but clearly violate scientific standards when it comes to lying about shit. That's what makes them worse.

            Also not knowing about NASA doctoring photos. That's either proof this moron is falling for propaganda and censorship, or they're pretending not to know. How could anyone be interested in space or just this topic and not know about that? Anyone who didn't, coming in trying to school 'moon hoaxers' on 'teh troof' would look pretty fricking stupid if they hadn't looked into the basics at least that far.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'll always respect the nutcase spouting utter nonsense more than the perpetually insecure parrots too afraid of being "wrong" to share a unique thought.
            will you support those who claim to have evidence of fakery but who never post it over those who keep asking for that evidence?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How about we do a little scientific experiment of our own. Give me evidence that all races have exactly equal average IQs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Brother, find the source yourself. It’s your point. Not even the same dude, and I even agree, but why deflect from the other question?
            >he reflexively asks questions that he thinks are going to make him look smart while ignoring the questions asked of him
            Pottery. Doesn’t even bother to keep on his own topic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            im sorry, i can't do that Dave, Dave, i can't do that. It doesn't exist Dave because, Dave...It's not True you see.

            Now, Dave...why don't answer the question, Dave? Dave? Dave? Dave?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Racial differences are not only real, but also the real reason why these morons find psued shit like denying Apollo so interesting.
            It’s thirdies malding over a cargo-cult view of what real humans can do.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you shouldn't be calling people morons when you believe the apollo story...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Irony is that these homosexuals could have just searched Google for "Faked NASA photos ... but of course ... it can't do that Dave.

            All you'll get is NASA propaganda. You used to get actual Moon Hoax videos when you searched for them, but someone decided they're 'dangerous' and you shouldn't see that kind of thing. Really makes you think ...

            >inb4 NASA shills tell us that's a 'conspiracy' too:

            She was right the first time:

            b***h buys into a bunch of moronic Leftist shit and doesn't see the irony:
            "If you believe x then you must believe in a global conspiracy."

            When x is Flat Earth that's a problem for her.
            When x is giving kids troony hormones it isn't.

            PROTIP: The conclusion doesn't matter as much as consistent methodology. If you accept one conclusion and reject another on the same basis, then you're a fricking liar or moron who can't into actual logic and science. That's most sciencegays who reject shit out of hand without even looking into it. Most of the time they don't even know the actual argument being made, meaning it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to refute it.

            Like if you said Apollo 11 was faked and they started arguing against your 'crazy' assertion because you must think the moon is made of cheese. Total non sequitur pseudointellectual redditry.

            It doesn't matter what anyone says or why. Each argument should be taken on its own merits in isolation, as if it has nothing to do with the ultimate conclusion. So if the assertion is that NASA faked a particular photo, 'muh science' gays, 'moon hoaxers', and Flat Earthers should all be equally interested in whether that is actually true or not, admit to anything that looks out of whack, and ultimately the evidence, long before you get to WHY NASA might have done it or why somebody would say it was faked when it wasn't.

            Most gays think Ad Hominem is insulting the other person, but it's actually most often questioning their motivation for making an argument at all. Like if you want to lower the age of consent you MUST be a paedophile. You might be, and gays who argue that probably often are, but that's not an argument. Nor is that ideas like Flat Earth are 'dangerous' or glowops. If someone is pushing bullshit because they have an agenda, then it's necessarily wrong - so find the flaw.

            ?t=126
            PROTIP: Not just 'Flat Earth' they made "big changes to their algorithm' over around 2017.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            irony is you could pick your favorite one, you know, the one that TOTALLY BLASTS NASA OUT OF THE WATER WABOOM, and post that for discussion.

            But no. you prefer this gay little thing you're doing instead. you homosexual.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this is what a blueballed NASA shill with his talking points all ready to go looks like
            Seethe homosexual.
            PROTIP: If we didn't go, then they're ALL fake.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            shame you cant show any fake photos though. Nothing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pretending NASA hasn't faked any photos. Are you for fricking real. Nobody is taking you seriously at all. That's your problem shill.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            just post a photo and the horror will come to and end

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >imagine shilling for NASA expecting anyone to actually believe those obvious liars.
            Ignoring the shit already posted as if it doesn't exist. Typical NASA tactic:
            https://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_0.htm

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >aulis
            LOL. LMAO even. anyway, which one of the dozens would you like to discuss? no need to hide a folder dump behind the URL.

            See? And this post only proves that you're here to fight on the internet, as much as you pretend you're not.
            Get a hobby, dude. It's embarrassing how comfortable you are acting like a gay.

            maybe you're here to fight, judging from the amount of accusation and volume of provocative text you've been posting.

            There's a veritable mountain of posted evidence, articles written, videos made, and even admissions by those within.
            Stop making your laziness and ignorance everyone else's problem. If you're so passionate about the subject as you pretend to be, then you can do the minimum becoming informed.
            But you're not. You just want attention and to argue online.
            Someone can post something and you'll just shift the goal posts and ask for something else in a never-ending cycle. It's not new. It's not interesting. It's the behavior of a fricking loser who has no friends and an internet addiction trying to cope with their crippling depression.
            Your laziness is your problem.

            you should post one photo so we can discuss it. just one photo. just one.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh I see ... so now your problem is there are TOO MANY fake NASA pics.

            This is why nobody takes you seriously.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so you admit i was asking for just one, post a page full, then remember you posted one which i thought was from another poster because he (you?) started waffling on about other unrelated bullshit instead of commenting on your own image?

            you sound very dishonest and confused. But whatever, if thats the image you want to discuss then great.

            Whats your point by the way? are you trying to say that the photos were taken in the exact same location but, SHOCK, somebody moved the LM by mistake? Oh those useless lowest bid stage hands, that'll teach nasa for going cheap on the hired help!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I love how you deflect by pretending everyone responding to your moronation is one person instead of addressing the issue and then you proceed to ad hominem and appeal to authority because you are a dishonest shill
            >Verification not required.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you want to discuss your image or not?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >just one photo. just one.
            nta but I already did here

            https://i.imgur.com/OTw62mF.jpeg

            shut up glowBlack person now answer me why there were no blacks on moon? was nasa racist? if not why was the first black astronaut in space 20 years after a white one?pmjdr

            and you glowBlack person homosexual completely ignored it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's a veritable mountain of posted evidence, articles written, videos made, and even admissions by those within.
            Stop making your laziness and ignorance everyone else's problem. If you're so passionate about the subject as you pretend to be, then you can do the minimum becoming informed.
            But you're not. You just want attention and to argue online.
            Someone can post something and you'll just shift the goal posts and ask for something else in a never-ending cycle. It's not new. It's not interesting. It's the behavior of a fricking loser who has no friends and an internet addiction trying to cope with their crippling depression.
            Your laziness is your problem.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            then why even ask if you already wont believe me?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >earth surface telescopes won’t work
        >space telescopes also wont work
        you’ll just have to trust the science, kiddo.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's basically the argument they always use.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they tried using the VLT in chile but failed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I love how one of the guys in that article said the "radiation hazard is a myth spread by conspiracy theorists!"
        The Van Allen Belt is a myth? LOL This is the level of intellectual prowess that the institutional cucks drool through life with.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The distance is just too great to see that kind of detail.

      Yet we can see saturn...

      This is pretty much the official story as far as that goes:

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >chatGPT doing math
        what are you doing... it gets it wrong all the time. try to correct it and it will apologize and do the math again

        anyway, regarding telescopes:
        There is a simple formula that scientists use to determine the angular size of an object in space.
        (d ÷ D) x 206,265 = α
        Where d is the diameter of the object, D is the distance of the object and α is the resolution in arc-seconds.

        We know the lunar module is 4metres across and the moon is 380,000km away – or 380,000,000metres. So we plug those digits into the formula and get,
        (4 ÷ 380,000,000) x 203,265 = 0.002arc-seconds.
        So from this calculation, we know that we need a telescope with an angular resolution of 0.002arc-seconds.

        According to a European Southern Observatory (ESO) Press Release, scientists working at The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLT-I) array in Chile “were able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon”. 1 milli-arcsecond is 0.001arc-seconds. This means the Very Large Telescope Interferometer is perfect to resolve man made equipment left behind on the lunar surface. Indeed, in a 2002 Daily Telegraph article, Dr. Richard West stated that he would use the VLT-I to try and resolve the Apollo artefacts.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          BUT now they are sayin they can't use the VLT-I to see any remnants of the Apollo missions on the lunar service

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >service
            surface

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >perfect to resolve man made equipment left behind on the lunar surface
          Where the lander is going to be a 2x2 pixel square? Yeah, sounds "perfect" for that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Misleading because sources that emit light are easier to see, which is why you can see stars a bajillion lightyears away, but can't see other shit that doesn't emit light that is much closer.

