I kinda feel sorry for the black dude and the woman. They could be the best ever in their fields but due to the political climate of the last 10-15 years history will always ask if they were DEI.
The real loser is the guy from Canada. Never even been in space before. Part of the Canadian space agency, no space hardware but they have “astronauts”.
Not only that, sucks for them too when you put in all that blood sweat tears of studying, and training to become an expert in your field and an astronaut and democrats reduce your entire life's work to THEY'RE BLACK AND GOING TO SPACE. Like that's their full worth to democrats. Wow look a black person is doing something!
If they go anywhere, they're going to the other side of this realm, under the firmament.
There was a circa 1950 video showing a rocket shooting straight up a recording down where we are... it's MUCH bigger than they have told us... shortly after, we got the Antarctica Treaty and a whole bunch of other bullshit like NASA. What a surprise.
Will the Artemis 2 astronauts be on the dark side of the moon. If so, for how long?
Yes, the Artemis II astronauts will pass behind the far side (often called the "dark side," though it's not perpetually dark) of the Moon during their crewed lunar flyby. This is a key part of the mission's free-return trajectory, which uses the Moon's gravity to slingshot the Orion spacecraft back toward Earth without needing additional major engine burns for the return.
Mission Overview
Artemis II is a ~10-day mission (launch to splashdown) that does not involve orbiting or landing on the Moon. It is a high-speed flyby.
The crew (Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen) will travel on a looping, figure-8-like path that takes them around the far side before returning home.
Closest approach to the lunar surface is planned at roughly 4,000–8,000 km (about 2,500–5,000 miles), on the far side.
Time on the Far Side
The time spent behind the Moon (where direct line-of-sight communication with Earth is blocked) is relatively short:The overall lunar flyby and close observation period lasts only a couple of hours (roughly 2–3 hours of active time near the Moon, including the swing around the far side).
Communication blackout (no direct radio contact with Earth) occurs for about 45 minutes to ~1 hour while passing behind the Moon, depending on the exact trajectory.
During this brief period, the crew will photograph and observe portions of the far side, some of which humans have never seen up close before. They will also be at their farthest distance from Earth (potentially breaking the Apollo 13 record of ~248,655–250,000 miles).
The outbound trip to the Moon takes ~4 days, followed by the quick flyby, then ~4 days back to Earth. The entire "time near the Moon" phase is measured in hours, not days—the mission does not loiter or enter lunar orbit.
This profile is similar in spirit to Apollo 8 or 13 but with a more distant flyby and modern spacecraft testing objectives. The exact timing and distances can shift slightly based on the final launch date and any minor trajectory correction burns. As of the latest plans, the mission targets a launch window beginning April 1, 2026.
There is a dark side of the moon though. It's whatever side the sun is not currently illuminating. That's only the same side as the far side sometimes.
Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be used to track or observe the Artemis II spacecraft during its mission.
Hubble Space Telescope
Hubble orbits Earth at about 320 miles (515 km) altitude—well within low Earth orbit (LEO). Artemis II will quickly move beyond LEO into a high Earth orbit and then on a trajectory around the Moon, reaching distances over 200,000 miles (320,000 km) from Earth. At such distances, Hubble is not equipped or tasked to track spacecraft like Orion. Its instruments are designed for deep-space astronomy, not close-up tracking of human-made objects.
James Webb Space Telescope
Webb operates from Lagrange Point 2 (L2), nearly 1 million miles (1.5 million km) from Earth. From this vantage point, it cannot safely point toward Earth or the Moon—doing so would risk exposing its sensitive instruments to bright light and heat, violating its solar avoidance constraints. Therefore, Webb cannot observe Artemis II at any phase of the mission. Brave
After everything everyone has been through on here all the lies etc etc you still believe this shit. Sad. Sorry folks space isn't real it IS the biggest psyop ever. When the truth comes out about earth what it is it's going the change the world.
I don't believe every single conspiracy theory just because we've been lied to a lot. [They] did seed in wacky conspiracy theories to make conspiracy theorists look insane.
Do you believe Butler was staged? How about Charlie Kirk?
