The Apollo Moon Landings Hoax and Space Fakery - Taboo Conspiracy ii Mirror

Video Transcript:

But romanticized nostalgia is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear, but it is not the lie itself that scares people. It is what the lie says about the world around us, and how it really functions. For FNASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media and the scientific community and the educational community and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? This is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It's not being lied to about the moon landings that people have a problem with. It is the realization that comes with that revelation. If they could lie about that, they could lie about anything. Dave McGowan wagging the moon doggy. Thank you everyone for allowing me to speak today on the phony moon landings and space fakery. Now, I've put out quite a few videos on the moon landings hoax and space fakery presenting a myriad of prues, even seeing that we've been lied to, about pretty much everything related to space. If you are on the fence, I hope that I may present enough evidence here today that you'll go out and conduct your own investigation. At the very least, I can maybe point you in the right direction. I find it interesting how our affinity with space has become so strong that I would dare say that people love space, and that love is so blinding that they will deliberately not face the obvious adultery taking place behind their backs. I don't understand the willfully blind person. Hey man, I have pictures proving that she's lying and cheating on you. I don't want to see that get away from me. She'd never do that. Our love is too strong. I can't compete with that level of indoctrinated space love. No one has ever been to space, but the media has molded humanity into a society of myopic space lovers who will defend space's honor to their dying breath. I guess it's pretty pathetic. Hopefully we can break your love affair with space. It's not a question about how much proof we have even seeing the Paul missions in space or fake. The real question is whether you will look. Here is one of the earliest attempts at faking space. The flight was in 1962, and yes, this was passed off as legitimate footage. We already know that these high altitude balloons are the closest that we are ever going to get to space. But I do find it interesting how we were supposedly taking astronauts into these craft as early as 1962. But this part is the best. Here's the so-called footage from space. I was looking at that one more time. You know there's some chill iron out there somewhere trying to defend this footage. It's a refraction that made the star appear through the moon. And that's why the footage looks like it was taken from the Twilight Zone television show. Obviously the level of fakery has gotten much better since the 1960s, but mistakes are still being made. The proof isn't what NASA got right. The proof is what NASA got wrong. Because if NASA faked any of it, then we rightfully should assume that NASA faked all of it. NASA is a criminal organization. Only one of its executives should be thrown in slave labor camps until they pay back all of the money they stole under false pretense from the American taxpayer. Let's begin with the laughable Apollo Moon missions. I don't believe there's a single genuine person who has diligently looked into the Moon Landing's hoax evidence and still believed in the Apollo missions. The moon landings are patently ridiculous. You just need to be able to set aside your indoctrination and spend some time researching it with a skeptical but open mind. For goodness sakes, the last time man was allegedly on the moon was December 14, 1972. It has been nearly 47 years since man was supposedly on the moon using only 1960s technology, which astronaut Donald Pettits says NASA destroyed. Half-fact alone says they lied and shifts the burden of proof to NASA. There is no plausible excuse. NASA steals $59.7 million per day from the American taxpayer. They certainly have enough money to repeat what was already done back in 1969. Oh yeah, I forgot what Don Pettits said. That amazing technology was destroyed. At February 2001, there was a special on Fox that was called Conspiracy Theory, did we land on the moon? I watched that show when aired and I thought the Fox show raised some excellent points. However, a couple years later, I came across a debunking article by Phil Plate on the website Bad Astronomy. This article is still cited as the creme de la creme of debunking articles. I read through it all and became convinced that there was an answer to all of those conspiracy allegations. At least that's what I've hoped. At that time, Phil Plate was my hero. He saved me from the crazy moon landing conspiracy theorists. From that time, we saw many other so-called debunking experts