Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
Did Man Land On The Moon?
- Thread starter Rax Moscow
- Start date
@Samseau You are right that we have to be looking through a telescope to see more of these, but we cannot discern what they are without doing ourselves, one way or another. I simply expanded upon the first point in the 20 point video. People have been seeing stars through the moon for centuries. The historical phenomena of the Coleridge effect is not fake. So they definitely did not see "satellites" hundreds of years ago when noting the same phenomena, using the same astronomical measuring jargon.
What we know of stars is limited too. I could go and take pictures through a telescope and find these stars through the moon and it still wouldn't be enough for people to accept, not because it shows something they can't explain, but because the idea of the moon not being a rock is just as insidious to some people as suggesting the earth is not a spinning spheroid depending on ones level of accepting what they have been taught without question. Do people care about this? No, most have no clue to care, but that doesn't mean it has no significance.
Also the Lunar Wave phenomena, these transient distortions that sweeps across the lunar surface resembling a wave passing through water, would not work on a rock. Such dynamic, wave-like behavior can only be possible with plasma phenomena, where localized disturbances can propagate across a medium.
One notable aspect of the lunar wave videos is the absence of any visible impact craters being distorted by the passing wave. If the Moon were a solid, rocky body with surface features such as impact craters, these features would likely be affected or obscured by the wave disturbance. The fact that only the visual appearance of the lunar surface seems to be affected supports the idea that the phenomenon is related to surface illumination and plasmatic effects, as opposed to physical interactions with solid structures. These are likely fluctuations in the emission or propagation of light and frequency from the Moon. The distortions observed in the videos are likely a manifestation of variations in the luminous output of the plasma luminary.
@RedLagoon
If you were referring to summing up all my posts by replying with the logo of the CIA, or that of the notion of discussing space being "fake" then it's a low hit below the belt at those of us who are trying to discuss this. The concept of "outer-space" from all our jewish sci-fi is junk and unrealistic. Space, the heavens, celestial cosmos, do indeed exist, but not as we're taught. Not everyone has to care about these subjects, but for pity's sake stop bringing up the feds. Those psychopaths don't belong near anything intellectual or genuine in search of truth. They certainly don't apply here other than anecdotally mentioning them running massive propaganda on people in the 1960s and 1970s for the fake moon landings.
Yes I was watching what happened a few days ago carefully. I observed the one in 2017 as well. This time I wrote down everything that didn't add up, from the path of the penumbra to the way it didn't appear like a normal solar eclipse. I did not see the moon this time, it was allegedly seen in another part of the sky by people in Texas during the eclipse, whilst something the same size of the sun covered the light of the sun. In 2017 I clearly saw the moon before and afterwards. This time there was something strange with it all, from the way people were hyping it up to be some major event beforehand to the manner in which it executed itself across the USA. Not something fearful, just what happened was not what we were told. Also each US state had a different "simulation" of this eclipse which also means it doesn't add up.
The Black Sun is also something that is real, but I don't fully understand yet how it works. I've shown it's image a few times in the other cosmology thread, but its mainly discussed in esoteric circles. It's existence doesn't add up with Genesis.
Either way, I don't see the point in engaging in this with those who are not interested, but because I believe in kindly and freely sharing information I will respond to any counterclaim. However I find it behooving for any good Christian to question the sciences that have been shoved down their throats since birth. There is black magic afoot these days on a massive scale, and most of it is brainwashing. If they can convince kids these days to self-immolate, influence them to self-immolate, and coerce them to self-suicide through poison injections, then everything else that is "taught" has to be re-examined. The fruits of the tree are rotten so the axe must take to the root.
What we know of stars is limited too. I could go and take pictures through a telescope and find these stars through the moon and it still wouldn't be enough for people to accept, not because it shows something they can't explain, but because the idea of the moon not being a rock is just as insidious to some people as suggesting the earth is not a spinning spheroid depending on ones level of accepting what they have been taught without question. Do people care about this? No, most have no clue to care, but that doesn't mean it has no significance.