Very much agree with your assessment. The outlandish is deliberately seeded in to sow discord, and to characterize all of us in the eyes of the outside normie population as immediately dismiss-able.
A partial list. To start with the big one: that the Apollo moon landing(s) were faked. This has the more extreme version that outer space itself is fake, i.e. unreal. This goes along with biblical cosmology that we live under a dome firmament, which is fellow-traveler to Flat Earth/Antarctic Ice Wall. There is also the hollow Earth/moon-is-hollow theory, which of course does not mix well space being fake. In another area I'd point to the Judy Wood's claim that DEWs took down the twin towers on 9/11. JFK Jr. is Alive was pushed pretty heavily into Q discussion groups; not impossible, but unlikely. Let's not forget that during the Covid era medical freedom groups were flooded by the "there is no such thing as viruses" army.
To the extent I pay attention to the above it is to study how they think and argue. There are a few distinctive traits. They operate as anomaly hunters, constantly search for the hidden guy wires. They construct miniature imaginary models of how reality "should" work, such as how moon dust "should" kick up, point out how it does not do so in the NASA videos, and say see, this proves it was all faked. They direct your attention on dubious and very narrow points while asking you to forget the wealth of counter-evidence.
Excessively narrowed focus is one trick. In the other direction is obstinate over-generalization. The deductive syllogism goes like this. NASA/the government/the media lies about everything. NASA/the government/the media is telling us X. Therefore X must be false. See TewaPatriot for illustration. Toss in a dose of condescension for good measure.
I've watched a few Bart Sibrel interviews. Not to examine his folly per se. Rather, to look for psychological insight. My takeaway is that he suffers from Crusader's Syndrome. He appears convinced that the government is pushing one lie on us after another - an understandable point of view - and is infuriated by that. In an attempt take them down he is taking on the biggest lie of them all (in his mind): the Apollo moon landings. That is his crusade.
For the more ordinary citizens that get taken in I believe a different dynamic is at play. It is, ironically, the fear of being fooled. People who are midway in their journey of waking up are especially prone to this tendency. When you are strong enough to realize and admit that you have been fooled in the past there is, in the reverse direction, strong psychological pressure to not be fooled again. The easiest way to not be fooled is to not believe anything anymore.
Then there are the professional iconoclasts. Those who have made their name and career bucking the mainstream narratives. It is impossible, for example, on thoroughly ideological grounds, for James Corbett to entertain the possibility of so-called White Hats in high positions of power in the U.S. government. Oh you silly Q-tards, he chuckles.
I'll end with a different thought, a conspiracy theory on manufactured conspiracy theories, if you will. It is the idea that the intelligence agencies who push Flat Earth and etcetera are not intending or expecting to gain huge traction on that particular narrative. They have a related goal. What they are doing is seeing who bites, on what platforms, measuring how quickly the memes travel and to where. They are constructing and mapping an information network. For what purpose? For later in time using it to deploy their ultimate information payload, e.g. that Trump is bad.
It's a fascinating theory. Similar to the Saul Alinky principle that "the issue is never the issue" - the Marxist Revolution is - here the (extreme) conspiracy theory is not the conspiracy theory. The influence network is the weapon.
Gosh. Thank you. I've not much talent for meme making. I've not much talent for shit posting. (Though I occasionally snap a zinger.) Instead I pad around the Great Awakening forest looking for a Thoughtful Spot or two to set down for a spell.
As an addendum to my mini-essay I'll add three more examples of thinking gone awry. To offer that we operate on a level playing field here, in the third example it is I who plays the fool.
Number 1. What about passing through the van Allen belt?
Brief answer: swiftly.
It's like dashing from your car to your front door under moderate rainfall. You'll get somewhat wet but not soaked.
It is true that prior to moon-bound missions NASA was worried about the health effects of passing through. In particular head flight surgeon Charles Berry was a worry wart extraordinaire. But once tested they realized that the belt is thin enough, and the relative velocity of the craft high enough, that the accumulated radiation exposure was not going to be a show stopper. Radiation dosimetry is a well studied subfield of medical physics.
