My favorite sort of thing with the “moon landing” is …

Comment on New forum by Wild Heretic.

My favorite sort of thing with the “moon landing” is stuff like this:

“This NASA article describes an experiment in July 1969 to see how well a monkey would survive in space. The monkey died, and (at the time) everyone blamed microgravity itself:

The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone.

So within weeks of the monkey’s death–believed to be due to microgravity–NASA sent up Armstrong and Aldrin?

Completely goes against any logic or commonsense and puts the moon landing likelihood at a trillion to one on just stuff like this alone.

And don’t forget, the mission was a complete success the first time… THE FIRST TIME!… on international TV no less. Not one single thing (of a multitude of things) in their theoretical planning was unexpected or went wrong in reality with their first attempt. Just like real life lol. 🙂

They are laughing at us. The good news is we will continually have events like this every couple of years or so in order to reinforce the hypnotic trance of Newtonian heliocentric nonsense on the unwitting populace. A bit like they had to do to Professor Arturo in sliders season 3, episode 13
(at 23min 45s)

We are no different. The comet thing was a laugh. In a couple of years the next event will be even funnier. They are probably already sitting around a table now having meetings on what utter horseshit they can come up with for their next “escapade”. Landing on a comet lacked imagination as it was a direct rip off of that crap Bruce Willis movie. It also made the moon landing farce look like a walk down to the shops and back. More than hard to believe.

Wild Heretic Also Commented

New forum
Thanks Trevin.

I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.

“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”

I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?

New forum
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.

New forum
Don’t know, but very interesting all the same. Possibly a large meteor burning through the glass. It looked far too short for it to be a reflection on a cloud from something on the ground, unless it was a ground explosion. Wouldn’t we see the light from the ground explosion on the horizon first though?

Recent Comments by Wild Heretic

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”):

Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.

It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.

It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.

There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?

The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.

Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.

Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.

There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.

Space machines do not orbit the Earth
I personally think the moon is reflected light from the back of the Sun. The negative cooling effects come from the “positive” charge of the Sun which is pushing the moon around Sun.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.