The Reform activist filmed by Channel 4 using a racial slur about Rishi Sunak while campaigning in Clacton has turned out to be an actor who is well-spoken but specialises in ‘rough voices’ – though the activist and Channel 4 have denied that he was a plant. Isabel Oakeshott broke the story on TalkTV this morning.
I have just found this recently. Watched it already. I doubted the moonlandings since many many years. This documentary solidified it to another level. Also finally explained why Kibrick's name was always coming up regarding the fake landings.
Huh! Watched a bit. Was going along okay until they started talking as if the ISS is real.
I've watched the night sky quite a bit, and seen hundreds of small objects (Musk's Starlink satellites are very bright), but something the size and reflectivity of the ISS would be pretty hard to miss. Never seen it...
But this is only the tip of a small iceberg. The full extent is
Did they suggest ISS and satellites are not real? They are only discussion the Man on the Moon bs
Of course they are real - but they are in low Earth orbit... we can fly to low Earth orbit and survive... but as soon as we get higher the Van Allen Belts will fry us.
Have a look at this photo and tell me you think that survived a trip to the moon and back... if you do then I have some land next to Fukushima to sell you
Of course satellites are real. I never suggested otherwise.
And of course, just like the Apollo Landings (Moonings!), the ISS is Fake. Well, mostly. If you call a mock up of it (or parts of it) in a very big swimming pool (with supposedly the clearest water mankind can produce) somewhere in the US, real, then, it's real. But watch the short clips in the AM video carefully, and see that everyone seems to be standing up. Sure, grabbing at things to make it look like they need to steady themselves, which they probably do, fighting against gravity as they are while they try appearing to be "floating".
The ISS Swimming pool installation is just another movie set, to mimic weightlessness. Where they film the EVAs! Just study a few of the still photos supposedly taken inside the "ISS" (cups of water 'accidentally' left unrestrained on tables and lots of other clues - okay PS could explain those). But realise that they often rotate the photos to make them look like a zero-g environment. If you turn them around and study the way cables and things are clearly hanging, and how the people are 'supported,' you'll start to see it. Go read the story about the (Italian?) visiting astronaut who nearly drowned in his space suit, and think about that. His suit had a water leak alright! Now, if it was coolant, you can be pretty sure it had to have anti-freeze or other additives in it. Don't think they mentioned that.
Put Apollo and the ISS together and certain people are being given a LOT of good US Taxpayer money.
Anyway, turns out my memory serves me well enough. Just skip to 34:23 in the AM video and see the "ISS" for yourself. They are talking like it's real.
As for the primary-school-class' model of the "Lunar Landa", probably seen that photo, seen lots like it, thanks. Yep, it's a joke, probably just like what's going on now, to test how gullible people really are. I mean, the Apollo programme was done by Americans, and even they couldn't communicate among themselves effectively. (Like the Boeing Dreamliner, where the fuselage parts routinely do not line up correctly due to manufacturing issues.) How do we believe that the Russians and the Americans successfully hooked together in space, first try? They're all in the party together... It's called Detente. Maybe, under de tent?
I've seen some clips from the space station that would indicate they were not on the station when it was filmed... who the hell knows what he real and fake.
I will put out something soon on the fake Moon landings... remember the helicopter?
How does it get lift in near 0 atmosphere... How to you charge the battery in -60C....
CGI is a massive step up from the tech used to fake the Mars landing... recall that movie with Matt Damon ... Mars... I have only seen a clip ... and it sure looks like he is on Mars (but he ain't)
Helicopter? Nope, no recollection, unless you mean on Mars. Even then, like you say, rather implausible. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, (and only 0.6% of Earth's Atmospheric pressure) and no protective Magnetic Field around Mars either, so it's an equally inhospitable place. And it's much colder than Earth or the Moon, so all the talk a few years back about Planet B was more total BS. The Matt Damon movie was further undiluted... He would certainly not survive (free breathing) at 6/1000th of our sealevel atmospheric pressure. Mars is a now a very dead planet, but as John Brandenburg argues, there's evidence that it was killed off by Nuclear Explosions in the distant past. Of course, that's not permissible...
I have. There’s an interactive website that will provide times to see it by zip code. I watched once, then went out 90 minutes later and watched it again. If it wasn’t the ISS, it was something big, bright, freaking fast, and more reliable than Amtrak.