The mistake here is that of becoming stuck on the idea that the van Allen radiation belt is somehow a hard wall, so intense that even brief exposure is as sure a death as a strip of bacon left in a microwave oven on setting 10 for an hour.
Instead: the scientific approach is to take measurements, cross-check to theory, observe the results - no dead astronauts - and conclude: not so bad after all. Phew.
Put differently, inductive thinking over-rules deductive thinking.
Number 2. The Bill Cooper objection.
I have a lot of respect for Bill Cooper and have learned much from him. From him I first became aware of the Illuminati and their larger, subordinate group, the Freemasons. The Hour of Our Time. Behold a Pale Horse. In conspiracy theory history he is an Original Gangster.
On one of his radio broadcasts he denied the Apollo program. He did so on narrow technical grounds. Consider a space walker, he said, and draw your attention to the backpack, the life support system. How is it supposed to release the astronaut's body heat trapped in the space suit when space is a vacuum? There is no air circulated around his suit to remove heat. Without heat dissipation the temperature builds up to a degree that the man will die from heat exhaustion. But on television they do not die. Logically, therefore, the scenes must be faked.
The fallacy is easy to spot. With a few moments of recollection I can think of six modes of heat transfer. Direct transport, convection, conduction, evaporation, adiabatic expansion, and radiative heating/cooling. Bill Cooper considers only convection. In the suit design, water tubes woven into the underwear carry heat from the astronaut's body to the backpack by direct transport. From the backpack to space the process is radiative cooling.
The flaw is that he was working with a deficient model of intuitive physics. When faced with observations that force a contradiction there is a choice. He could either expand his knowledge, or stick with his model (and be wrong). He chose to stick.
A better investigative approach is to acquire blueprints of the suit designs from ILC Dover, the manufacturer. Plus, ask one of the thermal engineers to walk through the design of how the contraption works. NASA built large vacuum chambers for testing the behavior of materials and artifacts in a simulated vacuum of space.
Number 3. Bringing down the twin towers on 9/11.
Now it's my turn to be the fool. Watching the coverage on live TV I bought the explanation that burning jet fuel softened the metal girders and support columns sufficiently such that it led to sudden collapse. "Huh," I thought. "I didn't know it could do that. I guess you learn something new every day." How embarrassingly dumb of me.
This was a case of incorporating new information uncritically. The perpetrators knew that the trauma and shock of the event shuts down critical thinking and opens the mind up to suggestion. They know that the confused mind is desperate for an explanation and, for most people, would rather accept a falsehood that tidies it away than to continue under confusion. Once accepted it is locked in. From that point forward the falsehood is difficult to dislodge.
They apply a clever psychological technique too. First there is lingering TV exposure of the burning stories, the fire fighters, the jumpers. Then the shock of the collapse. Followed by the injection of the ready-made explanation. Then a quick transition back to the emotional experience. For the trick to work it is important that the burning jet fuel explanation not be discussed long enough for you to come to your senses and go "Hold on. That makes no sense." The explanation is then reinforced through repetition from every media angle.
Starting from "hold on that makes no sense," critical thinking continues with: Shit. They're lying to us. All at once. If they're lying to us on something this big it has to have all been planned. If this is planned what kind of world have we been living in?
A tiny few could see through the mind trick from the beginning, notably David Ray Griffin. He wrote 14 books on the subject of 9/11. I know. He passed away three books short.
Referencing the post sandwiched between your two, "Muh space" and "I don't believe".
I don't know who he or anyone else is, personally, since we all appear here anonymously behind usernames. A few of us frogs may hop together on the same Lilly pads in the Pond of Real Life.
A portion may be bible fundamentalists. The majority, I'm willing to wager, are bots and paid propagandists.
Brighteon.com to pick another platform is flooded with Flat Earther videos, categorized under Science and Technology no less. I wish Mike Adams would create an additional category called Dummer Than Shit.
Hmmm…???🤔 How is this space “movie” going to go? Will the outer space aliens they need us to believe in so badly capture and enslave the astronaut crew or just blow their shit up. Be sure to tune in for their next episode earthlings!