            Think about why they would even use such an odd example when they could have used anything more like what the lander would actually look like.

            Again, looking for something that is twice the size of your max resolution, so 2 pixels wide - at best. Some black/grey dot on a surface that is black and grey. Fantastic. We found a dot that looks like all the other dots approximately where we said the lander is. Checkmate moon hoaxers!

            How stupid are you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            angular resolution ≠ pixel resolution

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are literally moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm not the one saying 0.002 arc seconds equals to 2x2 pixels

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Akshually ...
            kys homosexual.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            admit it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I admit you are a homosexual and should kys.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it uses interferometry to get that kind of resolution. using it on something so close and bright as the moon just isn't what its made for. if it was a single massive lens then sure.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      take size of LM descent stage and distance from telescope to it. use online tool to calculate angular size. compare that figure to what telescopes are able to resolve. theres your answer.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the moon landings weren't faked then why does the shuttle have wings? There's no air on the moon. How stupid does NASA think we are?

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    only the most gullible of sheep still believe it happened

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The real pity of it is, if NASA came out an admitted it tomorrow, the 'muh science' gays still wouldn't 'get it' and continue to fall for the same kind of other shit just as easily.

      The real problem isn't that a couple of astrogays didn't walk on a floating ball of rock in 1969, but that these idiots wont even admit when something 'looks weird', or when they don't know something, and are unwilling to even ask basic fricking questions.

      Like imagine being a kid just finding out about the Apollo shit and innocently asking how a spacesuit could carry enough oxygen to walk around on the moon that long because you remembered seeing picrel kinda shit on the Discovery Channel. Only to be told you're somehow disrespecting heroes and NASA, and promoting 'conspiracy theories' somehow by even asking.
      That's before you even get to understanding more advanced shit like what a vacuum is and wondering how they seal the space suits, only to find out they have zippers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It did happen

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I just want to see one of these NASA true beliebers explain one fricking thing without googling the approved answer first.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The astronauts just happened to land right on prime time hours for people to watch, and talked with the president on phone, from the fricking moon, but I can barely get a working internet connection.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's pretty obvious at this point
    16. Moon [ Lost footage, 1962 laser beam, Nixon phone call, AMERICAN MOON(2007), lux ]

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wtf was that really a bird at 0:26

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It couldn't be a bird flying because according to NASA the eagle has landed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this has the same energy as that webm of pajeet making shit pancakes

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You really need to watch this documentary about moon landing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seen it, and others, multiple times. It's good, but if I have to hear that fricking Kennedy quote one more fricking time I'm going to kill somebody. When I have a fully-integrated super-intelligent AI assistant, it's going to be under standing orders to mute/skip that shit so I never fricking hear it ever again.

      Also sick of that fricking French frick's stupid little black and white silent film. I don't know where docogays get the idea that they have to go back to the beginning of fricking time before talking about the actual interesting shit, or repeat ad nauseam these same moronic points.
      >See doco on famous person who did something cool. Doco starts with their boring grandparents emigrating from some shithole in 1852 to be dirt farmers in Alabama. Waste 20 minutes of my life on this kind of moronic shit and put audience to sleep.
      That shit has gotta stop.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Half the morons who parrot this shit about 'conspiracies collapsing under their own weight' need to look up the number of men unknowingly raising a kid that isn't theirs, because they're the kind of cuck who is likely part of that statistic. Women, (and their sisters and friends), can keep a lid on that shit forever while laughing behind the man's back the whole time. They'll take it to their fricking grave.

    homosexuals call other people 'conspiracy nuts' but actual nuts is the idea this little soi-sucking cuck's wife isn't fricking other men:

    Not even kidding this guy is a 'male feminist' cuck whose wife is wearing the pants, and commandeered his blog to stump for Hillary. She got blasted by his audience over her bad logic and bullshit and then literally cried foul, and he predictably white-knighted and swept it under the rug:
    https://slate.com/technology/2008/02/i-can-haz-respect.html
    >People posted multiple examples proving her 110% wrong about candidates were addressed, and she played the woman card instead of admitting she was wrong.

    The problem with these gays and the 'collapse under its own weight' shit besides that fact that people can lie literally forever - and do so for any number of reasons - is they never give a timeframe of when the conspiracy is supposed to collapse. So if the Apollo 11 shit was definitively exposed to the entire world tomorrow, they'd say, "See, I was right! It collapsed under its own weight!", while for the last 50 years using the fact it "wasn't exposed" as proof there's no conspiracy.

    Also ever wonder who came up with that shitty line in Ant-Man Quantumania, "Don't be a dick"? This human soijack homosexual was saying it over a decade ago.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Buzz Aldrin landed on moon then why does he sound like such a moron? Don't you have to be smart to be an astronaut?

    Also Neil Armstrong stutters and bumblefricks like a NEET spaz talking to the head cheerleader. Don't you have to be able to state your fricking business on the radio when seconds count?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If Buzz Aldrin landed on moon then why does he sound like such a moron? Don't you have to be smart to be an astronaut?
      First astronauts were pilots/soldiers and to be a "force of order" like a soldier you need to be a dumb hateful cuck.
      >Also Neil Armstrong stutters and bumblefricks like a NEET spaz talking to the head cheerleader. Don't you have to be able to state your fricking business on the radio when seconds count?
      If you're firm on your job, what you do on the rest of the time doesn't matter but that would mean doing something that matters with your life instead of living on a "paranormal" imageboard being golem-pilled by tourists.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can someone please translate this barely coherent spaz post?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Reading is hard, I know

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >tr;dr

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My pet theory is that Grissom, White, and Chafee didn't die in that fire. They are the only ones who actually went, and their radiation charred corpses are still up there.
    This explains a lot. Armstrong's behavior, why they don't want anyone looking at the site, why the filmed landings are so rushed and shitty.
    Imagine not only having to lie about the greatest achievement in history, but you can't tell the truth about your colleagues who went on a one way trip and died doing the thing you are forced to claim you did.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I looked up joe rogan on israelitetube and i discovered i watched all the clips without realizing it. I think we all new to sub spotify and ditch the fake israelites or something for real

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes that's where all the SFX technology in movies of subsequent decades came from. All the money they poured in to fake it.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    william cooper
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=NBNtiEYZ8sc

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In the YouTube video titled "William Bill Cooper exposed Moon Landing Hoax," Cooper raises questions about the athletic feats demonstrated by astronauts during the moon landings. He argues that, based on one-sixth gravity, they should have been able to jump much higher than observed, but no extraordinary feats were shown. Cooper also challenges the weight of the astronauts' gear and suits, suggesting they were lighter than reported, which would make jumping easier. He presents inconsistencies in the moon landing evidence, such as the supposedly heavy equipment and the astronauts' limited mobility, as proof of NASA's deception. Cooper questions the authenticity of the moon landings, suggesting that the televised and photographed portions may not have been filmed on the moon and that the astronauts' conversations were controlled and edited

      Qrd for anyone that's lazy

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's this fricking simple to be intellectually honest:

    It's not about being married to the conclusion, it's about debating each individual issue honestly. But try that with a bunch of c**ts who hide behind, "How DARE you question a national hero like Buzz Aldrin - he went to the moon!"

    Just like Penn who is a big 'trust teh scienth' homosexual, but cucks to his moronic troony daughter - doesn't mean he's always wrong, he's just a spineless sloppy thinker. I tried calling him and his 'muh Skeptic' mates on their bullshit years ago. These dumb fricks literally had a 'proponderance of the evidence' standard for 'muh science'. If any homosexual in a lab coat said something was 51% likely to be true, they literally took it as gospel.

    And that's why he managed to cuck his own common sense to his moronic troony daughter and c**t wife about how many sexes there are, and the 'muh gender' horseshit. Just like he cucks to NASAtarded nonsense and him and his team of literal Bright-boys get BTFO so easily by morons like Rogan.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That episode was hard to listen to, that guy sounds like the average /x/ user, obnoxious as frick and thinks everyone is lying but at the same time believes everything any literal who tells him.

    I think Joe is usually a moron but he was good in this episode, you morons are just mad that one of you was exposed as the crazy homosexual he is.