rise up like the mythbusters, snopes.com, meta-bunk, popular science, and many more. I mean, who can doubt the sincerity of the mythbusters Jamie and Adam, right? Damn liars. Let me get back to my story. For several years, I was one of those pompous people who scoffed at moon landing deniers because I read that article from Phil Plate. And one day, another lawyer recommended that I read a series of articles on the fossil fuel hoax written by a Dave McGowan. I actually don't know if you can still read those articles, but what McGowan wrote made absolute sense that there is no such thing as a fossil fuel. It is an utter hoax. You could devote a whole conference to that subject. But then I changed my life forever because I clicked on another article by Dave McGowan titled Wagon the Moon Doggy. David tragically died a few years ago from cancer, but I hope his work will be remembered for a hundred years. That is, if it can survive the coming internet purge. I highly recommend you read the entire Wagon the Moon Doggy series while you still can. And if you prefer, I have the full narration on my YouTube channel. You can ignore everything I say here, but please go read the Wagon the Moon Doggy series because it is awesome. I'm going to cover many of the points made by David McGowan, but I can't compete with his humor, even though he believed in space McGowan was brilliant. But above all else, David introduced me to these two laughable Apollo photographs that destroyed the NASA Moon landings forever for me. I certainly didn't see these photographs on PhilPlates website or on the Mythbusters. This here is the official lunar lander. When I usually show this to people, they automatically think it's a joke. No seriously, this is an official photograph of the Apollo lunar lander. And you have to be a damn idiot if you don't see how ridiculous this is. Fortunately, they took a close-up photograph as well. Curtain rods, aluminum foil, tar paper, scotch tape, some useless abstract art sculptures that do nothing but look spacey and some very poor construction. Look at the paneling. It's a disaster. If someone sheet-rocked your basement like this, you'd demand your money back. But this is supposed to be an amazing spaceship constructed by the best engineers and scientists. It's absolute garbage, a shameful prop made by a high school drama club. Looking at the photographs side by side, it's unbelievable to me that they got away with this for so long. Our academics, scientists, and engineers so institutionalized that they can't see how absurd this is. It's incredibly stupid. I'm sorry, but this is not a spaceship, so this brings me to proof number one, the lunar lander joke. There are so many problems that this entire presentation could be on the lunar lander. The first huge problem I want to discuss about the lunar lander is the fact that it was never flown on earth, not even once. Please go and try to find a video of astronauts getting some flight time in this piece of junk. Just think about it. This drama prop was never even allegedly flown by an astronaut on earth in front of a camera. In fact, besides NASA's alleged dubious pictures in space, there is zero proof that this alleged vehicle could actually fly. This comical contraption, after traveling 234,000 miles in space, supposedly fell from lunar orbit at 4,000 miles per hour, and this difficult maneuver was never practiced. The lunar lander landed in poor visibility on very rough, crater and boulder infested terrain that was all the same Portland cement color. Just imagine how easy it would have been to hit a boulder or fall into a crater when you only have these small windows flying over terrain that all looks like Portland cement. This difficult type of landing was never practiced. The lunar lander ascents stage, then supposedly blasts it off the moon, again achieving 4,000 miles per hour to rendezvous up in space with a spaceship that had been orbiting the moon dozens of times. Again, this maneuver was never practiced on earth. Here is Armstrong flying one of the much smaller, so-called training vehicles in optimal conditions. In this vehicle, he has full visibility and there is no rough terrain. The accident almost killed Armstrong, but he wasn't alone. Three of the five training vehicles crashed, and the training vehicles were much smaller, had much better visibility, where flown in optimal conditions, overrunways in daylight, were never flown in situations similar to what we would be experienced on the moon, and still three-fifths of the training vehicles crashed. That is not a good safety record, and these were far, simpler, craft. Notice that the conditions the training vehicle was flying over were nowhere near what would happen on the moon. It's flying over an airfield. You'd think that NASA would want its astronauts training to fly in low visibility over rough rocky terrain so that