I'm in Florida 50 miles away from the launch. All day those white planes have just been dumping that white fluffy stuff. Hundreds of planes today, I'd post a pic but I don't know how. We could see the launch, but it quickly got filtered out of sight by that crap. I did see the boosters separate, then it got lost in the clouds. You would think on launch day there wouldn't be hundreds of planes around. Yet there they are. It's so thick here that you can see rainbow patterns in the sky around the sunset. What does it mean? I really don't know but it's strange to me.
Insertion velocity is 17000. MPH. Escape velocity is 26000 mph relative to Earth. Once escape is achieved deceleration begins, till the Moon's gravity takes over and acceleration resumes. There will be engine burns to adjust these maneuvers. Then a slingshot and burn to get home. That takes time.
A better prospect than a 🎵 3-hour tour, a 3-hour tour 🎵
Gilligan!
I kinda feel sorry for the black dude and the woman. They could be the best ever in their fields but due to the political climate of the last 10-15 years history will always ask if they were DEI.
They're actors
AI says hold my beer.
(snort!)
The real loser is the guy from Canada. Never even been in space before. Part of the Canadian space agency, no space hardware but they have “astronauts”.
Two white guys likely means one is a fag unless the black guy gave two tokens...
One is Canadian, so there’s that.
The others jewish, so there’s that.
Not only that, sucks for them too when you put in all that blood sweat tears of studying, and training to become an expert in your field and an astronaut and democrats reduce your entire life's work to THEY'RE BLACK AND GOING TO SPACE. Like that's their full worth to democrats. Wow look a black person is doing something!
10 days of darkness up there.
Faik & ghey...
If they go anywhere, they're going to the other side of this realm, under the firmament.
There was a circa 1950 video showing a rocket shooting straight up a recording down where we are... it's MUCH bigger than they have told us... shortly after, we got the Antarctica Treaty and a whole bunch of other bullshit like NASA. What a surprise.
Being that it's April 1st I'll let this one slide...
If they hit the dome, will they break the glass ceiling, asking for a fellow inmate. 🤪
https://share.google/images/DcKjIUvrG5q2Jb0bt
DEI is all about breaking glass ceilings.
Wait wut, you believe the firmament was literal speak in the bible?
sigh.... 🤷
Well said and I didn't read past "fake and ghey"
I just thought the 10 days comm was interesting
GET THIS~! Where I lurk on the left, they are celebrating the Artemis II launch!
Don't they remember that Trump is President, so they should hope it fails?!?
Yeah Trump may be president, but this is a major milestone for their idol - SCIENCE!!
them having an “alt-left” moment?
Will the Artemis 2 astronauts be on the dark side of the moon. If so, for how long?
Yes, the Artemis II astronauts will pass behind the far side (often called the "dark side," though it's not perpetually dark) of the Moon during their crewed lunar flyby. This is a key part of the mission's free-return trajectory, which uses the Moon's gravity to slingshot the Orion spacecraft back toward Earth without needing additional major engine burns for the return.
Mission Overview
Artemis II is a ~10-day mission (launch to splashdown) that does not involve orbiting or landing on the Moon. It is a high-speed flyby.
The crew (Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen) will travel on a looping, figure-8-like path that takes them around the far side before returning home.
Closest approach to the lunar surface is planned at roughly 4,000–8,000 km (about 2,500–5,000 miles), on the far side.
Time on the Far Side
The time spent behind the Moon (where direct line-of-sight communication with Earth is blocked) is relatively short:The overall lunar flyby and close observation period lasts only a couple of hours (roughly 2–3 hours of active time near the Moon, including the swing around the far side).
Communication blackout (no direct radio contact with Earth) occurs for about 45 minutes to ~1 hour while passing behind the Moon, depending on the exact trajectory.
During this brief period, the crew will photograph and observe portions of the far side, some of which humans have never seen up close before. They will also be at their farthest distance from Earth (potentially breaking the Apollo 13 record of ~248,655–250,000 miles).
The outbound trip to the Moon takes ~4 days, followed by the quick flyby, then ~4 days back to Earth. The entire "time near the Moon" phase is measured in hours, not days—the mission does not loiter or enter lunar orbit.