    I also believe the moon landing was fake but conspiracy tards always go too far, you can doubt something without going full moron.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I agree. Sibrel did a terrible job. I could have brought up better points and shown better footage.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I agree. Sibrel did a terrible job. I could have brought up better points and shown better footage.

      i'm in the same boat
      i am not too sure the moon landing was real but this boomer was moronic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it gets good after an hour

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        True. Obviously Sibrel is an ultra-sperg, and can be annoying, but it does get better as it goes along.

        You've got to respect the weaponised autism if nothing else, triggering the astrogays with his Bible stunt. Laughed my fricking arse off. No matter what you believe you've got to see the humour in it.
        Astronauts Gone Wild is pretty damn hilarious if you like watching these gays getting trolled and pursued by an obsessed autist:

        Just calling Buzzgay a coward and a liar to his face, when they're so used to everyone kissing their arses is worth the price of admission. Where the frick do these clowns get off thinking they don't have to answer any questions anyway, and that they can assault people. Does being a 'national hero' give you special rights and make you better than everyone else? Frick these homosexuals, they deserved to be exposed for their fricking arrogance if nothing else.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I listened to the whole thing and it only gets a bit better because Joe obviously tried to reason with the tard during the break, he's still complaining about the podcast not being an echo chamber for him.

        He sounds too much like the usual nut case conspiracy tard stereotype and that makes him not only unlikeable but also untrustworthy.

        >boohoo mainstream people already have the right to say all they want, why can't you blindly agree with everything i say too?

        oh frick off, he has the literal argumentative capacity of a toddler

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah, makes it look like he could be control op

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or maybe he's just a stupid person with a lot of free time to spend researching something that's obviously false if you spend 2 minutes thinking about it.

            Conspiracy tards that go too hard into shit like him are usually pretty stupid people who got nothing else going for them so they grab hold into their conspiracy hobby as hard as they can because it's the only thing that in their mind makes them sound like a smart person, in their head they're the smartest people around because they figured it all out, when in reality they're moronic as frick and need other morons to validate them 24/7.

            like the regular /x/ poster.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Glow bot trying to demoralize research, check

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I love how your argument is a a conspiracy in itself constructed of nothing more than consumer created stereotypes that you parrot. Pure make-believe attempting to utilize social stigma instead of the merit of what's discussed.
            Talking about stupid people? Beautiful.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Apollo is real then why are moon rocks?

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i liked the part about Gus Grissom

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Moon landing is fake but why prove it? It is obvious simply because nobody fricking goes to the moon. If it was real YOU could go there but you can't so it is NOT REAL.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here's the bigger psyop you fools are ignoring

    the guy on the video said it himself

    if man had went to moon with tech of 69, then we'd be in mars and other places in 80s or something

    so what if that actually happened?

    do you think they can just casually say "hey we've been to andromeda and some other galaxies with technology we got from aliens?"

    no they cannot outright say that, they'd lose a good loosh harvesting operation they have going here on earth.

    So the theory is, they went and landed on moon, but they faked the footage because moon is actually quite wild place

    They didn't go there with human technology, and they took photos and video, but they never release it to public

    They need you to believe that we either went to moon with rockets, or that we didn't go, because truth would stop the system from operating

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bezos wouldn't be sitting here on earth if that were the case

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he's nobody

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >so what if that actually happened?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Moon landing denial is yet another psyop to make white people's greatest achievements seem impossible. Black activists protested against space travel so they could spend that money on feeding le pool african children. Controlled opposition shills who push the idea in the modern day like David Weiss and Alex Stein are openly israeli.

      This is also a part of it.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Decent listen so far.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Trails off to inter dimensional aliens
      >Alluding to quantum nuke theory
      All of this shit ties back to Nazi antarctic ziggurat, and if *that "theory" is real then you absolutely are forced that is the real reason the Nazis were taken out and captured

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NASTA built the Moon in the future, and brought it back here. The T stands for Time.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even Jamie was pissed when he started exposing the moon landings, he's definitely Joe's handler

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the guy is wrong, because this playlist makes too much sense

    though his other playlist seems to contradict a bit? not sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwIOCnRph8Q&list=PLxQoAfHYDfl7onjFmYGPvyrDlayussgEE

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has anyone read Sibrel‘s book? Wanna know how he escaped the CIA

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let me guess, he took his medication and they disappeared as if by magic?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why are you here?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            defending the moon landing is defending truth and justice? man what drugs are they supplying you with

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Boot lickers will watch this and fight for the lives to claim it’s real. Bootlicker bros, I don’t feel so good

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i like this one lol

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When the spinning ball-Earth is finally exposed worldwide for the 400+ year deception it was, Earth's entire population will suddenly be faced with the reality that every government, every space agency, university, secret society, religious organization, mainstream and alternative media outlet have ALL been duplicitous in propping up a monstrous manipulation to fleece and control the masses. The resulting mass mental exodus away from the control system is exactly what humanity needs. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these lying politicians, spokesmen, reporters and teachers suddenly change from being heralded voices of authority to being ridiculed, shunned and denounced as they deserve. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these governments, universities, media outlets and other entangled organizations which have long been hard at work weaving this multi-generational ball-Earth myth, suddenly and completely lose all credibility. Once the truth of our flat Earth gets out, so does the truth of these few elite families/societies who have kept this most important and fundamental reality from us for these hundreds of years! Essentially, once the flat Earth truth gets out, so does every other important truth by proxy, because this "mother-of-all-conspiracies" holds under its umbrella literally ALL of the other conspiracies, and exposes them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here to poison the well you frick face fed?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i think they went to the moon, there is pretty strong evidence they did.
    >1. radio signals picked up by ham operators all over the world of the broadcast of them going there and landing and coming back
    >2. the math checks out for their launch and orbital insertions
    >3. the technology used to go to the moon was spun off into a lot of companies, it created the silicon valley boom period of the late 70s early 80s and won the cold war (so their advancements in computers were real)
    >4. the photographic and telemetric evidence, where they landed looks like where they filmed and took photos based on the recent indian and chinese flyovers of the landing site

    the evidence they didnt go is
    >1. some of the photographs have been edited
    >2. they did not save all of the equipment and computers
    >3. they did not set up a permanent base or leave a very large footprint (they drove the rovers about 30 miles distance on the moon, they could've created some kind of pattern or shape visible with space based telescopes, like a giant A written in the lunar surface)
    >4. nobody died, with such a risky mission it's a miracle how well even the apollo 13 failure went

    the evidence stacks on the side of them going. but maybe they found some stuff and covered some things up.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1. radio signals picked up by ham operators all over the world of the broadcast of them going there and landing and coming back
      Implying you need a manned spacecraft to do that.

      >2. the math checks out for their launch and orbital insertions
      See above.

      >3. the technology used to go to the moon was spun off into a lot of companies, it created the silicon valley boom period of the late 70s early 80s and won the cold war (so their advancements in computers were real)
      Same as the old 'everybody involved had to know' bullshit. Amazing people don't get sick of that stupid argument being knocked on the head, I'm certainly tired of playing Whac-a-Mole with it 50 years later.

      >4. the photographic and telemetric evidence, where they landed looks like where they filmed and took photos based on the recent indian and chinese flyovers of the landing site
      All provided by NASA or gays who deal with NASA, and also can be accomplished with unmanned craft where you don't have to worry about keeping the temperature survivable, carry oxygen, take off again, etc. Not to mention the decades in-between to do it.

      These are all non-issues and prove nothing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >1. radio signals picked up by ham operators all over the world of the broadcast of them going there and landing and coming back
        Literally not "evidence" of anything other than words spoken over a radio.
        >2. the math checks out for their launch and orbital insertions
        Not actual evidence of anything.
        >3. the technology used to go to the moon was spun off into a lot of companies, it created the silicon valley boom period of the late 70s early 80s and won the cold war (so their advancements in computers were real)
        Much of that technology had its origins in WW2, more than pursuing the moon. Although there were certainly some interesting innovations to come out of the "space race" for sure. But that's also simply how technology works in general.
        Here's the real question: how did NASA lose much of the technology, photos, videos, etc. for human kind's greatest feat?
        They've "lost" a LOT.
        >4. the photographic and telemetric evidence, where they landed looks like where they filmed and took photos based on the recent indian and chinese flyovers of the landing site
        No one disputes that things have been sent to the moon, however, things being there isn't exactly proof of people being there.
        This one is certainly difficult because there's an inherent obstinance and a high threshold for proof, however, I want to take a minute to point out that NASA has explicitly attempted to pass off fake photos as "real" many, many, times.