Also the Lunar Wave phenomena, these transient distortions that sweeps across the lunar surface resembling a wave passing through water, would not work on a rock. Such dynamic, wave-like behavior can only be possible with plasma phenomena, where localized disturbances can propagate across a medium.
One notable aspect of the lunar wave videos is the absence of any visible impact craters being distorted by the passing wave. If the Moon were a solid, rocky body with surface features such as impact craters, these features would likely be affected or obscured by the wave disturbance. The fact that only the visual appearance of the lunar surface seems to be affected supports the idea that the phenomenon is related to surface illumination and plasmatic effects, as opposed to physical interactions with solid structures. These are likely fluctuations in the emission or propagation of light and frequency from the Moon. The distortions observed in the videos are likely a manifestation of variations in the luminous output of the plasma luminary.
@RedLagoon
If you were referring to summing up all my posts by replying with the logo of the CIA, or that of the notion of discussing space being "fake" then it's a low hit below the belt at those of us who are trying to discuss this. The concept of "outer-space" from all our jewish sci-fi is junk and unrealistic. Space, the heavens, celestial cosmos, do indeed exist, but not as we're taught. Not everyone has to care about these subjects, but for pity's sake stop bringing up the feds. Those psychopaths don't belong near anything intellectual or genuine in search of truth. They certainly don't apply here other than anecdotally mentioning them running massive propaganda on people in the 1960s and 1970s for the fake moon landings.
Yes I was watching what happened a few days ago carefully. I observed the one in 2017 as well. This time I wrote down everything that didn't add up, from the path of the penumbra to the way it didn't appear like a normal solar eclipse. I did not see the moon this time, it was allegedly seen in another part of the sky by people in Texas during the eclipse, whilst something the same size of the sun covered the light of the sun. In 2017 I clearly saw the moon before and afterwards. This time there was something strange with it all, from the way people were hyping it up to be some major event beforehand to the manner in which it executed itself across the USA. Not something fearful, just what happened was not what we were told. Also each US state had a different "simulation" of this eclipse which also means it doesn't add up.
The Black Sun is also something that is real, but I don't fully understand yet how it works. I've shown it's image a few times in the other cosmology thread, but its mainly discussed in esoteric circles. It's existence doesn't add up with Genesis.
Either way, I don't see the point in engaging in this with those who are not interested, but because I believe in kindly and freely sharing information I will respond to any counterclaim. However I find it behooving for any good Christian to question the sciences that have been shoved down their throats since birth. There is black magic afoot these days on a massive scale, and most of it is brainwashing. If they can convince kids these days to self-immolate, influence them to self-immolate, and coerce them to self-suicide through poison injections, then everything else that is "taught" has to be re-examined. The fruits of the tree are rotten so the axe must take to the root.
Last edited:
The prediction of the eclipse was accurate down the minute for each part of America, so it is not possible for anything you've said about the moon to be true. If the moon wasn't a solid or if the moon did not orbit the world, then there could not be any eclipse with such accurate predictions. This eclipse was predicted decades ago, and they've already predicted where the next one will be decades from now. It's based on sound principles and works perfectly mathematically.
If you make another nonsense post I'm afraid I'll have to thread ban you out of this for derailing with nonsense.
Quoting historical astronomical phenomena and describing them is not nonsense. I never said the eclipse "didn't happen," which is nonsense. You have no way of proving that the prediction was accurate based off of reports just as I have no way of proving it was not accurate based off of reports. It is a nebulous contention, and not one I am putting my usual effort in trying to arrive at a truth of, I merely mentioned other things I heard and read from other people about this eclipse, which may all be false just as much as it may be true. Not worth exploring when we do not have the ability to decipher with an exact guarantee.
However, measurable predictions were taken for millennia based upon the charting of the stars with accurate results. The ancient star maps were not nonsense, even if their cultures were full of superstitious heathens. The six-five beat is a process by which eclipses were predicted based upon the number of solar cycles and lunar cycles, all observed visually and not with any kind of modern concept of astronomy or heliocentrism.