its astronauts would have practiced not hitting a boulder or falling down a crater. Yet, NASA didn't find it prudent to have the astronauts actually practice flying the lunar lander on Earth. No reasonable prudent person would consider this a safe way of landing on the moon. Could you imagine what would have happened if Apollo 11 crashed its untested lander, and the astronauts all died horrible death, and the public found out that NASA never actually had the astronauts practice flying the lunar lander multiple times on Earth? NASA would have been defunded forever, and its managers would have probably gone to prison. There's simply no way that NASA would have taken such a risk, and there was only one way NASA was guaranteed 100% success, and that is by faking it. Next, they want you to believe that this piece of junk could support life up to three days on the moon. What kind of life support would be necessary? What kind of air conditioning would be necessary in the harshest environment and imaginable? The temperature on the moon allegedly varies from negative 387 Fahrenheit at night to 253 Fahrenheit during the day. The Apollo 17 astronauts supposedly re-entered the lunar lander on three occasions after even driving around in a dune buggy. What kind of dust absorbing system did it have? Where were the batteries to give it power for three days? How much oxygen did it have to repressurize on each occasion in the last three days? How is there so much room in the lunar lander that NASA was able to attach a dune buggy on later missions? Did NASA have the foresight to leave a large trunk for a fold-up dune buggy with tires and large 1970 batteries? What about all of the bulky experiments where did they fit? The lunacy of the lunar lander should be enough to convince any thinking person that the moon landings were fake, but we can't stop now. Exhibit 2. Kubrick's Apollo 11 lunar docking footage. So after the astronauts were able to play around on the moon up to three days, the astronauts had to hop back into the ascent stage of the lunar lander and blast off the moon and catch up with the command module that had been orbiting at 4000 miles per hour up to three days. Fortunately, the NASA astronauts knew exactly where the command module was after a head supposedly traveled 768,000 miles. It's also important to note that not one person on Earth was able to film this command module orbiting the moon with a telescope. You can supposedly see dark craters on the moon that are only 1 kilometer in diameter, but you can't see a large, chrome spacecraft that would be reflecting sunlight like a mirror orbiting the moon dozens of times. There should be dozens of amateur astronomy videos showing the command module orbiting the moon, but they don't exist. But, I especially love this Apollo 11 redocking footage. This is absolutely ridiculous. These are 1960 special effects and are obviously fake to even a child. Look at the jerky motions. Look at the total lack of thrusters being used. I've had many people ask me if this is genuine NASA footage and yes it is. I actually feel pretty bad for you if you believe that's a space ship that just blasts it off the moon traveling up 4000 miles per hour. Maybe you notice that the video footage of the docking lunar lander appears eerily similar and as fake as Kubrick's 2001 space Odyssey. Exhibit 3. The Proposterous Apollo Ascent Stage. The last video was shockingly ridiculous. Again it's unbelievable that anyone with a brain, let alone a degree, believes that was a real space ship traveling up 4000 miles per hour docking in lunar orbit. Institutionalized conformity is amazingly powerful as even individuals with a PhD won't allow themselves to question their institutions. But this gets even better. This is a official NASA footage of the Apollo 15 and 17 Ascent stages. Remember the engine was never even allegedly turned on beforehand. In addition to the Proposterous and obviously fake footage, NASA claims that it used a remote control to operate the camera on the moon buggy left behind and then beamed that video footage back to Earth 234,000 miles away. We didn't even have decent television remote controls in 1972. But NASA could not only operate the camera from 234,000 miles, NASA could also pan up and follow the lunar Ascent stage and zoom out all in real time without delay. Look again, the camera, zooms out and pans up in real time and this remote control was supposedly 234,000 miles away. That, ladies and gentlemen, is impossible. Does anyone here actually think this looks real? One other thing, notice that there is no thrust from the nozzle. Yes, there should have been a huge flame and obvious light source from the nozzle. Exhibit 4. No blast crater and no scorching. This is a 7,500 pound thruster. Look at its power. Look at its heat. Look at the light it creates. Look at the dust it kicks up and yes, the Apollo