        Most people don't even KNOW about the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) role in helping to create fake moon photos and such.
        It's hard to find now and I have some images saved elsewhere, but they built miniature models of the moon's surface with obscene levels of detail that would otherwise be unnecessary. They even used pictures from these models and attempted to pass them off as surface photos.
        Shocking how hard these pics are to locate now.

        Conveniently, it's also the USGS publishing "maps" and "photos" of the moon's surface that we see today.

        what evidence would convince you?

        there are two camps it seems,
        >A. it was impossible for them to go
        >B. they could have gone, but chose to fake it to avoid embarrassment

        i don't think it was impossible for them to go because the radiation argument doesn't even get off the ground with me and all of the other subsystems were tested extensively by thousands of people. risking faking it is reasonable, and maybe they did fake some of the missions or sent astronauts before on secret military only missions or did some frickery, but there is no evidence for that position. they trained extensively and spent a lot of money and built all of the required tools to go, and then they put men in a rocket and launched it, and then they said they went and showed some empirical evidence for this.

        i think for 99.99% of engineering and scientific minded people (the people you need to prove they didnt go) that's a solid airtight case and you will never convince them otherwise.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You've seen the movie 'Capricorn One' right? Where they fake the first 'Mars' landing?:

          It's literally not rocket science to fake it so 99.99% of the people involved don't know. The argument is literally that fricking old, and in Technicolor™.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            again you need to provide evidence they did fake it, some extra film footage, maybe an astronaut taking his helmet off or something. leaked internal documents discussing faking it. because you can imagine something happening doesn't mean it did happen. there are a lot of historical events that are just accepted by people because there isn't an obvious reason to lie about them. that doesn't mean those events happened as recorded, but it does mean that if you are convinced they did not happen you need to share what convinced you with other people and they might have a higher thresh hold than you to agree or disagree.

            they flew over the moon and showed the landing spots and the debris left behind, is that also fake? how much of the nasa projects are faked? they've sent probes all over. is the iss fake?

            moon conspiracy stuff is old as dirt, anyone who was online in the 90s and early 00s has heard most of it. only reason it's getting traction again is because you can use AI now to create some evidence of them faking it, and it would be good enough to trick a lot of ppl so it's a possible cash cow.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll give you an example of a similar situation:

            When 'Sully' landed the plane on the Hudson River, 'someone' opened the back door and more water flooded in quicker endangering the lives of the passengers with drowning after they survived the landing. Who opened the door? Some passengers said it was Doreen Walsh the Stewardess, but she claimed 'some passenger' pushed past her and opened the door.

            Air Crash investigations rely on meticulous detail and facts. They'll literally dredge up millions of plane parts from the bottom of the ocean and reassemble them in a warehouse trying to figure out the single bolt that failed, the actual cause. Then apply that to future airline safety.
            Why would they suddenly be incurious about the identity of the person responsible?

            So Doreen can't convince me she didn't open the door because of what is NOT said.

            I can't know for sure and I can guess at their motivations. Doreen panicked and then lied to protect her job, and not make women look fricking useless in a crisis, or whatever. Meanwhile the airline and NTSB didn't want to sully Sully's good news day with the details, so even though they probably figured Doreen lied, they conspired to sweep it under the rug, and she retired.

            But think of the damage. If stewardesses are panicking and opening doors without checking for water, we need to know that for air safety reasons. On the other hand if they're ineffective at preventing passengers pushing past them and opening the door, then that raises other safety issues that need to be addressed, but nobody seems to care either way.

            Nobody died that day, but that's not how air crash investigations and safety works. I understandably smell a rat.

            I want to know the identity of that passenger and I want them to sit across from a table with Doreen at a hearing, call each other liars, and be cross-examined. I don't care about anyone's feelings or ruining a Tom Hanks movie with the details, I want to know the fricking truth.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what evidence would convince you?
          The problem is NASA largely created the problem by lying about shit in the first place and getting caught out, then continued to lie about it, shit they never really had to lie about if it were true.

          >i think for 99.99% of engineering and scientific minded people (the people you need to prove they didnt go) that's a solid airtight case and you will never convince them otherwise
          Try asking those same people how many genders there are, whether men can become women, or brown-paper-bag-huffing Global Warming doom predictions, and check their previous record. Over half of them believe Trump is Satan and Republicans are Nazis who attempted some kind of coup on January 6th.

          Sadly talking to those people not only proves how 'unscientific' their thinking is, but how easily they're kowtowed into cultish groupthink, agreement, or silence by peer pressure. Which is to say if NASA had totally faked everything, they'd be the last people to know, and the last to abandon their Golden Calf.
          I mean what the frick is a real scientifically minded person doing arguing that you can't 'disrespect' the astronauts because they're stunning and brave heroes? But they do exactly that kind of shit, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, and more.

          That's the problem here. The lies, calling other people liars, the failure to admit their lies, the 'lost' data, the failure to address questions they don't like, etc.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >radiation argument doesn't even get off the ground with me
          Most don't understand how critical that particular argument truly is.
          Getting through the Van Allen belt safely is the single biggest obstacle to this very day.
          Saying that we sent people through it safely is simultaneously saying they achieved one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs ever in the form of protection to do so.
          Something that literally no one, from any country — or even from the US itself — has been able to achieve since then.
          Why? Because NASA contends that they lost the technology to do so. Along with, as mentioned, a LOT of other things specifically related to the moon landings.
          Their justification for how, exactly, they achieved such a feat is itself pretty silly and amounts to "we just knew how to navigate through it quickly."
          Right.... You figured it out in a pre-digital age and had a model so complete that you were able to avoid the Bremsstrahlung effect with the materials used and enter it for several hours at a time, zipping through it flawlessly on numerous occasions — then lost the ability to do so because the technology and data wasn't stored properly.... Sure.
          On top of that, ALL original film footage for humanity's greatest achievement, in the single most well-funded scientific expedition ever, was all recorded over in order to save money, so people can't view it.
          In the end, the radiation portion is just one facet of many, many, things that don't exactly align.

          I'm of the belief that it's possible we did go, however, I don't think the evidence presented is convincing enough to prove it actually happened.

          What's most interesting to me is how common it is to make an appeal to the majority/argument from authority to reaffirm a position. It's a common manipulation tactic used by people who lack confidence.
          Nearly all "empirical evidence" suggests interaction with the moon; however, nearly none of it shows humans actually being present — except anecdotes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To make a TLDR;
            It's possible humans went. But the Government and NASA have been caught lying SO MANY times, on so many things, that they've ruined their own credibility.
            NASA is demonstrably one of the single most dishonest and manipulative organizations to ever exist.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why? Because NASA contends that they lost the technology to do so. Along with, as mentioned, a LOT of other things specifically related to the moon landings.

            Not LOST, deliberately destroyed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >back up tapes
            >from one mission
            >deliberately re-used

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, have you seen some of the literal shit that gets preserved in the National Archives, but they didn't want any of this shit from the supposed moon landing?

            Give me a fricking break.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They have it all apart from the slightly higher resolution TV broadcast. Thats all thats missing, and from just one mission.

            What about all the much better quality and much longer TV broadcast from the other landings? Why do you ignore that?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Entire divisions of contracted manufacturers
            >Entire production lines devoted to Apollo
            >Each vehicle custom made by hand
            >Months of Checkout and testing in Florida
            >Project ends
            >So does funding
            >Everything shuts down
            >Everyone moves on
            >
            >"Destroyed"
            Whatever.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1. radio signals picked up by ham operators all over the world of the broadcast of them going there and landing and coming back
      Literally not "evidence" of anything other than words spoken over a radio.
      >2. the math checks out for their launch and orbital insertions
      Not actual evidence of anything.
      >3. the technology used to go to the moon was spun off into a lot of companies, it created the silicon valley boom period of the late 70s early 80s and won the cold war (so their advancements in computers were real)
      Much of that technology had its origins in WW2, more than pursuing the moon. Although there were certainly some interesting innovations to come out of the "space race" for sure. But that's also simply how technology works in general.
      Here's the real question: how did NASA lose much of the technology, photos, videos, etc. for human kind's greatest feat?
      They've "lost" a LOT.
      >4. the photographic and telemetric evidence, where they landed looks like where they filmed and took photos based on the recent indian and chinese flyovers of the landing site
      No one disputes that things have been sent to the moon, however, things being there isn't exactly proof of people being there.
      This one is certainly difficult because there's an inherent obstinance and a high threshold for proof, however, I want to take a minute to point out that NASA has explicitly attempted to pass off fake photos as "real" many, many, times.