Ha! Coincidentally, I had downloaded this just the other day... to re-watch tonight. This story continues today. NASA is no longer innovative... its entirely something else.
I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293
And then there is the NASA engineer saying they are trying to work out how to fly machines and men safely through the high radiation Van Allen Belts ... um.. I guess they can't refer to how they did that in the 60s cuz all the engineering plans were chucked in the dump hahahaha
None...? They do explain in the bit I did watch, they they (MIT & the Russians) did laser reflection experiments years before the staged Apollo landings, and detected returns.
I don't know if anyone has discussed the diameter of the laser bean, (Ok, beam) or whether it's even possible to target an object about 30-40cm square, from this far away, with such a beam. But doesn't matter. The reflectivity of areas of the moon is high enough to reflect sunlight - my goodness! Did you know that!? So, same areas are likely to reflect laser light too. It's really all about the sensitivity of the receiving detector - oh, and the area of the collector, which, presumably, is the adjacent telescope. Whether there are any reflectors up there or not is irrelevant. Bounced laser beams merely show what we already know - the Moon reflects light... So, whoever thought up the idea to "transport" and "place" retro-reflectors up there was a 1/100th wit.
As for cool-sounding "retro-reflectors" - why not simply Reflectors, like on the back of every car? Oh, they were from the Sixties, that's it! Anyway, by now, those retro-reflectors would be obscured by moon dust! Not that there is any.
Think about this. It's a vacuum up there. Dust only exists because there are air molecules to keep it fluid. Without air, dust settles as quickly as cannon balls and becomes very dense and packed. (As Mythbusters discovered but tried to BS their way into saying that a vague, imprecise, shallow depression in their fake "regolith" was almost comparable to the famous Moon Bootprints.) Moon Dust is probably much more like very hard, dried clay than sand. And, since it's a couple of hundred degrees for about 10 days a month, it's been pretty well baked, given it's supposedly been there baking, undisturbed for a few million years. Moon Dust, my arse! Bull Dung.
James Charles prefers to ignore the explanation that is provided in American Moon.
Then James Charles will not explain how they passed through the Van Allen Belts... which are deadly... or how they got front and back lighting on the professional quality photos that were taken ... 6 pro photographers insist this could only be achieved in a studio ... and the honcho from the camera manufacturer is also unable to explain that...
James is fixated o the reflectors... like an autistic child watching his thumb go round and round
- Fascinating documentary about what was correct and what was not about the human moon landings
- All science, citations and references provided within
00:00 - Summary of Competition
- History of the personalities, including James Webb who the new deep space telescope is named after
- 10:00 - Covers how the US tried to work with USSR for a moon shot, and how the Soviets were never really a competitor
- 14:30 - Technology costs, design issues , communication and coordination issues affecting the entire team = Thomas Ronald Baron
- Two years to launch 1967
- Internal strife and tragedies
- Webb has doubts and leaves NASA just months before Apollo 11 launch
- 20:30 - Moon politics and national pride
- Visions of the conquest of space
- 21:00 - Part 1 - Introduction to Moon Hoax Theory
- 25:00 - Kaysing - We Never Went to the Moon
- Radiation issues
- NASA and the internet
- 27:00 = Hollywood
- 29:00 - Part 2 = Evidence of Moon Landing
- Why Russians would not expose the fake missions
- Mythbusters
- Russia and US joint missions in early 1970s
- Concerns & successes
- ISS
- 35:00 - 400,000 employees
- Development of components
- Volkswagen cover up
- Mythbusters retro reflector (40)
- Moon rocks (43)
- IMAX reproductions of moon landing (47)
- Front projection technique - Kubric (48)
- Set sizes
- Miniture Sets (50)
- Moon probe scans (2008) (52)
- Moon globe and flight simulations - Looks like window on lunar lander
- Google Lunar X Prize (57)
- 59:30 - Part 3 - Evidence Against Moon Landing (59)
- Van Allen Belts
- Explorer 1 satellite
- Geiger counter
- Path to moon through belts
- No animals
- no mention of belts in transcript
- course plot thinnest part of belt 30 degrees (108)
- Orion project video
- Allen Bean interview
Question 1
- Lunar landings / LEM (114)
- Soft dirt 6" deep
- Hollow missing (119 ***)
- Lunar Departure Engine flame (123)
- Hypergolic fuel
- LM no engine noise
- LM designs destroyed
- Telemetry data lost by NASA (132)
- Telecommunications speed
- Original footage by SpaceCraft Films compromised by NASA - (137)
- Live TV (140)
- Rover TV umbrella antenna - No possibility of live communication (141)
- Dust sticking where it should not be able to (147)
- Humidity / Electrostatic
- Foot prints with dust retaining shape (151)
- Compacted dust footprints (152)
- Steel wires, lunar gravity / Antigravity (156)
- Pulleys and visible wires , helium ballons
- Flashing wires
- Astronaut lifted and dragged (201) ***
- Air on "set" (204)
- Rover dust clouds
- Flag waves without astronaut near by ***
- 2:16:40 - Part 4 - Photography (216)
- Photographers including Mazzucco, the author of the film
- Cosmic rays penetration (222)
- Damaging rays do not change the perfect black sky (225)
- Thermal operating temperatures of cameras (no moisture??)
- Film temperature, shattering like glass or brittle (236)
- Illumination intensity and fall off (238) ***
- Lens issues (246)
- Sunshine imbalances 248
- parallel shadows 250
- photographers review pic 254
- blurred edges on shadows 258 ***
- backlight photography 300
- mythbusters - backlight 305
- 3:23:00 - Part 5 -Astronauts (323)
anyone who watches the American Moon documentary and still thinks man has walked on the moon... is mentally ill and should seek help
The Reform activist filmed by Channel 4 using a racial slur about Rishi Sunak while campaigning in Clacton has turned out to be an actor who is well-spoken but specialises in ‘rough voices’ – though the activist and Channel 4 have denied that he was a plant. Isabel Oakeshott broke the story on TalkTV this morning.
She said: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/28/racist-reform-activist-filmed-by-channel-4-is-an-actor/
Everything... is fake
I have just found this recently. Watched it already. I doubted the moonlandings since many many years. This documentary solidified it to another level. Also finally explained why Kibrick's name was always coming up regarding the fake landings.
Huh! Watched a bit. Was going along okay until they started talking as if the ISS is real.
I've watched the night sky quite a bit, and seen hundreds of small objects (Musk's Starlink satellites are very bright), but something the size and reflectivity of the ISS would be pretty hard to miss. Never seen it...
But this is only the tip of a small iceberg. The full extent is
.
.
.
Did they suggest ISS and satellites are not real? They are only discussion the Man on the Moon bs
Of course they are real - but they are in low Earth orbit... we can fly to low Earth orbit and survive... but as soon as we get higher the Van Allen Belts will fry us.
Have a look at this photo and tell me you think that survived a trip to the moon and back... if you do then I have some land next to Fukushima to sell you
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2F5Iels7wF7iMjoTmmeRwDaVenoZXSCTyHM0ptr-rI8xk.jpg%3Fwidth%3D960%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D5c4cfa8cd1fbebcb41b502efc080b9f8cf1a6530&rdt=46681
No, they suggested the ISS is real.
Of course satellites are real. I never suggested otherwise.
And of course, just like the Apollo Landings (Moonings!), the ISS is Fake. Well, mostly. If you call a mock up of it (or parts of it) in a very big swimming pool (with supposedly the clearest water mankind can produce) somewhere in the US, real, then, it's real. But watch the short clips in the AM video carefully, and see that everyone seems to be standing up. Sure, grabbing at things to make it look like they need to steady themselves, which they probably do, fighting against gravity as they are while they try appearing to be "floating".
The ISS Swimming pool installation is just another movie set, to mimic weightlessness. Where they film the EVAs! Just study a few of the still photos supposedly taken inside the "ISS" (cups of water 'accidentally' left unrestrained on tables and lots of other clues - okay PS could explain those). But realise that they often rotate the photos to make them look like a zero-g environment. If you turn them around and study the way cables and things are clearly hanging, and how the people are 'supported,' you'll start to see it. Go read the story about the (Italian?) visiting astronaut who nearly drowned in his space suit, and think about that. His suit had a water leak alright! Now, if it was coolant, you can be pretty sure it had to have anti-freeze or other additives in it. Don't think they mentioned that.
Put Apollo and the ISS together and certain people are being given a LOT of good US Taxpayer money.
Anyway, turns out my memory serves me well enough. Just skip to 34:23 in the AM video and see the "ISS" for yourself. They are talking like it's real.
