not a chance that the apollo missions were legit. first time i disaggree with slyver. slyver, give this a read "waggiing the moon doggie" https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/
I read the essay you linked. It is the only way I could possibly respond in a meaningful way. It didn't have hardly any actual external evidence, which is not to my liking at all. The only thing I saw that looked interesting has been scrubbed from the internet. Specifically:
In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature.
That it was scrubbed is unfortunate, but it is what it is.
The entire thing was a mash of the author's assessment of the facts using insufficient context and opinion laden rhetoric designed to make it clear that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Now, I'm OK with that type of writing. I do that myself sometimes (in posts). But I don't do that if I am trying to make a convincing argument to a skeptic. I don't do it when it really matters.
I have so many issues with that essay that I don't even know where to begin. I can't possibly address them all. Instead, I will be brief, and say what I think happened with regards to the moon landing. All of the things I say are also congruent with the evidence the writer presents. I am not arguing against his stated facts (though I am arguing some of his opinions pretending to be facts). My assessment comes from both what was addressed and additional evidence that was not addressed; additional context.
I think that the moon landing happened in 1969. I think that both the US and USSR were both working on that program. But they weren't working in competition, rather they were working in conjunction. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is, they were both in competition, but they were both "competing" under the direction of a single director. This was exactly what Musk did for his Starship program. He had a group working in Florida and in Texas. They were "competing," because competition is by far the quickest way to advance technology, especially if they are sharing information (which they were, both by Musk and the case of the US/USSR duo)..
This type of Controlled Competition is obvious everywhere. The more "important" the competition, the more quickly technology advances. Look at WWII. Look at how quickly technology advanced. Now when you understand that WWII was directed by the all the companies on both sides, you can appreciate why the tech advanced as it did. The beneficiary (not to mention the funding) of those advancements was Rockefeller (et al). That was the same entity that directed the entirety of WWII. It was the same entity that paid the salaries of all the people in the uranium programs for example (in the USSR, US, and Germany), the rocketry programs (both before, during and after WWII), the Apollo programs specifically, etc., etc. Every single one of those programs was controlled directly by Rockefeller (and/or Rothschild in the case of Britain, France, etc.). All of the media companies that controlled all the information about all those programs, both during and/or after, were also controlled by Rockefeller (et al).
The problem with all the beliefs about all major events of the past 150ish years is that all of those events were not organic. On the contrary, they were all provably controlled from the shadows (the same Shadow). The front man of all those shadows is Rockefeller (or usually the Rockefeller Foundation or one it's sister companies, or a government program created by Nelson or David Rockefeller).
So here is my assessment. As I said, the moon landing (at least some of them) happened exactly when they said they did. There are numerous gov docs that support that evidence. What they saw was not what they reported to the public (also supported by that same source). I think a great deal of the footage was faked (though possibly not all). It is the fake footage (that is relatively easy to find for any investigator) that causes so much confusion. I think that fake footage was intentional. How better to hide what actually happened then to make the conspiracy theorists believe something else? You give them something, real evidence of fuckery, but direct them in the wrong direction. That happens ALL THE TIME; a form of a Limited Hangout.
I think the moon is not what we think it is. I think it is more likely that we actually live in a REALLY BIG Truman Show.
not a chance that the apollo missions were legit. first time i disaggree with slyver. slyver, give this a read "waggiing the moon doggie" https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/
I read the essay you linked. It is the only way I could possibly respond in a meaningful way. It didn't have hardly any actual external evidence, which is not to my liking at all. The only thing I saw that looked interesting has been scrubbed from the internet. Specifically:
That it was scrubbed is unfortunate, but it is what it is.
The entire thing was a mash of the author's assessment of the facts using insufficient context and opinion laden rhetoric designed to make it clear that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Now, I'm OK with that type of writing. I do that myself sometimes (in posts). But I don't do that if I am trying to make a convincing argument to a skeptic. I don't do it when it really matters.
I have so many issues with that essay that I don't even know where to begin. I can't possibly address them all. Instead, I will be brief, and say what I think happened with regards to the moon landing. All of the things I say are also congruent with the evidence the writer presents. I am not arguing against his stated facts (though I am arguing some of his opinions pretending to be facts). My assessment comes from both what was addressed and additional evidence that was not addressed; additional context.
I think that the moon landing happened in 1969. I think that both the US and USSR were both working on that program. But they weren't working in competition, rather they were working in conjunction. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is, they were both in competition, but they were both "competing" under the direction of a single director. This was exactly what Musk did for his Starship program. He had a group working in Florida and in Texas. They were "competing," because competition is by far the quickest way to advance technology, especially if they are sharing information (which they were, both by Musk and the case of the US/USSR duo)..
This type of Controlled Competition is obvious everywhere. The more "important" the competition, the more quickly technology advances. Look at WWII. Look at how quickly technology advanced. Now when you understand that WWII was directed by the all the companies on both sides, you can appreciate why the tech advanced as it did. The beneficiary (not to mention the funding) of those advancements was Rockefeller (et al). That was the same entity that directed the entirety of WWII. It was the same entity that paid the salaries of all the people in the uranium programs for example (in the USSR, US, and Germany), the rocketry programs (both before, during and after WWII), the Apollo programs specifically, etc., etc. Every single one of those programs was controlled directly by Rockefeller (and/or Rothschild in the case of Britain, France, etc.). All of the media companies that controlled all the information about all those programs, both during and/or after, were also controlled by Rockefeller (et al).
The problem with all the beliefs about all major events of the past 150ish years is that all of those events were not organic. On the contrary, they were all provably controlled from the shadows (the same Shadow). The front man of all those shadows is Rockefeller (or usually the Rockefeller Foundation or one it's sister companies, or a government program created by Nelson or David Rockefeller).
So here is my assessment. As I said, the moon landing (at least some of them) happened exactly when they said they did. There are numerous gov docs that support that evidence. What they saw was not what they reported to the public (also supported by that same source). I think a great deal of the footage was faked (though possibly not all). It is the fake footage (that is relatively easy to find for any investigator) that causes so much confusion. I think that fake footage was intentional. How better to hide what actually happened then to make the conspiracy theorists believe something else? You give them something, real evidence of fuckery, but direct them in the wrong direction. That happens ALL THE TIME; a form of a Limited Hangout.
I think the moon is not what we think it is. I think it is more likely that we actually live in a REALLY BIG Truman Show.