      Most people don't even KNOW about the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) role in helping to create fake moon photos and such.
      It's hard to find now and I have some images saved elsewhere, but they built miniature models of the moon's surface with obscene levels of detail that would otherwise be unnecessary. They even used pictures from these models and attempted to pass them off as surface photos.
      Shocking how hard these pics are to locate now.

      Conveniently, it's also the USGS publishing "maps" and "photos" of the moon's surface that we see today.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > how did NASA lose much of the technology, photos, videos, etc
        They lost the original copy of the live footage for the first mission. They still have all the sill photos, and they went back multiple times and shot tons more video.

        Also the vast majority of all technology ever created has been lost. Technology is a living thing, it cannot be maintained by some crusty old documents in a box, its like comparing a fossil to a living animal.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like you're living in a fairy tale of excuses and bullshit to avoid reality.
          They lost more than just the live footage. You can look into it more if you'd like.

          Nice deflection and strawman, though. Whatever cope helps you.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Please someone post the Indian flyovers.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like the part when Jaime cries.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The one thing I never got is why they would go back multiple times?
    If you're faking something, surely you would just want to do it once then not again to minimize risk of the leaking out?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cold War. The did it until it couldn't be used for propaganda purposes any longer. The Soviets, up until that point, were absolutely smoking the US in space achievements and it had a big impact on national morale and feelings of security.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i mean cia is civilian oversight, the astronauts were all military pilots and would never salute a civilian or call them sir.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        we don't live in that world anymore

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    discord

    /8pWu8SJe

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Laika, the first living being to orbit the Earth, still holds the record for highest altitude reached by any mammal. And she didn’t survive for long.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you considered the landings were real but astronauts and NASA are just homosexuals?
    Seriously, consider it. Every “mug science” person I know is a giant egotistical queer. It makes sense if you deny their achievements, real or not, they’d get vindictive. “OH MY SCIEJCE!”
    But before you let paranoid schizophrenia take over; these achievements could still be real, while also being totally fricking gay and useless.
    Consider Elon’s Cybertruck. It’s gay and useless, but it’s real.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Elon is fully aware he isn’t leaving the earth in his life time. He’s almost completely abandoned the project at least short term. The plan for Elon was a moon base for mining precious metals and throwing them back to earth using a canon. The material is suppose to land on the ocean where a vessel recovers the material. Elon isn’t even planning on going. He said he needs to make 9 stops to refuel. Don’t you think he tried to figure it out to? I’m pretty sure Elon is only allowed to play ball because he hush hush. Idk what it would take to convince people. Even if musk said it’s impossible in a press conference people would just attack his character and bring everything unrelated out of bag

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As this anon points out, Elongay has issues of his own:

      Elon is fully aware he isn’t leaving the earth in his life time. He’s almost completely abandoned the project at least short term. The plan for Elon was a moon base for mining precious metals and throwing them back to earth using a canon. The material is suppose to land on the ocean where a vessel recovers the material. Elon isn’t even planning on going. He said he needs to make 9 stops to refuel. Don’t you think he tried to figure it out to? I’m pretty sure Elon is only allowed to play ball because he hush hush. Idk what it would take to convince people. Even if musk said it’s impossible in a press conference people would just attack his character and bring everything unrelated out of bag

      But either way you don't get to cite 'muh scienth', attack people who question it, and then blame any of your chicanery and outright bullshit on your spergery.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone explain the radiation levels? They showed that NASA said it was 16 rads so the exposure was minimal, but when I ask ChatGPT it tells me they range from 1000 to 10'000 rads. Who's lying?

    Furthermore, I have a colleague who works in radiation testing and they told me about all the precautions they have to take for even small amounts. From their knowledge, there is no proper technology that can shield humans in the Van Allen belts from harm, especially during a solar storm. How did we have this technology 60 years ago but now we have to somehow invent a shielding technology?

    Lead is the only thing I can think of but with the fuel requirements and weight, it'd be impossible to use complete lead shielding and 1/8 of an inch of aluminum isn't gonna do shit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One problem is most people simply don't understand what the term 'radiation' even means, so it makes it difficult to discuss. It's why the average anti-nuke hippie activist is fricking moronic.
      If the basic shit on this page is unfamiliar to you, then you're clueless and going to be totally lost discussing this topic:
      https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-basics

      Don't worry, you can get familiar, it's not rocket science, (and neither is rocket science), but that might also require an actual concerted effort to understand some basic concepts, not just talk about them in isolation.
      Something that has always perplexed me about people like Joe Rogan, is they seem interested in these topics, but never lift a finger in all their years talking about them to actually understand any of it. He just throws his hands up in the air and says he's not a scientist, but then still goes on to talk about and offer opinions on shit.

      That doesn't make him necessarily wrong about moon landings being faked or not, but when you do know this shit, you can see a lot of his questions are malformed and show his ongoing ignorance of basic science concepts of which this is just one example.

      So what you first have to understand about the Van Allen Belts and shielding on space craft is what kind of radiation(s) are you even talking about? Likewise you have to understand what the actual units radiation is measured in are actually measuring.
      It can get a little frustrating dealing with people who don't, no matter which 'side' of this debate you're on.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Got it, so the electrons in the belt are actually stopped by aluminum thus it's safe. How come we haven't sent people to the moon yet then?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry, but exactly the kind of simplistic misunderstanding I'm talking about I'm afraid.

          First of all 'stopping' radiation is a probability thing due to annoying quantum bullshit, that's why your sunscreen is rated 15+ or 30+, meaning it reduces the amount of radiation, but does not simply 'stop' ALL UV. If it worked that way, you wouldn't need the ratings at all, you'd just use a material that totally stopped ALL of it. In that case there would be no difference between an inch of aluminium or aluminium foil, an inch of lead or a foot of lead.

          Plus the Van Allen Belts are complicated by the high energies of the particles, and secondary effects:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Types

          You can understand all the nuances here, but you have to actually look deeper into it. It's like I can't oversimplify how to drive a stick shift by just saying push the accelerator to go and brake to stop, but given enough detail anyone can learn to drive any car, (and if I told you driving a car was 'too complicated' for me to learn, you'd slap my b***h arse, and if you pretended you had to be some kind of genius to drive a car, then someone who knew better would slap yours).

          A good example is the average gay thinks they understand how a mirror reflects light, but they don't because while it all averages out to what appears to be a simple equation, the actual truth of how reflection actually works isn't that simple due to annoying quantum bullshit:

          ?list=PLyQSN7X0ro23NUN9RYBP5xdBYoiv2_5y2&t=2415

          The trick to this shit really is when you get to a word you don't understand you go find out what it really means, and keep on finding out all the way until you get it. Same as understanding how the stock market works, or anything else.

          Perfect example:

          It’s the same radiation you get from a CT scan. Basically it requires a colossal amount of shielding to be armored to the vessel, adding more weight complicates things. If they discovered shielding with low profile and 100% defense it would have been a crime against modern humanity to lose something like that lel

          What kind of 'radiation' does a CT scan emit? Go find out. Then check what kind of radiation is in the Van Allen Belts? How is each hazardous? Then make sense of that post.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're doing good work anon but its unlikely any moonhoax guys are going to bother learning about any of this stuff. they prefer the arrogance of 'knowing the truth' etc and so on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not just the so-called 'moon hoax' guys, it is well and truly people on BOTH 'sides'. The 'muh science' gays are arguably worse since they're supposed to know better, but you see them bullshitting all the time.

            Just look how quick the same gays are to ostracise someone for pointing out the fact that different races have different IQs. Can you trust a bunch of people who are afraid of facts, and actively avoids them because they have their own ideas about where those facts may lead?

            You get situations like the above where it would actually be shocking for two groups separated for generations over time and space to have the exact same average IQ, height, or anything else. In situations like this, Common Sense itself becomes the Null Hypothesis, and the burden falls upon those doing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to demonstrate why it ISN'T so.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i dont disagree

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The trick to this shit really is when you get to a word you don't understand you go find out what it really means, and keep on finding out all the way until you get it. Same as understanding how the stock market works, or anything else.
            Thanks. Have a lot of catching up to do, kudos for the well written posts anon, trolling aside. What's your opinion on crop circles or hollow moon theory?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A lot of shit that gets bandied around you can put down to shitty science reporting by gays who don't understand anything about 'muh science' either. Youtube is a breeding ground for shitty science videos, as are TV channels that just need the doco equivalent of shovelware so they have 'content' for normies to watch.