This profile is similar in spirit to Apollo 8 or 13 but with a more distant flyby and modern spacecraft testing objectives. The exact timing and distances can shift slightly based on the final launch date and any minor trajectory correction burns. As of the latest plans, the mission targets a launch window beginning April 1, 2026.
-- Grok
There is a far side. Not a dark side.
Pink Floyd would like a word with you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon
I turned to look, and it was gone...now I feel comfortably numb.. 😎
There is no dark side of the moon. As a matter of fact, it’s all dark.
The Far Side = one of the best comics ever! Gary Larson is a national treasure
There is a dark side of the moon though. It's whatever side the sun is not currently illuminating. That's only the same side as the far side sometimes.
Yeah I’m just combating the common misconception that there is a perpetual dark side.
If they are going to the dark side of the moon they are going to spy on the Chinese that are already there mining Helium3.
Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be used to track or observe the Artemis II spacecraft during its mission.
Hubble Space Telescope Hubble orbits Earth at about 320 miles (515 km) altitude—well within low Earth orbit (LEO). Artemis II will quickly move beyond LEO into a high Earth orbit and then on a trajectory around the Moon, reaching distances over 200,000 miles (320,000 km) from Earth. At such distances, Hubble is not equipped or tasked to track spacecraft like Orion. Its instruments are designed for deep-space astronomy, not close-up tracking of human-made objects.
James Webb Space Telescope Webb operates from Lagrange Point 2 (L2), nearly 1 million miles (1.5 million km) from Earth. From this vantage point, it cannot safely point toward Earth or the Moon—doing so would risk exposing its sensitive instruments to bright light and heat, violating its solar avoidance constraints. Therefore, Webb cannot observe Artemis II at any phase of the mission. Brave
What is this new trend where people just copy and paste what AI says?
Incredibly depressing to see that being done here of all places. Its so intellectually lazy.
MUH SPACE IS FAKE AND GAY. MUH FIRMAMENT.
My X feed is full of these flat earthers now. Why do these flat earthers never question if the bible was full of allegory?
u/taqo
After everything everyone has been through on here all the lies etc etc you still believe this shit. Sad. Sorry folks space isn't real it IS the biggest psyop ever. When the truth comes out about earth what it is it's going the change the world.
I don't believe every single conspiracy theory just because we've been lied to a lot. [They] did seed in wacky conspiracy theories to make conspiracy theorists look insane.
Do you believe Butler was staged? How about Charlie Kirk?
Very much agree with your assessment. The outlandish is deliberately seeded in to sow discord, and to characterize all of us in the eyes of the outside normie population as immediately dismiss-able.
A partial list. To start with the big one: that the Apollo moon landing(s) were faked. This has the more extreme version that outer space itself is fake, i.e. unreal. This goes along with biblical cosmology that we live under a dome firmament, which is fellow-traveler to Flat Earth/Antarctic Ice Wall. There is also the hollow Earth/moon-is-hollow theory, which of course does not mix well space being fake. In another area I'd point to the Judy Wood's claim that DEWs took down the twin towers on 9/11. JFK Jr. is Alive was pushed pretty heavily into Q discussion groups; not impossible, but unlikely. Let's not forget that during the Covid era medical freedom groups were flooded by the "there is no such thing as viruses" army.
To the extent I pay attention to the above it is to study how they think and argue. There are a few distinctive traits. They operate as anomaly hunters, constantly search for the hidden guy wires. They construct miniature imaginary models of how reality "should" work, such as how moon dust "should" kick up, point out how it does not do so in the NASA videos, and say see, this proves it was all faked. They direct your attention on dubious and very narrow points while asking you to forget the wealth of counter-evidence.
Excessively narrowed focus is one trick. In the other direction is obstinate over-generalization. The deductive syllogism goes like this. NASA/the government/the media lies about everything. NASA/the government/the media is telling us X. Therefore X must be false. See TewaPatriot for illustration. Toss in a dose of condescension for good measure.
I've watched a few Bart Sibrel interviews. Not to examine his folly per se. Rather, to look for psychological insight. My takeaway is that he suffers from Crusader's Syndrome. He appears convinced that the government is pushing one lie on us after another - an understandable point of view - and is infuriated by that. In an attempt take them down he is taking on the biggest lie of them all (in his mind): the Apollo moon landings. That is his crusade.
