Moon Landing Video. Is this how it happened?

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
658
Reactions
1,418
Well said, and I love Miles Mathis' take on this in his critique of String Theory.



More insights on maths at milesmathis.com.

Edit just noticed you mentioned Mathis in your later post. Personally I believe he's a gatekeeper/disinfo agent, but all of these people have to mix in a lot of truth as well. See this reddit comment on him.
I don't know much of Mathis. It is things like this quote that bother me. So they are calling it a messenger particle. That's just a label. He says its absurd. That's just a judgement. He is doing exactly what he accuses the physicists of doing. The main difference is that I can look up the data and experiments that led to the physicists conclusions. I can't look up what qualifies as absurd in Mathis mind or why. He can rail against mathematical fuzziness, but I have never known math to be fuzzy at all, and I have done quite a bit. I know of no real world application where the math and the reality differ.

That's my initial impression. Dang it, now I have to read his stuff to see if he brings any evidence for his labels and judgements.

I quit math for the very reason that I had progressed beyond anything that could be modeled in the real world. What on earth am I ever going to need differentials in eleven dimensions for?

I should have stuck with it, I hear there is a real shortage of physicists just now as the banks have been hiring them left and right. It seems it takes a particle physicists to figure out the derivatives market. Financial people don't have anywhere near the maths to even come close.

I watched the video, but not very closely. I don't think anything on there is gonna change any minds.

ETA - So I read some Mathis. Just reminded me why I never liked string theory in the first place. Perhaps his labels and judgements are well founded, still, Id prefer the facts, sans commentary. Tough to sell books or ads that way I guess.
 
Last edited:

Magnus

Well-known member
Messages
103
Reactions
394
Nah, Casimir most certainly speaks for all of us. There is no need to be so cranky. You are being kinda weird yelling at us because you got asked to watch a video. Lol. It's weird, knock it off ;)



Those were great and I have always enjoyed your input, which makes this kinda awkward you being such a curmudgeon and all.
Dont be so damn presumptive that ONE individual can speak for 300+ individuals.

What the hell is wrong with your thinking?
Seriously, I hope you will retract that. You are permitted to say that another individual speaks for you (and perhaps your nuclear family if you are considered the leader of your family) BUT NOT other individuals whom YOU HAVE NOT ASKED PERMISSION to speak on their behalf.

Hive mind much?

Disappointed to read you write that.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
765
Reactions
2,671
Dont be so damn presumptive that ONE individual can speak for 300+ individuals.

What the hell is wrong with your thinking?
Seriously, I hope you will retract that. You are permitted to say that another individual speaks for you (and perhaps your nuclear family if you are considered the leader of your family) BUT NOT other individuals whom YOU HAVE NOT ASKED PERMISSION to speak on their behalf.

Hive mind much?

Disappointed to read you write that.
lol. what on earth are you going on about?

it's official. you are the cointelpro. you have been sent here to divide us, create anger and rage. it ain't gonna work, Magnus. we're way too smart here...
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
275
Reactions
1,565
lol. what on earth are you going on about?

it's official. you are the cointelpro. you have been sent here to divide us, create anger and rage. it ain't gonna work, Magnus. we're way too smart here...
I see this kind of stuff on Reddit all the time. People who refuse to discuss the topic at hand and instead make arguments to those who are new to the thread as to why they shouldn't "waste their time" for one reason or another. I hate to use terms like "shill", "cointelpro" or "disinfo" agent, as there's really no way to ever know. But when it comes to a user showing up on a thread they aren't interested in and trying to cause arbitrary divisiveness it certainly makes me wonder.

I came here because I appreciated the open discussions of topics you can't really find anywhere else (save for Reddit but most of the communities are compromised in some form or fashion), and seeing reasonable, rational people ask smart questions and engage in debate.

If you are convinced the moon landings are faked (I personally fall on that side, myself) and you don't need to see any more evidence, that's great. But nobody is going to take it on your word that is the truth, and posting evidence like the OP did can help someone make a decision.

If that video is real, and it really is a bunch of B-roll of the moon landing footage, then its a great find for anyone on their journey. If it is faked (or at least not as advertised), then I would think there could be a good discussion to be had on how and why it was disseminated as disinfo. I will say that in this clip it is hard for me to say for sure that the footage from the "moon" set and the day time desert stuff are necessarily one in the same. That being said I have plenty of research under my belt to know that almost everything NASA does is falsified in some way. However I would hate to fall into cognitive bias and assume that just because NASA fakes everything that means that this footage is confirmation of faked NASA footage, if that makes sense.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
593
Reactions
3,250
ETA - So I read some Mathis. Just reminded me why I never liked string theory in the first place. Perhaps his labels and judgements are well founded, still, Id prefer the facts, sans commentary. Tough to sell books or ads that way I guess.
Not so much about your comment, but a general thought about physics and also space science and NASA stuff:

I go with the premise that everything that isn't proven empirically is wrong in physics, especially astronomy/astrophysics.

Everything that can be proven empirically should be subject to debate or interpretation.

For example we can observe gravity. But what is gravity really? That is open for discussion.

Many here know that there is no vast outer space. It's all just a philosophical construct. Just like any sophisticated theory, astronomy can explain many observed phenomena. But that doesn't mean the theory is right.

I think it's important to understand the nature of our earth's concavity. Things are actually inverted. That's why astronomy works in practice, at least superficially. There's a very good book about concave earth (http://www.rolf-keppler.de/johanneslang.pdf), but I don't know if it's available in english.

The question is, does NASA know about this as well? I think it doesn't take long to find out that there's a big light bulb in the sky, when a big agency like NASA starts looking. Maybe in the beginning they even considered a real exploration to the moon, but then they realized it's impossible to cover things up because everyone can see through telescopes and see what's going on there, and the chance of failure is pretty much 100%, becaus they even failed to create space suits that protect against a vacuum.

I am convinced this is one of the things they already knew hundreds of years ago anyway: There's a firmament, and the interesting things are going on below the earth, not in the sky.

There's more action going on in antarctica than in space right now, and that's for a reason.

If space was exciting, things would be different. Either Russia or the U.S. would be aggressively expanding to the moon. If people can live comfortably on the ISS even with holes in it and a never-ending supply of guitars and soccer balls, there is no reason they can't comfortably live on the moon.

Instead, space is as boring as it gets. It's just an artificial sun with vacuum around it. That's all. There isn't even more gravity on the moon than anywhere else in space. You probably can't walk on it, and it may be extremely hot.
 
Last edited:

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
225
Reactions
712
Its common knowledge now that Stanley Kubrick was tasked with filming the moon landing scenario in exchange for some camera equipment nasa had to film 2001 a space odyssey. Hollywood continued to mock the general public by including scenes in certain movies of film crews filming the moon landing... The most obvious one being in a James bond film where Roger Moore is running after a bad guy through a movie studio... I think the movie was diamonds are forever.. Don't quote me.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
166
Reactions
588
Its common knowledge now that Stanley Kubrick was tasked with filming the moon landing scenario in exchange for some camera equipment nasa had to film 2001 a space odyssey. Hollywood continued to mock the general public by including scenes in certain movies of film crews filming the moon landing... The most obvious one being in a James bond film where Roger Moore is running after a bad guy through a movie studio... I think the movie was diamonds are forever.. Don't quote me.
There is a good movie Capricorn 1 where astronots are taken off a Mars mission and fake telemetry/acting is subsituted....Ya it's funny the James Bond film where 007 hi-jacks a moon buggy from a "filming" of men slow walking on the moon.
 

Searching

Well-known member
Messages
365
Reactions
2,164
There is a good movie Capricorn 1 where astronots are taken off a Mars mission and fake telemetry/acting is subsituted....Ya it's funny the James Bond film where 007 hi-jacks a moon buggy from a "filming" of men slow walking on the moon.
Not to spoil the ending of Capricorn 1, but when the "astronaut" they couldn't kill showed up at his own funeral at the end and then the credits rolled, I was so disappointed. I wanted to know what happened next.
All the media at this astonaut's funeral, everybody's been told they all died in space, and here he is, alive. I thought that is where the movie really should have began. I want to know the reaction of the American people when they find out their government has been lying to them and wasting their money. Does the astronaut make the talk show circuits? In his interviews does he tell the television audience their government killed his fellow astronauts and tried to kill him? What happens to America then? Does everyone still sleep?
That is the sequel I want to see.
 

MirCo

New member
Messages
1
Reactions
0
If you haven´t seen the Operation Avalanche, watch it. It shows how the movie of the landing was made up
 

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
265
Reactions
1,239
I'm not sure if I will be able to adequately express my thoughts on this, and I may get skewered, but here it goes.

What if it is the consensus belief that something happened that makes it true? If the vast majority of people believe we landed on the moon, then they are putting their energy into the event, thus giving it life and making it "real". When people quit feeding their energy to an event, it disintegrates.
This disintegration is seen by us in ways our limited minds can comprehend - we get a behind-the-scenes look at the "movie" that was once our reality.

Kennedy's assasination is no different. The Zapruder film disproves the official story much more than it proves the lone gunman explanation. Zapruder's film is the least believable movie I have ever seen, and I've watched Fast and Furious movies, so that is saying a lot.

I'm sure by now we have all quit watching the news because it looks like a movie, just crisis actors in front of green screens. For me, the make-believe aspect of movies and the news has bled into everyday life. When I drive down the street, I have difficulty distinguishing what I see in "real" life from the backdrops of Grand Theft Auto.

What if, for every one person who awakens and quits feeding his energy into the event, the event, like the moon landing, becomes more transparent? It hasn't enough energy to sustain itself as believable to those with a discerning eye.

So what I'm saying is, what if man did land on the moon in 1969, but now he didn't? It is an odd idea, I know. To one who has a physical, material, 3D line of thinking, this is ridiculous. "The moon is either terra firma or it's not. We either landed on it or we didn't" And I get that. It has to be one or the other, but what if it's not?

What if both seemingly contradictory things are happening simultaneously? The idea is not that odd. We encounter this anomoly everyday. To me, there were no planes on 9/11. To the person standing right next to me, there were planes and hijackers and box cutters.

So, who is the keeper of Truth? Who in this realm is the objective record keeper? I would answer no one. We are all just subjective observers filtering events through our own experiences and biases, and the event that gets the most attention, or energy, becomes "real".

In a nutshell, I believe it is possible Neil Armstrong, the astronaut, landed on the moon in 1969, but in 2018, Neil Armstrong, the B-list actor, starred in a C-list movie.

All the world is a stage, and the moon, too, I guess.
In my opinion excellent observations.
Pick any topic, show me the pictures if you had the ability to make them. Since the 60's have you seen an improved picture of the moon? Why?

When hunting for trouble at night your flashlight needs to be bright and undetectable. The below was flying in the 50's.

This was available to A.S.A,101st long Range Recon Teams in the 60's ? Everything you know is a lie.

An Air Force officer walks into a bar…

No, this is not the beginning of a joke.

An Air Force officer walks into a bar in the early 1970s. The bar was in the officer’s club on an airbase in England, probably RAF Mildenhall. He was an American officer, apparently in England to attend the annual Farnborough air show, one of the largest air shows in the world. While tipping back a few beers, the officer hears a couple of other officers—it is unknown if they were American or British—discussing an object that a farmer had found on land near where one of the officers lived off-base. The local authorities had been called in to look at the object and had no idea what it was. But the person telling the story noted that whatever it was, “it had a lot of glass in it.”

The details of the story are sketchy, unconfirmed, and it is unclear if the visiting officer instantly knew what they were talking about. But what the farmer had found in his field were apparently pieces of a KH-8 GAMBIT high-resolution spy satellite that had fallen to Earth only a short time before. According to a cryptic entry in a declassified reconnaissance satellite history, intelligence officials knew that one of their spysats had unexpectedly fallen to Earth, but they did not suspect that it had actually come down on land, or that it had been found by a civilian. It was not the first time that a top secret spy satellite had been discovered by a farmer (see: The Space Review, February 18, 2008), but fortunately the officer’s intervention prevented the story from leaking.

For a top secret satellite, the KH-8 has a fascinating history.

There was good reason for the intelligence community to want the find to remain as secret as possible. The KH-8 was the highest resolution reconnaissance satellite ever built. Even today, it apparently holds the record for the best reconnaissance photographs returned from orbit by any spacecraft, a combination of both a powerful camera and the ability to dramatically lower its orbit, to “swoop” in over a target at altitudes of apparently only 70 nautical miles (130 kilometers). The KH-8 could apparently see objects on the ground as small as a baseball and had the ability to photograph people with enough resolution to see their arms and legs. Later satellites had bigger mirrors, but flew at higher altitudes and could not return pictures as good.

The returning satellite was captured mid-air with a C-119 Box Car

Point your not a member of the protected class, you have no need to know period. There is planned chaos, helps xxxxx rule.
Everything is connected.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Starmonkey

Well-known member
Messages
467
Reactions
710
I'm not sure if I will be able to adequately express my thoughts on this, and I may get skewered, but here it goes.

What if it is the consensus belief that something happened that makes it true? If the vast majority of people believe we landed on the moon, then they are putting their energy into the event, thus giving it life and making it "real". When people quit feeding their energy to an event, it disintegrates.
This disintegration is seen by us in ways our limited minds can comprehend - we get a behind-the-scenes look at the "movie" that was once our reality.

Kennedy's assasination is no different. The Zapruder film disproves the official story much more than it proves the lone gunman explanation. Zapruder's film is the least believable movie I have ever seen, and I've watched Fast and Furious movies, so that is saying a lot.

I'm sure by now we have all quit watching the news because it looks like a movie, just crisis actors in front of green screens. For me, the make-believe aspect of movies and the news has bled into everyday life. When I drive down the street, I have difficulty distinguishing what I see in "real" life from the backdrops of Grand Theft Auto.

What if, for every one person who awakens and quits feeding his energy into the event, the event, like the moon landing, becomes more transparent? It hasn't enough energy to sustain itself as believable to those with a discerning eye.

So what I'm saying is, what if man did land on the moon in 1969, but now he didn't? It is an odd idea, I know. To one who has a physical, material, 3D line of thinking, this is ridiculous. "The moon is either terra firma or it's not. We either landed on it or we didn't" And I get that. It has to be one or the other, but what if it's not?

What if both seemingly contradictory things are happening simultaneously? The idea is not that odd. We encounter this anomoly everyday. To me, there were no planes on 9/11. To the person standing right next to me, there were planes and hijackers and box cutters.

So, who is the keeper of Truth? Who in this realm is the objective record keeper? I would answer no one. We are all just subjective observers filtering events through our own experiences and biases, and the event that gets the most attention, or energy, becomes "real".

In a nutshell, I believe it is possible Neil Armstrong, the astronaut, landed on the moon in 1969, but in 2018, Neil Armstrong, the B-list actor, starred in a C-list movie.

All the world is a stage, and the moon, too, I guess.
WEIRD.
You are correct in your assumption IMO.
It's all about BELIEF. Politics, religion, ECONOMICS, the media (news PROGRAMS and other ENTRAINMENT)...
That's why this particular time/space we're in right now is so crucial and pivotal. Between the old and the new. We could decide on a new REALITY.
If enough want to meet angels, it will happen. If enough want to meet aliens, it will occur. If most on this plane believe the earth is round, it is. And vice versa. And if enough FOOLS believe the doom and gloom lie of the end or Armageddon coming, WE will make it so. Regardless of how it plays out, APOCALYPSE IS coming for ALL. It's not the same as Armageddon, but good misdirection there. Time to wipe the scales from our eyes.
Time to shuck off the old that no longer serves us. No more revolutions, we just end up back in the same place.
Scary, the personal RESPONSIBILITY for cocreating reality. Much "easier" for most to shirk it and give their power away to those who would abuse it.
Post automatically merged:

Oh, the WEIRD part...
I've been a ganja smoker for most of the last 25 years off and on. When I take breaks and then go back to it, it's sometimes intense.
Inspirations happen if I'm out and about, but the media and entertainment industry can get to me MORE.
So, about 16 years ago, I moved to Lansing, MI for a spell. Was working at a cafe connected to a bookstore and serving downtown and the community college. Made some friends with kids I worked with, a little younger than me.
Hadn't smoked in awhile. Went up to their apartment and partook and watched someone playing GTA on ultra violent mode. My reality started slipping as I reflected on all of the KILLING going on in front of me. Questioned our values if that's what we were spending our time on.
I didn't mention or bring it up because I hardly knew those people, but I went a little crazy just keeping it inside and unable to escape it.
Yes, the SHIT they're feeding us is making for a hideous reality, but how would we know otherwise? How would we know that we DON'T WANT THIS unless we had ALL witnessed the horror and atrocities humans are capable of?...
Well, if we don't step up OUR game, we're going to be witness to MORE and MORE. Until it's right on all of our front doorsteps and in all of our backyards.
 
Last edited:

Seven823One

Member
Messages
11
Reactions
39
Or
B) History is changing... But that's impossible right?
According to Cassiopaeans there are two ways the known history could be changed:
- 4D creatures (Lizard beings) shenangians, where they can go back and forth in time interfering with evens and manipulating them to produce the desired outcome:
Session 22 October 1994

- timeline merging, where through the conscious or subconscious efforts of a collective, a timeline can merge with a different (parallel) more favorable timeline:
Session 18 May 2019
 

Starmonkey

Well-known member
Messages
467
Reactions
710
WingMakers were time travelers. Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project involved time travel. Philip K Dick in Man in the High Castle looks at alternate realities. Apparently there's a lot of it going around. CONVERGING.
I even feel that way about all of this world-wide architecture and catastrophic recent history I just stumbled on to. Like another reality is bleeding through. The end of time.
 

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
265
Reactions
1,239
I'm not sure if I will be able to adequately express my thoughts on this, and I may get skewered, but here it goes.

What if it is the consensus belief that something happened that makes it true? If the vast majority of people believe we landed on the moon, then they are putting their energy into the event, thus giving it life and making it "real". When people quit feeding their energy to an event, it disintegrates.
This disintegration is seen by us in ways our limited minds can comprehend - we get a behind-the-scenes look at the "movie" that was once our reality.

Kennedy's assasination is no different. The Zapruder film disproves the official story much more than it proves the lone gunman explanation. Zapruder's film is the least believable movie I have ever seen, and I've watched Fast and Furious movies, so that is saying a lot.

I'm sure by now we have all quit watching the news because it looks like a movie, just crisis actors in front of green screens. For me, the make-believe aspect of movies and the news has bled into everyday life. When I drive down the street, I have difficulty distinguishing what I see in "real" life from the backdrops of Grand Theft Auto.

What if, for every one person who awakens and quits feeding his energy into the event, the event, like the moon landing, becomes more transparent? It hasn't enough energy to sustain itself as believable to those with a discerning eye.

So what I'm saying is, what if man did land on the moon in 1969, but now he didn't? It is an odd idea, I know. To one who has a physical, material, 3D line of thinking, this is ridiculous. "The moon is either terra firma or it's not. We either landed on it or we didn't" And I get that. It has to be one or the other, but what if it's not?

What if both seemingly contradictory things are happening simultaneously? The idea is not that odd. We encounter this anomoly everyday. To me, there were no planes on 9/11. To the person standing right next to me, there were planes and hijackers and box cutters.

So, who is the keeper of Truth? Who in this realm is the objective record keeper? I would answer no one. We are all just subjective observers filtering events through our own experiences and biases, and the event that gets the most attention, or energy, becomes "real".

In a nutshell, I believe it is possible Neil Armstrong, the astronaut, landed on the moon in 1969, but in 2018, Neil Armstrong, the B-list actor, starred in a C-list movie.

All the world is a stage, and the moon, too, I guess.
I really like the thoughts in your post. I often watch "New Earth"

This recent video relates to most of your comments about thinking your reality into existence.


 
Top