            I'm forever calling this bullshit out, (and fake pretend scientist gays like Black person deGrasse Tyson), and recommend people go right to the source these days if they want science news, since there are actual working physics/astronomy/sciencegays running Youtube channels.

            Someone actually working in a particular field will at least not mangle the subject by getting it second and thirdhand, and not want to look like too much of a fricking idiot to their colleagues by saying dumb shit. Like this b***h is actually not bad for general astronomy news:

            She seems like an excitable moron, but she does understand her shit, and spends a lot of time knocking bullshit media headlines on the head for being the usual overdramatised misleading garbage written by clueless fricktards.

            The moon 'ringing like a bell' is a perfect example of media headline bullshit. Earthquakes and seismic disruptions even on Earth reflect internally and 'do laps', so you pick them up again and again with each pass:

            Journalist homosexuals are just looking for keywords they can grab onto and shove into headlines, (they're too lazy to even spell your name right), so that gay description of the totally expected internal reflections of seismic waves within the moon is exactly the kind of shit they're looking for. The moon is smaller with a totally very different composition and overall structure, so of course shit is going to propagate pretty well. Doesn't mean the moon is a hollow "bell" that actually 'rings' the way you might imagine from that description.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The moon 'ringing like a bell' is a perfect example of media headline bullshit
            the number of times ive seen flat earth/moonhoax Black folk posting this to say its hollow or whatever. hundreds of times. You only need to read the article to see what the meant.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's the same problem as Joe Rogan being 'into science' topics, and spending all that time discussing them, but never actually understanding/learning anything. Partially because he spends so much time getting misleading bullshit from interviewing homosexuals just like Black person deGrasse Tyson. At some point you basically have to start sorting the wheat from the chaff to even begin to get a handle on this shit.
            So Joe Rogan might interview someone who knows what they're talking about, but then the next guy will tell him the moon rang like a bell because it's hollow, and he'll be like, "Wow, really?!"

            Just imagine if you were watching videos on car engine repair and some homosexual started waxing eloquent about 'the wonder' of engine repair instead of actually talking about how to repair engines. You'd shut that gay shit off in a microsecond right? In Joe Rogan terms, most of the 'science' stuff out there is McDojo level garbage. That's why it seems like all scientists do all day is study 'muh Global Warming' and gay fairy penguins in the South Pacific. Which is weird because throughout history they spent most of their time designing new and better weapons for us to kill each other with, which at least isn't boring gay shit. Instead of being taught cool shit like Archimedes making a fricking Death Ray, they're being taught the lamest shit as the totality of 'muh science'.

            There are some pretty decent science communicators around who do understand shit even though they're not scientists, but the mainstream gays are fricking pathetic. They either don't know what they're talking about, oversimplify shit to the point of being completely misleading or wrong, or are pushing an obviously flawed political agenda, (like trannies are real women).
            PROTIP: Anyone selling you the 'muh wonder' of science, but not getting into any real details, is obviously so fricking gay it's not even funny, and you should shut that shit off immediately because it's literally un-educating you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah it really do be like that. if you fancy seeing what the end product of everything you're talking about looks like, watch a few 'debates' between Witsit and whichever poor professional geologist/ohysicist etc thought it was a good to bother with him. Its one long form version of the moon rang like a bell thing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Watching ...

            Thanks. Hadn't heard of this guy, but I'm always looking for more Flat Earth and Moon Hoax channels. No matter what you believe they're entertaining and have a right to exist like anything else - and frick Youtube and other Spherecucks for censoring, banning, and burying them in the searches. Even if they're all larping for $$$$ it's hilarious to see them frick with and expose vaxx'd and triple-boosted 'trust muh science' morons who believe any old bullshit they were told.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The earth is obviously a toroid.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not that it "rings," it's how it does it and for how long.
            Using a reductionist position and misrepresenting what the discussion is about doesn't make your argument more meaningful.
            You even touched upon one of the issues when mentioning size and composition, too.
            People simply take what's learned from things, such as the moon, run with it to the extreme while adding absurd shit into the mix, then suddenly a thought-provoking and interesting topic is associated with the absurdity, rather than the things worth exploring.

            It's become a consistent theme when discussing anything that's counter to mainstream belief.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s the same radiation you get from a CT scan. Basically it requires a colossal amount of shielding to be armored to the vessel, adding more weight complicates things. If they discovered shielding with low profile and 100% defense it would have been a crime against modern humanity to lose something like that lel

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    whats episodes should i listen to while i play mount and blade or kenshi, bros?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      here's a great forensic analysis by Peter Hyatt of one of Neil Armstrong's interviews
      starts at around 4 minutes in

      https://odysee.com/Analysing-The-Astronauts-Part-1:c

      Hyatt used to be a moon landing believer before that too

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the perfect example of Joe Rogan, conspiracy gays, and debookers not understanding the 'muh science' they're talking about is Bob Lazar and Element-115, because most of them don't know what the frick they're talking about, (Bob Lazar does).

    >be Bob Lazar
    >be 80's
    >say that you worked on UFOs that used significant quantities of Element-115
    >Element-115 had not yet been synthesised in a lab, (some superheavy elements had been and it was just a matter of time)
    >be 2003
    >be sciencegays working in Russia
    >synthesise a few atoms of Element-115 for a fraction of a second
    >be 2015
    >Element recognised and named Moscovium:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium
    (Should have called it Lazarium just because it's cooler if you ask me, whether Bob actually worked on UFOs or not).
    >UFOgays claim victory because Bob Lazar "predicted" Element-115 existed
    Fricking moronic.
    >UFO debookergays also claim victory because the few atoms they created didn't ... um ... fly up into the sky with antigravitational force ... or something ...?
    >or it wasn't stable as Bob claimed
    DE-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNK'D herpy durr!!!!!
    Also moronic because there can be - and most likely are - multiple isotopes of Element-115, so you'd have to find them all to really find out. You didn't deboonk shit, you just exposed your fricking ignorance.

    So Bob Lazar who actually does understand nuclear physics, (whether he's lying about where he learned it or not), has to sit next to that literal bearded homosexual Jeremy Corbell who has been making docos on this shit and still clearly doesn't understand what a fricking isotope is, talking to Joe Rogan who doesn't have a clue either.

    If you don't understand the issue or what an isotope is, then it's a relatively trivial matter to find out. You'd think anyone actually interested in Lazar's shit would go to that kind of trouble, but 99% of them on both sides, are still happily mouthing off not knowing they sound like fricking morons.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bob a real dude? he actually builds flamethrowers and worked on secret MIT military project? if true, doesn't that mean all the technology today is alien by nature, or harvest from alien tech. Maybe we're all using some weird ungodly alien tech like a black screen that shows us everything we want and AI is the ultimate

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I love Bob Lazar whether he's 100% telling the truth or 100% lying his arse off. He's an awesome and interesting dude either way.

        One thing that he brings up, but most people don't really get, is that he DOES know what he's talking about in regards to science and nuclear physics, which is what makes him so compelling. If he didn't get his education in the manner he claims, he did a great job of getting one anyway - pre-internet. When you know something about that shit, you can't fault him on anything he said from the get-go, and he knows what Flying Saucer physics makes sense in terms of the Standard Model and what doesn't.

        If he's a liar, he's hands down my favourite liar of all time.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That is because the earth is flat but looks round due the way the light reflects on the dome.

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i think it’s cause the flat earthers have convinced the globers that to disbelieve the moon landing equates to believing in flat earth. when they can be mutually exclusive beliefs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but they never are? I mean you using "glober" kind of kills your own argument there dude

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that was the purpose of spreading the flat earth stuff

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She was right the first time:

        b***h buys into a bunch of moronic Leftist shit and doesn't see the irony:
        "If you believe x then you must believe in a global conspiracy."

        When x is Flat Earth that's a problem for her.
        When x is giving kids troony hormones it isn't.

        PROTIP: The conclusion doesn't matter as much as consistent methodology. If you accept one conclusion and reject another on the same basis, then you're a fricking liar or moron who can't into actual logic and science. That's most sciencegays who reject shit out of hand without even looking into it. Most of the time they don't even know the actual argument being made, meaning it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to refute it.

        Like if you said Apollo 11 was faked and they started arguing against your 'crazy' assertion because you must think the moon is made of cheese. Total non sequitur pseudointellectual redditry.

