Very likely. All of the silly B movies of “Nazis on the moon” are likely soft disclosure of the truth. Moon is likely closer than NASA says, but what better way to reinforce their BS moon distance and nature of Earth lies than a “long, dangerous 3 day journey” over a satanic holiday (July 19-22) in 1969, 1 year after 2001 was released as pre-programming (and filmed as practice for the “moon landings” which were directed by Stanley Kubrick in June 1968 on a military base with a “studio”)
and this^ is why i love to hang out with you guys, you can think beyond...what 'they' tell us. and didn't know that about about the release of movie...makes so much sense now. And that was also around the time of I dream of Jeannie, they really got a lot of bang for their buck with that one.
Yes. The actual mechanism for the "lunar landing movie" was a plane flying slow over the desert recording terrain details, then they made this "terrain flyover video" black&white and modified frame rate to match a "simulated lander speed". Unclear if they used a bombing range already with craters or created some specifically for this "filming".
But the big giveaway in the "movie" is the angle and type of the shadows in all the moon landing photos that indicates studio lighting; and the flimsy lunar lander without enough structural strength to support the estimated impact forces of a landing (with its presumed mass of 2 astronauts, supplies, and re-launch fuel, all times the Gload of impact). This is why the joyriding rover is just ridiculous...
Oops...Getting mass downvoted now...shills and glowie suppression order 66 in effect?
interesting & haven't seen the movie in years, so will be fun to watch with this^ in mind. and yes, always the downvotes when we analyze space too much;)
but it does keep me focused; if they 'hate' it, must be on to something.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" will pop your head if you understand that it is a documentary effectively of the cabal's satanic religion of turning man into god via technology (ref. transhumanism movement). This movie was made for the cabal. Note that Saturn represents their "lightbringer" satan/lucifer and a "black cube" or "black stone" represents a satanic/demonic entity manipulating mankind. Human 1.0 is being replaced by those that follow their "religion" to be Human 2.0, thus the giant fetus at the end, being "reborn" into the service of Lucifer. Also, HAL = H+1 letter, A+1 letter, L+1 letter = IBM; IBM has been involved in satanic/occult/Nazi crap since WW2 and they seeded Microsoft (Bill Gate's mom worked for IBM); This is why everyone who is NOT cabal has the same reaction to this movie:
What the fuck did I just watch?
-Non-cabal viewers of "2001: A Space Odyssey"
William Cooper has a good analysis of this movie. I think it is his Out of Babylon audio recordings of his radio broadcasts. Few make the connection between "2001" the movie and the events of the year 2001. I know it is hard to believe that events were planned out 33 years in advance of 2001 in 1968, but look at that number and reconsider, please.
No. Stupid comments. The video mixed in real Moon flight footage with the other crap. It amazes me that you can deny government footage that is traceable, and swallow bootleg crap put together by No One.
Do you really think that we would send people to the Moon and perform no dry run exercises for what they would do to exit the vehicle and perform activities on the Moon?
The "silly B movies" are merely silly B movies. No truth necessary for FICTION.
The Moon is as far as it is stated. Measured by optical trigonometry. And by radar. Consistent with Newton's law of gravity.
What "Satanic holiday"? You guys come up with the creepiest occult nonsense.
Was Kubrick anywhere? Prove it. This video only substantiates the idea that NASA was staging a rehearsal for the real thing. Since Kubrick had already gotten advice from the guys at Marshall Space Flight Center, he would have been an obvious consultant on how to set it up. As I said, it is common military practice to do rehearsals or dry runs for important operations.
Very likely. All of the silly B movies of “Nazis on the moon” are likely soft disclosure of the truth. Moon is likely closer than NASA says, but what better way to reinforce their BS moon distance and nature of Earth lies than a “long, dangerous 3 day journey” over a satanic holiday (July 19-22) in 1969, 1 year after 2001 was released as pre-programming (and filmed as practice for the “moon landings” which were directed by Stanley Kubrick in June 1968 on a military base with a “studio”)
and this^ is why i love to hang out with you guys, you can think beyond...what 'they' tell us. and didn't know that about about the release of movie...makes so much sense now. And that was also around the time of I dream of Jeannie, they really got a lot of bang for their buck with that one.
Yes. The actual mechanism for the "lunar landing movie" was a plane flying slow over the desert recording terrain details, then they made this "terrain flyover video" black&white and modified frame rate to match a "simulated lander speed". Unclear if they used a bombing range already with craters or created some specifically for this "filming".
But the big giveaway in the "movie" is the angle and type of the shadows in all the moon landing photos that indicates studio lighting; and the flimsy lunar lander without enough structural strength to support the estimated impact forces of a landing (with its presumed mass of 2 astronauts, supplies, and re-launch fuel, all times the Gload of impact). This is why the joyriding rover is just ridiculous...
Oops...Getting mass downvoted now...shills and glowie suppression order 66 in effect?
interesting & haven't seen the movie in years, so will be fun to watch with this^ in mind. and yes, always the downvotes when we analyze space too much;)
but it does keep me focused; if they 'hate' it, must be on to something.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" will pop your head if you understand that it is a documentary effectively of the cabal's satanic religion of turning man into god via technology (ref. transhumanism movement). This movie was made for the cabal. Note that Saturn represents their "lightbringer" satan/lucifer and a "black cube" or "black stone" represents a satanic/demonic entity manipulating mankind. Human 1.0 is being replaced by those that follow their "religion" to be Human 2.0, thus the giant fetus at the end, being "reborn" into the service of Lucifer. Also, HAL = H+1 letter, A+1 letter, L+1 letter = IBM; IBM has been involved in satanic/occult/Nazi crap since WW2 and they seeded Microsoft (Bill Gate's mom worked for IBM); This is why everyone who is NOT cabal has the same reaction to this movie:
-Non-cabal viewers of "2001: A Space Odyssey"
William Cooper has a good analysis of this movie. I think it is his Out of Babylon audio recordings of his radio broadcasts. Few make the connection between "2001" the movie and the events of the year 2001. I know it is hard to believe that events were planned out 33 years in advance of 2001 in 1968, but look at that number and reconsider, please.
No. Stupid comments. The video mixed in real Moon flight footage with the other crap. It amazes me that you can deny government footage that is traceable, and swallow bootleg crap put together by No One.
Do you really think that we would send people to the Moon and perform no dry run exercises for what they would do to exit the vehicle and perform activities on the Moon?
The "silly B movies" are merely silly B movies. No truth necessary for FICTION.
The Moon is as far as it is stated. Measured by optical trigonometry. And by radar. Consistent with Newton's law of gravity.
What "Satanic holiday"? You guys come up with the creepiest occult nonsense.
Was Kubrick anywhere? Prove it. This video only substantiates the idea that NASA was staging a rehearsal for the real thing. Since Kubrick had already gotten advice from the guys at Marshall Space Flight Center, he would have been an obvious consultant on how to set it up. As I said, it is common military practice to do rehearsals or dry runs for important operations.