astronauts claim that its lunar lander also kicked up dust and the phony footage shows the same. The Apollo lunar lander had a bigger thruster at 10,000 pounds. Obviously the 10,000 pound thruster fell to displace or scorching any of the lunar soil. In one case you can see the nozzle is actually bent as it collapsed on the surface. The nozzle is literally buried in the ground and still it did not affect the lunar soil. It is very clear a crane sat this lunar lander down on the soil. There was no rocket. Exhibit 5. The Marionette astronauts. I already touched on this in my last video but the evidence is compelling. The astronauts were dangling from wires and you can see it multiple times. This video proves that the astronauts did dangle by wires. There really isn't much more to say then. How in the world do you believe in this nonsense? Exhibit 6. The unmistakable Apollo movie backdrop. You can clearly see the use of 1960s movie artificial backdrops here. It's obvious that backdrop lines are visible throughout all of the missions. In this case you can even see the carpet used to blend in with the backdrop. No reasonable person can deny that these are movie backdrops. This was not filmed on the moon. 7. Thousands of studio quality photos. Our NASA actors were able to impossibly produce thousands of studio quality photos. What's wrong about that? It is the fact that the astronauts did not have the ability to use the viewfinder to frame their shots or to manually adjust aperture, focus or shutter speed and do so all without the benefit of secondary light sources. What the astronauts managed to do this nearly every time, this can't happen in real life. Here's how McGowan put it. Skipping ahead two sentences. Simply stated, it would not have been possible to capture any of the images allegedly shot on the moon in the manner that NASA says they were captured. Back in the day, you see and the younger readers may again want to cover their eyes, cameras weren't all that smart. So everything had to be done manually. The photographer had to manually focus each shot by peering through the viewfinder and rotating the lens until the scene came into focus. The proper aperture and shutter speeds had to be manually selected for each shot as well to ensure a proper exposure. That required peering through the viewfinder as well. To meter the shot. Finally, each shot had to be properly composed and framed, which obviously also required looking through the viewfinder. The problem for the astronauts is that the cameras were mounted to their chest, which made it impossible to see through the viewfinder to meter, frame, and focus the shots. Everything, therefore, was pretty much of a guess. Folks seen would have been entirely guesswork as with the framing of each shot. An experienced photographer could accurately estimate the exposure settings, but the astronauts lacked such experience and they were also handicapped by the fact that they were viewing the scenes through heavily tinted visors, which meant that what they were seen was not what the camera was seeing. To add to their troubles, they were wearing space helmets that seriously restricted their field of vision, along with the enormously bulky, pressurized gloves that severely limited their manual dexterity. The odds then of getting even one of the three elements, exposure, focus, and framing, correct under those conditions on any given shot, would have been exceedingly low. And yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right. The fact that NASA astronauts took 5,771 photos is another major issue as well. Here's how one commenter put it. NASA wants the world to believe that 5,771 photographs were taken in the combined time of 4,834 minutes over an alleged six missions. This equates to Apollo 11, 1 photo every 15 seconds, Apollo 12, 1 photo every 27 seconds, Apollo 14, 1 photo every 62 seconds, Apollo 15, 1 photo every 44 seconds, Apollo 16, 1 photo every 29 seconds, Apollo 17, 1 photo every 26 seconds. Given all the facts, was it possible for two men to take that many photos in so short a time? Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel, as much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and petaramas. Each perfectly exposed and perfectly framed picture was taken on a chess mounted camera without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky, spacesuit and stiff, clumsy gloves. The agency wants the world to believe that 5,771 perfectly exposed and perfectly framed photographs were taken in 4,834 minutes. If nothing but photography had been done, such a feat is clearly impossible, made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine 1.19 photos every minute that men were on the moon. That's one picture every 50 seconds. The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered. The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the moon in