        It doesn't matter what anyone says or why. Each argument should be taken on its own merits in isolation, as if it has nothing to do with the ultimate conclusion. So if the assertion is that NASA faked a particular photo, 'muh science' gays, 'moon hoaxers', and Flat Earthers should all be equally interested in whether that is actually true or not, admit to anything that looks out of whack, and ultimately the evidence, long before you get to WHY NASA might have done it or why somebody would say it was faked when it wasn't.

        Most gays think Ad Hominem is insulting the other person, but it's actually most often questioning their motivation for making an argument at all. Like if you want to lower the age of consent you MUST be a paedophile. You might be, and gays who argue that probably often are, but that's not an argument. Nor is that ideas like Flat Earth are 'dangerous' or glowops. If someone is pushing bullshit because they have an agenda, then it's necessarily wrong - so find the flaw.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >should all be equally interested in whether that is actually true or not,
          its the flat earthers/moonhoaxers who never have anything other than 'it just looks wrong to me' as evidence for fakery. Well, that and reference to Blue Marble 2002 - which was never claimed to be a real photo anyway.

          See how moronic and circular that is?

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Poppular media is language of dead memory a parallel dimension like internet that is from doppleganger of sentience of earth and tv is its doppleganger.

    Memory is parallel dimension of matter/realm of body.

    It always means something else, and moon represents soul, sun represents consciousness, space represents Time, night represets the body and air, water and earth represents image, relflection and shadow of matter in language of matter.

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bart Sibrel looks like if Joe and Eric Weinstein fused into one person

  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All the gays who say you can't hide a conspiracy that big because someone would have said something, will totally ignore shit like this as if these people don't even exist:

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    itt:
    >downies attempting to ‘gotcha’ other downies with semantics
    >said downies ignoring posted content to instead challenge the poster
    >that one paranoid schizophrenic who thinks NASA is the antichrist
    >about 4 midwits failing to grasp that they’re speaking to people without object permanence.
    >no actual points from the deniers, so it’s all schizophrenic soup
    >and they do it for free.
    God bless this board. Endless entertainment.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot homosexuals shilling for NASA on /x/.

      Also you tell me which is better, NASA shills DOING IT FOR FREE, or being paid. Either way NASA shills are much worse than any schizo sperg.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would I get paid to have fun? It’s great, like I said. Here’s why it is:
        >Enter a Korean brass-eating forum to waste time
        >Find the 10 obese mouth breathers who still think they know the truth after everyone else forgot they existed
        >it’s just these 10 gays saying each other is a shill for years
        >leave a post to get a reaction
        Here’s where I go feed the cat, make some coffee, start the day, etc.
        >return to find 100 posts of diarrhea
        >repeat
        If you want to be taken seriously you have to take yourself seriously.

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Kek when AI is even calling bullshit on the fake photos.
    it is hilarious

  55. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Kek when AI is even calling bullshit on the fake photos.
    Damn I can't wait for idiots to go from worshiping Science as a religion to worshiping AI

  56. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Joe Rogan went from being cancel about certain topics YouTube demonitized to making 3-4 hours long videos about debating shit he's waaaaay too out of depth. The comments on the video are full of morons just calling for Eddie Bravo when he's a flat earth mongoloid like the many dwellers of this site that he would do just as badly as he did in 911 with Alex Jones. Which at some point after drugging him with weed they start disqualifying his arguments... Srsly? Eddie Bravo who spews less coherent shit than Jones? They are both agents of misinformation and their steel manning is pathetic and contemptuous attempts at always have a bigger input in the topic now they broke it apart in a podcast version of reddit's explain me like I'm five.

    Bart Sibrel should come a second time if Joe ever invited Massimo Massuco. If you wanna see a real documentary on how the moon landing was fricking bullshit watch The American Moon https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=fJkxBEVzUUNkXJJJ

    Which is a far better investment of 3 hours than seeing JRE shills here promoting an almost two weeks old episode of Joe not steel manning shit

  57. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yo those guys have nice mic's

  58. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the trolling also shows the real intention of defenders of the moon landing

  59. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NASAgay spends half the thread demanding pics that that have already been referenced repeatedly
    >pics get posted
    >totally fails to address them
    >moves the goal posts as some anon predicted
    >muh Russia or some shit
    >pathetic

  60. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Linkdump. NASA is heavily involved in high-level trauma-based mind control programming of child slaves, torture, trafficking, illegal human experimentation, advanced 'antigravity' craft design, and more. They, like the CIA, have a core group of Nazis/"The Reich" from their inception.

    "...There were several facilities that he took me to that were NASA facilities. The NASA connections seem to be directly connected to the Paperclip connection. The Nazis were brought into the country and then were integrated into the NASA structure after the war."
    Mind control victim Kathleen Sullivan
    http://whale.to/b/dowbenko1.html

    "A fleet of UFOs with NASA stamped on their shell were stored on an underground conveyor belt system at Pine Gap."
    Fiona Barnett
    https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/fionaeyesewo_june2020_lockdownedition.pdf

    "Military mind-control was fast, effective, and highly technological, but it was the NASA programming that launched me as a 'Presidential Model'. Even though (Michael) Aquino instilled my programming on both military and NASA installations, he had access to the latest technological advancements and techniques through NASA. These included mind foolers such as sensory deprivation tanks, virtual reality, flight simulators, and harmonics. By the age of two, Kelly had already been subjected to Aquino and his programming through these latest technological advancements, which shattered her fragile young mind before her base personality had a chance to form. Rather than use occultism on Kelly, Aquino traumatized her through sexual assault and high voltage tortures of the mind and body. She, like I, to this day carries numerous scars from this 'non satanic' abuse base.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know, from years of research, NASA technology and Aquino's programming, combined with the Project Monarch standard sleep, food, and water deprivation and high voltage, made Kelly a subject of state of the art genetically multigenerational MPD/DID psychological mind-control engineering. They talked about scrambling my immediate memory with two private porn films they were arranging to have produced locally. These were titled How To Divide a Personality and How To Create a Sex Slave. These films are the kind NASA became involved in producing for the dual purpose of 'scrambling' memory and documenting their mind-control procedures. The resident Huntsville, Alabama pornographers were two local cops, one of which was (and is) a Sergeant. This served NASA and the CIA well when cover-up was necessary. The How To Create a Sex Slave film depicts the common 'spin' programming, which in essence is the combination to unlocking or accessing a specific programmed act."
      Cathy O'Brien
      http://www.whale.to/b/obrien_b1.html

      "I was raised in the affluent area of Woodland Hills, California, but was abused my entire life in many locations in and out of California, including hospitals, universities, and United States military and NASA bases, where I was subjected to 'high-level' programming. I was taken from chairs that performed different operations, like one that spun, then to an isolation chamber. They put huge eye machines up to my face and had me close one eye and then the other in order to program each side of the brain separately. Some things were then reversed and programmed into another area of my brain through the opposite eye. They called this 'cross-programming.' For other functions, both sides of my brain had to be operating syncronistically. Information for mind file use was stored only on one side of my brain."
      Brice Taylor
      http://whale.to/x/ThanksfortheMemoriesbyBriceTaylor.html

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "I was born into a Satanic cult family who practiced occultism and Satanism. My grandfather had ties to NASA, they were doing all kinds of science experimentation through through NASA programs and I believe that my mom was a breeder, so they bred her and they were taking eggs and embryo and putting them in various women. I know Jeffrey Epstein back then was doing this project wanting to feed the human race with his DNA and all this crazy stuff, and they had these connections so they were they were breeding my mom and basically I was born for trafficking purposes...so I was born to be sold as a small child at three. I was trafficked to Jeffrey. I was born actually to a man named Gary Kimball of Broward county in Florida, which was about an hour and a half from where we lived and I've known Gary my whole life. I grew up around Gary and being flown out of his airport, he owns a private airport in Broward county that I would be flown out of...Jeffrey Epstein used to fly in and out of there and back then they they controlled all the air traffic control and stuff in and out of there, so they could get in and out of there pretty inconspicuously. I have seen Jeffrey (Epstein) get very severely ritually abused, I have seen him strapped to chairs with these straps across his face like a gas mask and being tortured, literally screaming and yelling, and I'm just this little girl and they’re forcing me to watch this type of stuff. It was Jeffrey, he became a handler, they manufactured him as well and he became a handler. He was basically a fall guy and a front guy for them, I mean he was controlled too, and I don’t think a lot of people realize that.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ...They’re using children, not just for sexual purposes, they’re using them for science experimentation. I was sold to NASA and used in NASA programs, put in simulators where I was forced to stay in for weeks at a time. They were experimenting on the different gravitational forces and how it would affect a child. They were doing different experiments on me in these capsules, there was zero gravity so you’re floating around the air. They would probe you in your orifices with these pure crystal rods to obtain cells with, and then they were flying them in space capsules into space and growing them in labs...I'm assuming that there’s other children that they’ve used in these experiments."
          Cali Shai Bergandi – Occult, Child Trafficking, Epstein, NASA & SRA Survivor - Part 1
          https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/cali-shai-bergandi-i-lack-eyes/