Solar and lunar eclipses usually recur every six lunar months or, more rarely, every five lunar months. The Chinese, Mayans, Romans, and Babylonians all ended up using the same system of months in their own predictions. It's first formula was the 41-month pattern: 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 5 = 41 months, or some 3.4 years, after a total or near-total eclipse, an almost identical eclipse occurs, and alternatively the second formula was the 47-month pattern: 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 5 = 47 months, or some 3.9 years, after a total or near-total eclipse, an almost identical eclipse occurs.
They had an enormous body of observed phenomena that then enabled them to establish these regularities. Whether or not the moon is a rock or a semi-translucent luminary would not change what has been transpiring since antiquity. We cannot claim to know the inner mechanics of God's mysteries with an exact human surety.
Even without discussing the moon's nature, the physical limitations and the impossibilities of the moon landings are easily arrived at through a myriad of other sensible connections. Exposing NASA's wrongdoings through their consistent deception, thieving, lying, and misuse of American citizen's taxpayer dollars should be the number one focus for anyone in discrediting them more so than greater philosophical and cosmological studies.
Not only were these not precise systems of measurements, unlike what we have today, but they cannot accurate predict the path of the eclipse like we do today, down the minute. You are posting nonsense.
Yes, yes it would, because how could a transparent object both block the sun in the middle of the day and also let stars shine through it at night?
You are seriously confused.
Remember, we're supposed to believe that the batteries used in the extreme temperatures of outer space and the moon were under "insulation," allowing them to operate normally, yet we cannot insulate batteries in fairly mild conditions, by comparison to space, on Earth.
In outer space we've got near absolute zero temperatures, yet on earth the temp drops to -20 and every battery dies immediately. Why can't they just insulate them, brah??? Conversely the radiation of sunlight, which is so powerful and intense it warms our entire Earth, can also be insulated in outer space even though there is zero atmosphere to lessen the radiation effects (which mean small surfaces probably warm up to hundreds if not thousands of degrees).
Thermodynamics is by far the easiest and fastest way to debunk the moon landings.
Most "Space" flights including Yuri Gargarins & the orbit of the ISS itself take place within the seven layers of the Earths Atmosphere.
Therefore nobody has actually been to "Space". Just breifly entered into parts of the Atmosphere that are weaker and have miniscule "space-like" properties.
The Karman Line is a psy-op:
Therefore nobody has actually been to "Space". Just breifly entered into parts of the Atmosphere that are weaker and have miniscule "space-like" properties.
The Karman Line is a psy-op:
Not enough tin foil brah.
(sorry I just spent some time on FB)
So yeah they judge you for wearing a tin foil hat while they fly to the moon IN it:
Doesn't mean the Earth is flat btw.
Last edited:
The theory behind the tinfoil is that in space, since it is a vacuum, heat can only travel through radiation (which probably isn't the full truth). Thus, tinfoil reflects the suns heat rays, and works as perfect insulation.
The problem, however, is that this would mean any surface not exposed to some form of heat would immediately drop down to near absolute zero temperatures. It would absolutely freeze solid 99% of materials. How in the heavens would a battery, operate, lol?
And if they can make a battery operate in -271 degrees, why can't they make one operate in -20 F? The entire theory falls apart in a mess of contradictions.
The problem, however, is that this would mean any surface not exposed to some form of heat would immediately drop down to near absolute zero temperatures. It would absolutely freeze solid 99% of materials. How in the heavens would a battery, operate, lol?
And if they can make a battery operate in -271 degrees, why can't they make one operate in -20 F? The entire theory falls apart in a mess of contradictions.
I'm going to steelman you like Joe Rogan did in the podcast above.
If you're going to the moon you're going to solve this problem somehow. Since we went the moon the problem was solved. NASA themselves say they lost the technology, but this doesn't mean we didn't go to the moon. You are also comparing commercially available batteries for use in cars to space-grade engineered materials. Most EVs do not have to operate in -20 F, and it may not be a requirement that they do.
To be clear: I don't believe we sent men to the moon.
Caduceus
Heritage
Interesting interview but in 3 hours of discussion, Joe Rogan never mentioned the fact that Sibrel confronted almost all the moon landing astronauts asking them to swear on the bible that they actually walked on the moon. I did want to hear more about that. Sibrel didn't bring it up either.