such an impossible time frame. Exhibit 8. The Liars Press Conference One of NASA's biggest blunders in 1969 was the fact that it didn't hire very good actors. On August 12, 1969, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin attended their first major press conference. This is the first big conference of the Apollo 11 astronauts and was only two days after the astronauts were released from quarantine. Their faces tell it all, they are not happy with what they are doing. They look like they were being forced to tell Li and they showed no excitement that would accompany 3 men who walked on the moon. But the funniest part to me is when one of the reporters asked whether they could see stars while on the surface of the moon. Armstrong said that he couldn't recall seeing stars and then Michael Collins added a hate and remember seeing Annie. You can see Armstrong was bothered by Collins's answer. Collins's answer is hilarious because Michael Collins was never on the surface and so he had no reason to answer the question. In addition, Michael Collins was the pilot of the command module and he would have allegedly seen the most amazing show of stars on the dark side of the moon better than any person that had lived up till that time. Michael Collins supposedly saw the dark side of the moon 27 times and he doesn't remember seeing any stars. Exhibit 9. The Ridiculous Lunar Rover. First, how in the world did NASA plan for a fold up dune buggy to attach only on the later Apollo flights? The Lunar Rover was only used on Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Are we to believe that NASA left a big trunk for a fold up dune buggy in the designs of the lunar lander? It had wheels, it had batteries, it had seats, a satellite dish, it had a seat, it had other components in addition to the frame. That's not something that you fit in your luggage. Next the fold up dune buggy was on one side of the craft. Was it not a concern for NASA to testify the lunar lander with extra weight on one side of the craft? Of course, NASA never thought it would necessary to perform even one test flight. Next, there was no scientific purpose of the lunar rover other than it looked neat for the movie cameras. This is another instance where you need to apply some common sense. By introducing a moon buggy, which had no scientific purpose, NASA was taking the unreasonable and reckless risk that one of its astronauts would get injured. Jostled caused malfunction in one of the packs or breakdown. How easy would have been for an astronaut to hit rock and cause a part of his suit to malfunction or for the astronaut to get thrown from the vehicle? But if the vehicle broke down after hitting a rock covered in dust, this wasn't a minor risk as is clearly seen in the photographs. The astronauts had poor visibility and were cruising around in conditions like these, where even the smallest problem could kill the astronaut. There's simply no way that the reckless lunar rover would have happened. What's even more funny about the lunar rover is the fact that it really looks like it was just a remote controlled car with an action figure. That astronaut never moves from his uncomfortable position. But even more damning has the fact that many times the rover didn't produce tracks or produce tracks in strange ways. Here is a sampling of photographs of the strange and missing rover tracks. This is a bit 10 proof of secondary light sources. Of course NASA could have easily filmed the Apollo movies with just one light source, but NASA needed those thousands of studio quality photos and so NASA did use other light sources. Mythbusters tried to deceive its audience by busking this photograph by using a grainy, dark and version and still failed to create the lighted astronaut as depicted in the demonstration. I changed out the darkened NASA photo used by Mythbusters and replaced it with the NASA original. Do you see the huge difference? Now compare the original NASA photo with the Mythbusters version. Mythbusters certainly did not bus this argument whatsoever and Mythbusters lied about it. But what's more telling is what Mythbusters ignored and that's this photograph. This one photograph proves the entire Apollo mission's faults, as it is 100% impossible for that astronaut to be lit up like that on the shaded side of the lunar lander without additional light sources. Exhibit 11, the tin foil thin lander. According to McGowan, another curious fact that first on the moon made note of was that according to Harold Loden, Apollo 11 mission controller, the skin on the crew cabin of the lunar module was very thin. And that was all done because of weight savings. Another talking head added that if you really took your finger and pulled hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft. It was about the thickness of two layers of aluminum foil. Project manager Thomas Kelly