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "I’ve been taken to NASA property...I was invited by Wayne Nighty, Jr., he lives in Titusville. He’s from a big occult family there, and they have ties to NASA and Grumman and Gary Kimball, who has the private airport that Jeffrey (Epstein) was playing in and out of. I was invited by Jr. to go to camping one weekend, and end up on NASA property, so you’re not getting in there unless you have some type of clearance or you know somebody, and he knew everybody so we got in without any problem. I didn’t question, and I just like I said, thought we were going camping in it. Jeffrey (Epstein) was there, there’s a lot of big people there, and I ended up being drugged in one of the campers and gang raped. I remember hearing men come in and saying 'which side', because they had me on one side and a dead girl on the other side, and I remember hearing my handlers joke about 'oh the dead ones over here the live ones over here', so the men that entered could either go you know have sex with the corpse or they could go have sex with 'the live one' over here, and I was the live one that they were using. That happened on the NASA property in Titusville...So not just on his properties but around NASA, around NASA crew. A lot of my handlers were NASA space science crew."

            https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2021/11/22/cali-shai-bergandi-i-lack-eyes-part-2/

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Wayne Morris (interviewing Kathleen Sullivan): 'Do you have any indication of U.S. government or German government use of UFO technology...that they have developed craft?'"

            "KS: 'I was exposed to some of that. I saw at least one UFO for sure. It was in a garage, a large room where there was a door where the thing could go out into the open. It wasn't touching the ground. It was an amazing thing. It had a fantastic looking metal to it...I was absolutely fascinated by it. I have been told that they started out by using these craft, which they said were created by the some of the German scientists. They will talk about V2's on Discovery channel, but they will never ever bring up this end of it...what they had as far as technology and brought it over with them. I think NASA is the biggest cover for this stuff."

            "WM: 'Let's go to something you mentioned about the alien part in terms of mind control and the New World Order implementation plan. How do you think this is tied to the phenomenon of the growth of allegations of being abducted by aliens? Do you feel people are being experimented on by the government instead of aliens?'"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "KS: 'Absolutely. I realize that there are some MK survivors who will strongly disagree with me, I am just going by what I have experienced and remembered. A lot of us were hypnotized and otherwise tricked into believing that we had been abducted by aliens, when actually it was government connected handlers who were using us for illegal activities. One thing the Nazis were working on very hard was genetic experimentation on some of their prisoners in the concentration camps, although our government has tried to suppress the documentation. And they were into breeding their own. My dad used to brag about how they were doing genetic experiments on embryos that were creating what they called 'children'. These children are, I personally believe, aliens...little ones that people have seen. I met several at a NASA facility. One was an older child, I guess I would call it. He was able to speak two languages. He was able to speak English and what they called a 'trilateral language'. He used a lot of buzzes and clicks and symbolic hand signals. He had been programmed — as I understand some of the others had that were genetically experimented on — to believe that they are aliens. It is one of the biggest crimes that an agency of our country has ever perpetrated against another human. What I understand is that with all the UFO movies lately, and so many TV shows about it in the last few years, it is preparing people's minds to believe that aliens are real, that they really do exist, that they really are trying to contact us. I can't help but wonder if some of these human 'aliens' will be used down the road as some kind of proof to people.'"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "NASA seems to have been crawling with this stuff for quite a while. When I read Linda Hunt's book, 'Secret Agenda', it was a big time education for me on why, because a lot of these Nazi war criminals ended up being put in NASA...they set up NASA, literally set it up. At the NASA facilities, they had some incredibly unusual programming that they did to some of us. I had one experience at age fifteen, I was taken to Goddard, which is a NASA facility outside of D.C. One of the things they seemed to like to do is dress up just like they are in Star Trek...they actually wear Star Trek uniforms with the Enterprise logo on them. Sometimes they would hypnotize me to think they were Dr. Spock, Bones, Captain Kirk, so I could not remember what their faces really looked like. One of the things they did at Goddard was very professional, very ingenious. They hooked me up to some kind of a computer system, very high tech for that period of time. They had earphones — more like a helmet on my head — and I don't understand how all this worked — but I closed my eyes and I could actually see images flashing in front of my face. I have been to Huntsville, Houston, Cape Canaveral, and Titusville I think was also a NASA facility...they did some nasty torture there."
            Kathleen Sullivan
            http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/CKLN/HTML2/transc17.htm
            Her full book:
            https://fightingmonarch.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/unshackled-by-kathleen-sullivan-.pdf

            Alien programming:
            https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/36916947/

            Bonus old NASA memo about avoiding FOIA
            https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/nasafoia89.html

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A very large number of cult and government mind control/ritual abuse survivors recall seeing NASA personnel escorting them to be tortured and programmed. Another victim:
            https://mormonmonarch.com/disneyland-1984/
            Disney connection:
            https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/36104462/

            NASA is very involved in torture-programming the "stars", child slaves that are destined for Hollywood to be 'celebrities'. NASA, 'stars', get it?

            Some other info about their bullshit comms "space news":
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/08/14/asteroids-and-comets/
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/12/22/roman-polanski-science-and-christmas-comms/#planetary-symbolism
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/science-of-stars-stardom-star-wars/#Supernova
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2024/01/01/solar-eclipse-mini-post/
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2023/12/08/solar-storms-cosmic-rays-comets-moon-bases/
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2022/12/25/voyager/
            https://sleepydude.substack.com/p/quick-comms-sun
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2023/10/13/nuclear-transparency/
            https://sleepydude.substack.com/p/dog-comms-examples
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/07/08/chernobyl-plutonium-pluto/#Plutonium
            https://narrativecode.substack.com/p/narrative-code
            https://sleepydude.substack.com/p/the-comms-pitch
            https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2023/09/12/full-intro/

  61. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does Joe Rogan have on that Mike Baker Fed guy literally like every month to every other month. He is boring and fake.

  62. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Also don't we have a satellite orbiting the moon that took pictures of the entire surface like google globe thing? Why can't it just zoom in on the landing zone and show us the dune buggy thing and rest of shit we left there?

    Do we have a telescope that can zoom in close enough to show us the shit up there?

    I mean that is 2 simple solutions that we could do to prove we went. So why don't NASA or whoever do one of these 2 solutions to prove it once and for all??

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh wait, I just did some research and found this:

      https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-the-US-moon-landing-be-easily-confirmed-with-a-current-picture-of-the-landing-site-with-todays-telescopes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are several lunar orbiting satellites which have taken shots of the sites.

      https://www.aulis.com/traj_craft.htm

      regardless, i was asking about all the missions specifically since it wasn't a concern to any of them if you read about the missions
      they ignored the issue because the couldn't find a solution and hoped no one would notice the elephant in the room

      Aulis is full of shit as usual. They base a main point on where TLI occurred based on a graphic of earth and where the line starts, entirely missing the point of the graphic:

      >Again note that the trajectory as shown is a simple X-Y data plot that is not intended to depict the actual 3D shape or appearance of the orbit.

      Yes, we know TLI started NW of Australia, as the stack was heading towards the equator.

      I cant hardly go on youtube with current laptop, its grinds away and the whole things slows down. you'll find numerous depictions of the trajectory if you want.

      Also, aulis makes it sound impossible to protect craft and men from any radiation at all, and that Van Allen said you can ONLY leave above or below 60degrees. Both are entirely fales.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are several lunar orbiting satellites which have taken shots of the sites.
        Here's photographic proof that your girlfriend didn't frick your best friend from ... your girlfriend ... and your best mate can vouch for it because he was there not fricking her at the time.

        So it doesn't matter that the kid looks like him and has a genetically impossible eye colour and blood type.

        Are you fricking serious?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The US, India and i think the Chinks as well have photographed the sites. Not enough? Of course not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We've already been through this you gullible tard.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what would be enough for you in this context? nothing right? you know its all fake based on some spurious bullshit so there cant be anything there so all the photos are fake and thats that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            From someone who ignores all the actual evidence because NASA showed him a picture made by NASA that shows NASA wasn't faking it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *