Moon landing doubts
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
Comments (62)
sorted by:
I think it's a positive this gets exposed. It will be hard for the government to sell anything to the public if this is revealed.
I agree, this would cause a Shockwave through the system. If they could pull off such a wide scale fraud for decades. What other fraud on the people could they perpetuate?
More importantly the question the normies will ask is
"How can everyone cover this up for so long ?"
And the answer is "Pedo blackmail"
This is really the only way they will even accept this is a possibility.
My dad seems to think it's anti American to suggest such things. I say it would be great to expose the whole system.
There's nothing more American than a pursuit for the truth and holding your government accountable.
I agree. I think it has to do with the sense of camaraderie and patriotism created during the live event. It got imprinted in his head as a monumental and wonderful time and would be hard to erase. He's not even American.
I believe this is one of the main reasons why so many can't escape their mind matrix. Some how anything negative regarding the cabals use of the US political system, military powers or government agencies, is somehow anti American.
Trying to use your own ideals against you is a tactic of Alinskyites, narcissists, and satan. I once had an income tax apologist try to tell me that my recognition of its coercive unfairness was “unamerican”. I had to remind the straw-grasping dolt that the 1913 income tax legislation was when America was already 137 years old, as well as being inspired by the writings of unamerican Karl Marx.
Pretty much anything you could imagine would be my guess...I find that what liars and manipulators do best...is lie and manipulate...so at this point...NOTHING would surprise me.
My personal doubts are based on the Van Allen Radiation belt and the computing capacities of that time. Not nessecarily on earth, but those of the Spacecraft. as a then 16 year old German I had a hard fight with my parents to watch the landing in the middle of the night.
My doubts arose decades later. I think America is in for some very hard truths. JFK, 9/11 and, yes, probably the moon landing.
I always wondered how the film would hold up if film can't even go 2 seconds through an airport luggage scanner.
Film goes through airport scanners just fine
The cameras were shielded for this very reason, I've seen one of them
The Van Allen Radiation belt is the biggest indicator that the moon trip was fake and the reason we have not been "back" to the moon. It is also the reason why astronaut vehicles are always in low earth orbit below the belt.
u/#q2225
Moon landings are reel 🧐
just because some of the footage was faked, doesn't mean the real event didn't occur.
WHY that footage was faked, and why we've never been back, are the interesting questions.
I casually get into the theory that Kubrick faked the landings. Rob Ager / Collative Learning on YouTube has a lot of deep Kubrick videos that are fun to watch, although he intentionally stays clear of the fake landing theories. Nonetheless, he’s got some great videos that talk about how 2001 was propaganda to get Americans used to the idea of going to space. It’s not a stretch to say 2001 was a companion piece to the fake landing.
Good documentary on it called Room 237. And I just found out Kubrick wanted Eyes Wide Shut, per contract, to be released on the 30th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon launch.
'Doesn't say US or Apollo moon landings. Might it mean OTHER things at other times (even by other countries, beings or civilizations)?
movie reel
Q said disinfo is necessary, too 🤷♂️
ONLY THE REAL MESSIAH WOULD DENY THAT HE IS THE MESSIAH
We did need to plant a reflector on the moon.
There is already one, apparently (at least as per Big Bang Theory TV show lol)
There is a moon landing. But notice that Q didn't say humans landed on the moon.
Yes, there's a lot of wiggle room in the Q response. Perhaps NASA didn't fake the footage, but the CIA did. Is that enough to earn a "false"?
The question "the moon landings" covered humans landing on moon, so I would assume Q used the word "landings" in the same way.
Q said moon “landings” are real. When people use the singular “landing” it usually refers to the much-publicized one in 1969. If Q said the moon landing (singular) is real, we’d figure he was talking about the 1969 one. But that’s not what Q said. Q’s comment could be seen as supporting the theory that the 1969 one was faked but the following ones in the 1970s were real.
I reason I posted that Q post is that, Q did pretty much imply that the "1969 landing" we have all been told publicly was not real, even though they did land on Moon, but with some secret technology. It would even suggest that all publicly acknowledged landings are fake since it specifically mentions "outside public domain"
'Doesn't say US or Apollo moon landings. Might it mean OTHER things at other times (even by other countries, beings or civilizations)?
Yes, it’s very open to interpretation
Here's the part that gets me.
From retro burn from the Lunar orbit ------ to Lunar touchdown --- there was no computer used. It was all fly by the seat-of-your-pants.
Armstrong got about 20+ practice runs on Earth (none from an orbit). He crashed one. These practice runs all had the wrong (Earth) gravity.