concurred. Noting that the skin, the aluminum alloy skin of the crew compartment was about 12,000 degrees of an inch thick. That's equivalent to about three layers of Reynolds wrap that you would use in your kitchen. Astronaut level stated, whenever I saw a model of the lunar module, it had these rigid sides and it really looks strong. Turns out that external portions of the lunar module are made up of mylar and cellophane. And it's put together with scotch tape and staples. It had to have pads on the floor because if you dropped a screwdriver, it would go right through the floor. And astronauts lived in this for days with multiple repressurizations and merely dropping a screwdriver would kill them. As pointed out by David McGowan, the lunar lander actually failed the Grumman pressure test which blew out a window and no one seemed to care as no design changes were ever made. Come on. Exhibit 12, the inverse square law of light. I think it was maybe geranism or glow busters or both. Who first mentioned this? But this is a terrific proof of the fake moon landings and it deals with how much illumination there would have been on the lunar surface according to the heliocentric model. The inverse square law describes the intensity of light at different distances from a light source. The intensity of light is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. This means that as the distance from a light source increases, the intensity of light is equal to a value multiplied by 1 divided by d squared. Here are the simple equations. As an example, if you place a 100 lumine bulb in a flood light that shines on only one square meter of surface, that surface will be lit at 100 lux. However, if you back the flood light away to shine on 4 square meters, the surface is now lit with 25 lux. The full moon, which is supposed to be reflecting sunlight, has an illuminance up to 1 lux on the Earth's surface. That's not substantial, but a full moon has enough illuminance to read from it, here on Earth. It is allegedly 376,285 kilometers to the moon, from Earth's surface to moon's surface. Let's assume our Apollo astronaut is 0.01 kilometers or 1 meter about the surface of the moon. We now plug the numbers into our inverse square law equation to find the intensity of the moon light at the surface, solving for intensity at distance 2. I have the numbers on the printout, but you can see for yourself the problem. One light has an illuminance up to 128,000 lux on Earth. That's pretty bright. That's as bright as it gets. Assuming my math and figures are right, applying the inverse square law, the Apollo astronauts would have experienced 1 trillion, 106 billion, 175 million, 9,570 times more illuminance on the moon's surface than direct sunlight on Earth. Essentially, based on the inverse square law, at the moon's surface, the light would have been the most blinding light imaginable, and there should have been no photographs possible on the lunar surface. This proves, based on physical laws, without a doubt, that there were no Apollo moon landings. There are so many more proofs that I haven't listed, but I'm getting tired. Here are just a few more quick points. Go to this website, AULIS.com is the best moon landings debunking website out there. There are many articles written by PhDs and other experts in the field, but this was one of my favorite articles. Using parallax laws, the study concluded the following. The Apollo 15 photographic record does not depict real lunar scapes with distant backgrounds, located more than a kilometer away from the camera. These pictures were, without a doubt, taken in a studio set up to 300 meters in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunar scapes' show's degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the object's and perspective. The stereo parallax proves the Apollo missions' fake. One of the most common objections to the fake moon landings argument is that NASA has hundreds of supposed moon rocks. Of course, no one knows where these rocks are, and no one is allowed to independently investigate these moon rocks, but NASA itself destroyed this big proof of theirs when it gave one of its so-called moon rocks to a Dutch museum that actually analyzed the rock. As it turns out, the Dutch were given a glorious piece of petrified wood that most certainly didn't come from the moon. When one rock is proven fake, then we, the people, must rightfully assume that the rest of these lead rocks are also fake. Building on the fact that you can see the 1960s movie backdrops repeatedly during the Apollo missions, we run into another problem. NASA reused same backdrops for different locations. Here's a good example. Another point that isn't discussed much, but I think it is a real issue for anyone who has been on a 12-hour flight, you know what I'm talking about. It is the human impossibility of sitting in a confined