As for the primary-school-class' model of the "Lunar Landa", probably seen that photo, seen lots like it, thanks. Yep, it's a joke, probably just like what's going on now, to test how gullible people really are. I mean, the Apollo programme was done by Americans, and even they couldn't communicate among themselves effectively. (Like the Boeing Dreamliner, where the fuselage parts routinely do not line up correctly due to manufacturing issues.) How do we believe that the Russians and the Americans successfully hooked together in space, first try? They're all in the party together... It's called Detente. Maybe, under de tent?
Sputnik was a great trick...
I've seen some clips from the space station that would indicate they were not on the station when it was filmed... who the hell knows what he real and fake.
I will put out something soon on the fake Moon landings... remember the helicopter?
How does it get lift in near 0 atmosphere... How to you charge the battery in -60C....
CGI is a massive step up from the tech used to fake the Mars landing... recall that movie with Matt Damon ... Mars... I have only seen a clip ... and it sure looks like he is on Mars (but he ain't)
Stay tuned!
Helicopter? Nope, no recollection, unless you mean on Mars. Even then, like you say, rather implausible. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, (and only 0.6% of Earth's Atmospheric pressure) and no protective Magnetic Field around Mars either, so it's an equally inhospitable place. And it's much colder than Earth or the Moon, so all the talk a few years back about Planet B was more total BS. The Matt Damon movie was further undiluted... He would certainly not survive (free breathing) at 6/1000th of our sealevel atmospheric pressure. Mars is a now a very dead planet, but as John Brandenburg argues, there's evidence that it was killed off by Nuclear Explosions in the distant past. Of course, that's not permissible...
Sorry I meant Mars... edited.
I suspect Hubble does not exist either
That could be this planet's future too, but I say not yet.
I have. There’s an interactive website that will provide times to see it by zip code. I watched once, then went out 90 minutes later and watched it again. If it wasn’t the ISS, it was something big, bright, freaking fast, and more reliable than Amtrak.
Ha! Coincidentally, I had downloaded this just the other day... to re-watch tonight. This story continues today. NASA is no longer innovative... its entirely something else.
I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
In a nut shell, no one is doing the math for how many refuelings are needed.
This is hilarious ... Buzz Aldrin loses his shit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-WQ9UNHRo
And then there is the NASA engineer saying they are trying to work out how to fly machines and men safely through the high radiation Van Allen Belts ... um.. I guess they can't refer to how they did that in the 60s cuz all the engineering plans were chucked in the dump hahahaha
https://youtu.be/4O5dPsu66Kw?t=159
None...? They do explain in the bit I did watch, they they (MIT & the Russians) did laser reflection experiments years before the staged Apollo landings, and detected returns.
I don't know if anyone has discussed the diameter of the laser bean, (Ok, beam) or whether it's even possible to target an object about 30-40cm square, from this far away, with such a beam. But doesn't matter. The reflectivity of areas of the moon is high enough to reflect sunlight - my goodness! Did you know that!? So, same areas are likely to reflect laser light too. It's really all about the sensitivity of the receiving detector - oh, and the area of the collector, which, presumably, is the adjacent telescope. Whether there are any reflectors up there or not is irrelevant. Bounced laser beams merely show what we already know - the Moon reflects light... So, whoever thought up the idea to "transport" and "place" retro-reflectors up there was a 1/100th wit.
As for cool-sounding "retro-reflectors" - why not simply Reflectors, like on the back of every car? Oh, they were from the Sixties, that's it! Anyway, by now, those retro-reflectors would be obscured by moon dust! Not that there is any.
Think about this. It's a vacuum up there. Dust only exists because there are air molecules to keep it fluid. Without air, dust settles as quickly as cannon balls and becomes very dense and packed. (As Mythbusters discovered but tried to BS their way into saying that a vague, imprecise, shallow depression in their fake "regolith" was almost comparable to the famous Moon Bootprints.) Moon Dust is probably much more like very hard, dried clay than sand. And, since it's a couple of hundred degrees for about 10 days a month, it's been pretty well baked, given it's supposedly been there baking, undisturbed for a few million years. Moon Dust, my arse! Bull Dung.
James Charles prefers to ignore the explanation that is provided in American Moon.
Then James Charles will not explain how they passed through the Van Allen Belts... which are deadly... or how they got front and back lighting on the professional quality photos that were taken ... 6 pro photographers insist this could only be achieved in a studio ... and the honcho from the camera manufacturer is also unable to explain that...
James is fixated o the reflectors... like an autistic child watching his thumb go round and round