If this is true and we could get it exposed it would be the greatest red-suppository! People would wake up on the left and the right.
Q said they "are" real, not that they "were" real. This could lead one to believe we are still going, or that maybe someone/something else is still landing there. Greys? Greens, Guatemalans?
But according to NASA the last alleged manned moon landing took place in 1972. It just happened to be the Apollo "17" Mission. Lunar surface-stay time was 75 hours, and lunar orbit time "17" hours.
It is also alleged that Apollo 15 astronauts drove "17" miles across the lunar surface.
Of course this could all be mere coincidence, but how many of those can you have before it's mathematically impossible?
"Are" and "were" are very good distinctions.
https://qposts.online/?q=moon+landing&s=keyword
If you speed up the moon footage to 2x speed it looks like it was shot on Earth. I have always wondered why you would move at half speed if gravity is a sixth of Earth’s. Your musclemass is the same albeit hindered by the suit. You should be modig faster. I suppose I’m wrong, so please make it make sense.
Probably because it was shot on earth.
Buzz told that little girl that they never went to the moon.
Not sure the world is ready for this one yet. Better used as an "oh by the way... they did this too" after awakening.
This is nonsense. Q said it was nonsense. I've seen the photos of the landing sights from lunar orbital satellites. I've seen the previous unmanned lander Ranger(?) that one of the missions visited. We use the reflectors for laser testing distance.
I wouldn't say it's nonsense. Once you really look into it, it just doesn't hold up. They're isn't even a blast crater for the lunar lander and no dust. There are also light sources coming from many directions. Also, the fact that they can't do it anymore. Too much for a discussion here. There are physical remnants but doesn't mean they traveled to the moon.
Also, Q is a human being or beings who may have the best intentions for humanity but they too can commit mistakes. No reason they should become dogma.
Light sources...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs
Those Van Allen belts are worth avoiding... Check this TedX talk, around the 10m mark to talk about "The Prehistoric Alignment of World Wonders" equator that was first noticed by researcher Jim Alison. Take a look at this, really neat. WOW, IT WAS A 2-DAY ORBIT, and it explains a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HytJn6uaRk
I checked out the one on light sources. While nicely done and compelling, it doesn't address some photos with perpendicular shadows. All shadows should be parallel and Neil Armstrong only serves as a reflector fill in light. Not enough to create a strong perpendicular shadow. Also some photos out there with hot spots directly behind the astronaut. Sun is too big to create a hot spot. I do agree though that we shouldn't be able to see stars.
Fun fact --- you can bounce lasers off the moon without reflectors.
1962 ("landing" was 1969)
https://inshorts.com/en/news/earthmoon-distance-was-measured-by-bouncing-lasers-off-moon-1525878202869
Interesting that NASA pushes the reflectors as a proof....
'funner' fact. This was done in 1969-73 using 1969 technology. Less spread, more precise readings that, as an example, is used to show such things as the distance between the moon and the earth is increasing by 1.5 inches/year.
Q said disinfo is necessary too.
We have crossed the threshold of unlimited CGI ---- nothing is provable or un-provable.
I could believe that the missions and landings were real, but the video we saw was faked and quite possibly done by Stanley Kubrick in the same studio were scenes for 2001: A Space Odyssey were filmed.
Though I'll admit that I grew up with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions and I sure hope those were not entirely faked. I could accept that much of the video was fake, but being told it never happened at all? I really hope not.
Because they already went year’s before.
Oh bullshit.
Q said it was real. Besides, if it was fake it would have been glossier than it was. Have you seen the Lunar module? It’s more like a kite than a spaceship. There are sections where the walls are so thin you could put your foot right through it. If it was fake it would be two feet thick chromed steel and shaped like a shark.
By your own description, that module could never have been used.
It looks like a tweaker spent a $500 Lowe’s gift card and built himself a place to jerkoff.
We never landed on the moon
That is what was used. Why do you think that it couldn’t have?
😂 He scored some tinfoil and some of those flexible sun reflectors for your car. Wrapped the whole thing in it. Those things would've fallen off if it had to move.
https://qposts.online/?q=moon+landing&s=keyword
Someone else here pointed out, "are real" instead of "were." Thought that was interesting wording.
I hadn't really paid attention to this before: "Programs exist that are outside of public domain."
Our moon landing was a very public affair. Saying "are" and "outside of public domain" is pretty compelling.
I was thinking opening the shutter would be enough to obliterate film even if the camera is protected. However maybe the radiation concern is the van Allen belt and the moon is friendlier? Still, movie camera that lets light in, seems would let radiation in.
We have crossed the threshold of unlimited CGI ---- nothing is provable or un-provable.