space for 12-day straight. Astronaut Ronald Evans, on Apollo 17, supposedly sat like this for 12 days and 13 hours. I don't think that's humanly possible, and no one discussed this extreme torture. Finally, go through all of the photographs analyzed by Jack White, found on the AULIS website. It's fantastic, and it would take me hours to go through them all. Hopefully, there's no one left here that still believes in the Apollo moon landings. If you do, I'm sorry, I truly am. Once we agree that they fake the moon landings. And you have to be suffering from a major case of cognitive dissonance, not to see that NASA did indeed fake it all. The next question I like to ask is, what are the reasonable implications of the fake moon landings? Here are my 10 implications. First, NASA has perpetrated a tremendous fraud on the world and cannot be trusted. All NASA missions should be presumed fraudulent unless proven otherwise with overwhelming evidence. Second, there will not be a Mars landing anytime soon, and it is right to assume that there is no rover on Mars, or even satellite probes being sent throughout the solar system with obvious fake CGI images of space and the planets. Third, all first and second world countries failed to reveal the big Apollo lies, and are controlled in some manner. All other landings by China, Japan, Russia, etc. are also likely fraudulent. Fourth, there was no big space race between the Americans and the Russians. It was fake. There was no benign reason to allegedly beat the Russians to the moon by faking the Apollo missions. The Russians were in on the deception, as evidenced by Luna 16. If you don't know what Luna 16 was, here it is. I always have to laugh at the giant penis. You can't unsee that. Sorry. Fifth, the media cannot be trusted, as the media incessantly praises and repeats the patent lies of NASA. Continually reinforces the fraudulent moon landings, and derogatorily labels anyone who rightfully thinks otherwise a conspiracy theorist. Sixth, universities, professors, astrophysicists, engineers, major churches, police organizations, the FBI, the courts, WikiLeaks, politicians, etc., all failed to uncover the obviously fake moon landings. They are controlled, directly or indirectly through conformity. The can not put their trust in the pseudo-scientists and mainstream institutions. Seventh, SpaceX and every other mainstream source has failed to reveal the fake moon landings. SpaceX receives substantial funding from NASA. SpaceX even speaks of a future Mars mission. SpaceX is also likely fraudulent. Eighth, there were no pictures of the Earth taken from space during the Apollo missions, including the famous 1972 Apollo, the Blue Marble photograph. Ninth, governments and their lying lackeys and shields can get away with big, effing lies. Finally, every thinking independent person should now question all government and academic claims of space. The nature of the universe, the solar system, satellites, the Hubble telescope, the space shuttle, the ISS and even the fundamental shape of the Earth. Skepticism is the only reasonable position, not conformity. Yes, the space fakery has continued since the Apollo missions. There are so many examples of space fakery now that it is hard to choose which ones to share. I think my favorite one is this augmented reality fell as the ISS astronaut on the left grabs nothing from the other astronaut and sets nothing down. I love the guy in the background that is zooming around here on a harness back and forth. This wasn't a good day for NASA. And I think I just caught a new mistake, maybe someone else has already pointed it out, but do you remember this disappearing astronaut? It's a continual shot, and so the naysayers can't claim that it's just splicing two clips together. But here's a similar one, just not as obvious. Do you see how his foot becomes see-through? Anyways, I could go on for days on all the space fakery from all the different nations. Unmistakable, permed hair that flows nothing like it should in a zero-GU environment. Bubbles in space, repeated CGI mistakes. Obvious use of harnesses and wire fails. Evident use of blue screen technology. The reckless plane with water, the fact that the ISS was never assembled on the ground for extensive testing before it went into space. The impossible longevity of the valves and seals in space. That mistaken reflection of a carman off of a cosmonaut's visor, etc. But in the end, it really depends on whether you will allow yourself to investigate the matter. The bottom line is, if they can lie about the Apollo Moon missions, the Columbia missions satellites ISS or space, then they could lie about everything. Thank you again for allowing me to speak today, and I especially want to thank Adiruse for organizing this spectacular event. This has been wonderful. I hope that we can all meet again someday. Thank you very much.