Well, here, this is a logical fallacy of assuming what one is setting out to prove. It's circular unfalsifiable logic that doesn't prove anything.
Why would such amazing technology be lost? How could it not have incredible application for insulation all over the world? The commercial opportunity would be tremendous.
Space-grade materials are the same materials we use anywhere else on earth. No such thing as "space-grade," all components are made with the same elements found anywhere. Cost isn't a real factor when talking about insulation. The most expensive part of a space outfit is scale, making something in large enough quantity to make such a trip. From fuel to rocket parts, the quantity is the biggest expense, not quality.
As for EVs not operatintg in the cold - why would they sell them in cold places like Michigan then? That's consumer abuse if they sell the tech without some kind of easy solution, which in theory is very possible given that insulation is cheap as dirt.
This is another argument against "space-grade" materials - insulation is cheap, very cheap, it's all based on material science and thermodynamics - which is why we see tinfoil and other cheap materials in space vids. In theory, the quality of insulation hardly matters. Only the type matters.
In the 1920s Hoover vacuums were made and they were amazing. They lasted a lifetime. Actually several. This created a problem: Hoover needs to keep selling vacuum cleaners or they go out of business. So they had to build in planned obsolescence. Since they did this, a vacuum cleaner only lasts 8 years. Hoover stays in business.
In business and even with safety, if water boils at 100 degrees celsius, then there's no reason to make your product go to 200 degrees if all it needs to do is boil water.
So yes, there is a such thing as aerospace-grade materials and engineering. What works on a car does not necessary work on a rocket, and putting rocket technology into cars may make them too expensive to manufacture, calibrate, and maintain.
Again, I've stated that I don't think men went to the moon, but I actually know what I'm talking about in the above paragraphs, and am just trying to help bolster your arguments.
I know! I was disappointed in him. I think he didn't expect Rogan to be so insistant on being against him. And sometimes Rogan was right -- Sibrel would make a statement and do a "therefore..." that wasn't a correct conclusion. It was frustrating to hear, given how long Sibrel has been at this.
And Jamie was worthless.
Even if all of that is true, it wouldn't explain why tech would be lost. Discovered tech may fall out of fashion, but it's not lost. Losing tech could only happen in the event of a true civilizational decline; which we haven't had. All the tech we have today is pretty much the same tech we discovered in the past 100 years.
So the idea that we had advanced space tech but lost it is nonsense. Such powerful tech would have been preserved, if not by the people then definitely by the military. Advanced insulation would have all kinds of applications for submarines, or invading Siberia, etc. The reality is no such insulation exists that can work well with batteries:
Either the battery is insulated enough from the environment to prevent it from being effected, which creates a problem: How do you stop the battery from overheating itself during operation?
Or the battery isn't insulated at all, like it is in a EV, so the battery can discharge heat, but then the battery will die when it's not in operation.
No man the moon is made of cheese
And that's the key point. When someone uses EV batteries in Michigan as an example counterpoint, there's wiggle room for the other side.
To me it's the simplest arguments that win. When Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, went back to Spain and told everyone of the New World, can you imagine France, Italy, England et al not going there for 60 years? That's crazy, right?
Then what makes going to the moon different than that? Sibrel goes into theories (China and Russia are blackmailing us) but only provides the smoke, not the fire.
But what's the explanation for why no other countries have sent men? It's hard? Columbus had to sail for weeks -- the moon is just a few days away.
It's hard, and not worth the effort. What would anyone really get out of going to the moon again?
Plan to set a base to launch from there to Mars, to start to colonize it. First country to do so will control its resources.
Set up spy ops to monitor earth.
No one thought the 4-minute-mile could be done. Then a guy beat 4 minutes. Then another, then another, then another. But no one else wants to go to the moon? People still climb Everest even though it's been done. Why do they do it? To say they did. To prove they can. It's that simple.
By the way, what did we get out of going to the moon in the first place? Why do it to begin with? Because Russia was trying?