For the more ordinary citizens that get taken in I believe a different dynamic is at play. It is, ironically, the fear of being fooled. People who are midway in their journey of waking up are especially prone to this tendency. When you are strong enough to realize and admit that you have been fooled in the past there is, in the reverse direction, strong psychological pressure to not be fooled again. The easiest way to not be fooled is to not believe anything anymore.
Then there are the professional iconoclasts. Those who have made their name and career bucking the mainstream narratives. It is impossible, for example, on thoroughly ideological grounds, for James Corbett to entertain the possibility of so-called White Hats in high positions of power in the U.S. government. Oh you silly Q-tards, he chuckles.
I'll end with a different thought, a conspiracy theory on manufactured conspiracy theories, if you will. It is the idea that the intelligence agencies who push Flat Earth and etcetera are not intending or expecting to gain huge traction on that particular narrative. They have a related goal. What they are doing is seeing who bites, on what platforms, measuring how quickly the memes travel and to where. They are constructing and mapping an information network. For what purpose? For later in time using it to deploy their ultimate information payload, e.g. that Trump is bad.
It's a fascinating theory. Similar to the Saul Alinky principle that "the issue is never the issue" - the Marxist Revolution is - here the (extreme) conspiracy theory is not the conspiracy theory. The influence network is the weapon.
BRILLIANT post. Do you mind if I steal it and share it?
Sure, be my guest.
Typos include: constantly search -> constantly searching
Lol you are something else. I admire you.
Gosh. Thank you. I've not much talent for meme making. I've not much talent for shit posting. (Though I occasionally snap a zinger.) Instead I pad around the Great Awakening forest looking for a Thoughtful Spot or two to set down for a spell.
As an addendum to my mini-essay I'll add three more examples of thinking gone awry. To offer that we operate on a level playing field here, in the third example it is I who plays the fool.
Number 1. What about passing through the van Allen belt?
Brief answer: swiftly.
It's like dashing from your car to your front door under moderate rainfall. You'll get somewhat wet but not soaked.
It is true that prior to moon-bound missions NASA was worried about the health effects of passing through. In particular head flight surgeon Charles Berry was a worry wart extraordinaire. But once tested they realized that the belt is thin enough, and the relative velocity of the craft high enough, that the accumulated radiation exposure was not going to be a show stopper. Radiation dosimetry is a well studied subfield of medical physics.
The mistake here is that of becoming stuck on the idea that the van Allen radiation belt is somehow a hard wall, so intense that even brief exposure is as sure a death as a strip of bacon left in a microwave oven on setting 10 for an hour.
Instead: the scientific approach is to take measurements, cross-check to theory, observe the results - no dead astronauts - and conclude: not so bad after all. Phew.
Put differently, inductive thinking over-rules deductive thinking.
Number 2. The Bill Cooper objection.
I have a lot of respect for Bill Cooper and have learned much from him. From him I first became aware of the Illuminati and their larger, subordinate group, the Freemasons. The Hour of Our Time. Behold a Pale Horse. In conspiracy theory history he is an Original Gangster.
On one of his radio broadcasts he denied the Apollo program. He did so on narrow technical grounds. Consider a space walker, he said, and draw your attention to the backpack, the life support system. How is it supposed to release the astronaut's body heat trapped in the space suit when space is a vacuum? There is no air circulated around his suit to remove heat. Without heat dissipation the temperature builds up to a degree that the man will die from heat exhaustion. But on television they do not die. Logically, therefore, the scenes must be faked.
The fallacy is easy to spot. With a few moments of recollection I can think of six modes of heat transfer. Direct transport, convection, conduction, evaporation, adiabatic expansion, and radiative heating/cooling. Bill Cooper considers only convection. In the suit design, water tubes woven into the underwear carry heat from the astronaut's body to the backpack by direct transport. From the backpack to space the process is radiative cooling.
The flaw is that he was working with a deficient model of intuitive physics. When faced with observations that force a contradiction there is a choice. He could either expand his knowledge, or stick with his model (and be wrong). He chose to stick.
A better investigative approach is to acquire blueprints of the suit designs from ILC Dover, the manufacturer. Plus, ask one of the thermal engineers to walk through the design of how the contraption works. NASA built large vacuum chambers for testing the behavior of materials and artifacts in a simulated vacuum of space.
Number 3. Bringing down the twin towers on 9/11.
Now it's my turn to be the fool. Watching the coverage on live TV I bought the explanation that burning jet fuel softened the metal girders and support columns sufficiently such that it led to sudden collapse. "Huh," I thought. "I didn't know it could do that. I guess you learn something new every day." How embarrassingly dumb of me.
This was a case of incorporating new information uncritically. The perpetrators knew that the trauma and shock of the event shuts down critical thinking and opens the mind up to suggestion. They know that the confused mind is desperate for an explanation and, for most people, would rather accept a falsehood that tidies it away than to continue under confusion. Once accepted it is locked in. From that point forward the falsehood is difficult to dislodge.
They apply a clever psychological technique too. First there is lingering TV exposure of the burning stories, the fire fighters, the jumpers. Then the shock of the collapse. Followed by the injection of the ready-made explanation. Then a quick transition back to the emotional experience. For the trick to work it is important that the burning jet fuel explanation not be discussed long enough for you to come to your senses and go "Hold on. That makes no sense." The explanation is then reinforced through repetition from every media angle.
Starting from "hold on that makes no sense," critical thinking continues with: Shit. They're lying to us. All at once. If they're lying to us on something this big it has to have all been planned. If this is planned what kind of world have we been living in?
A tiny few could see through the mind trick from the beginning, notably David Ray Griffin. He wrote 14 books on the subject of 9/11. I know. He passed away three books short.
Who is TewaPatriot btw?
Referencing the post sandwiched between your two, "Muh space" and "I don't believe".
I don't know who he or anyone else is, personally, since we all appear here anonymously behind usernames. A few of us frogs may hop together on the same Lilly pads in the Pond of Real Life.
A portion may be bible fundamentalists. The majority, I'm willing to wager, are bots and paid propagandists.
Brighteon.com to pick another platform is flooded with Flat Earther videos, categorized under Science and Technology no less. I wish Mike Adams would create an additional category called Dummer Than Shit.
Lol
Hmmm…???🤔 How is this space “movie” going to go? Will the outer space aliens they need us to believe in so badly capture and enslave the astronaut crew or just blow their shit up. Be sure to tune in for their next episode earthlings!
Would be an interesting twist if the ship vanished without a trace while it was in communications blackout on the far side of the moon.
I'm in Florida 50 miles away from the launch. All day those white planes have just been dumping that white fluffy stuff. Hundreds of planes today, I'd post a pic but I don't know how. We could see the launch, but it quickly got filtered out of sight by that crap. I did see the boosters separate, then it got lost in the clouds. You would think on launch day there wouldn't be hundreds of planes around. Yet there they are. It's so thick here that you can see rainbow patterns in the sky around the sunset. What does it mean? I really don't know but it's strange to me.
Same conditions in the panhandle Rainbow as well
Remember, we lost the technology.
Werner Von Braun believes in the firmament
Insertion velocity is 17000. MPH. Escape velocity is 26000 mph relative to Earth. Once escape is achieved deceleration begins, till the Moon's gravity takes over and acceleration resumes. There will be engine burns to adjust these maneuvers. Then a slingshot and burn to get home. That takes time.
As soon as the boosters separated, they started spraying the Eastern Coastline, which they NEVER do, always the center and west sunset.
I'm not down with the expense, but I do remember this fondly and am at least happy it's back:
AMERICA-Fuck Yeah AMERICA--Fuck Yeah
https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/04/01/live-artemis-ii-launch-day-updates/
Somebody put a tile tracker on them
Good luck getting past Van Allen belt
That's explains the 10 data darkness (space)
What will they discover.... Or unveil?
I wonder will they be clean shaven on return?
Will somebody please think of the lethal Van Allen radiation belt?
If the Earth is flat then why is the horizon at eye level?