Imagine citing this guy, literally this record, as evidence. I was just talking about this last night over at ConPro. The difference between something like "holocaust denial" (the gold standard) or "climate realism" and something like "moon hoax" or (god forbid) "flat earth" is so large I can't believe that people don't see it.
As I said, I am open to the moon landing being fake. It is just that I have never seen a strong case*. Part of this is that like 80% of the moon hoax stuff is from flat earthers, so it is from someone already unserious. But even non flat earth moon hoax, which is admittedly better, is still nothing like, for example, holocaust denial.
It goes without saying that neither the Chili Peppers nor Captain Beefheart are evidence that the moon landing was faked. If it turns out that they were faked, then those songs are amazing trolls of "the powers that be." But they could also just be jokes from stoner musicians.
* If you want to see what I mean by "a strong case," please see the handbooks.
Imagine citing a guy who was actually involved with the cabal and was revealing its secrets to 'wiseguys' who understand the comms? Yes, just imagine it.
I'm all too familiar with Don Vliet and his background. Have you examined the information contained in 'The Strange But Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Beginnings of Rock and Roll by Dave McGowan? I supplied him with some information as he wrote the series, because it's a subject I'm very familiar with through my own experiences.
It doesn't 'go without saying' that two bands are or are not evidence of a moon landing. The information being stated is true or not, depending on one's own evaluation, informed or not.
The Chili Peppers are DS brat former 'streetboys' given an alley.
Vliet was the scion of a Los Alamos chemical warfare scientist given a mission by 'the red queen, you know what I mean (or not).
The cards are not equal and not always held to the chest. The avant garde casts musicians to 'cast the spell'. They know things.
There are several books and articles that present a 'strong case' against a manned landing in 1969. You might take a look at Stanley Kubrick comms (oops, he mysteriously died shortly after - watch vids by by daughter as to why) in the last couple of movies he made that referred to the 69 landings.
Deep comms by people immersed in the field are to be distinguished from normal comms of propaganda by the minions (Chili Peppers). The Chili Peppers, as proof of their allegiance, played, on cue, "Fire" by Jimi Hendrix (another sacrificial victim of the cabal) , while the fire was lit to create a riot at Woodstock II like the plan it was. Deep comms for deep projects, the solution of which, as always, is a matter of information.
I get you, but as I said, all of these were preexisting "conspiracy theories" when the songs were written. One can interpret this to be "deep state propagandists telling the public what actually happened because the satanists get a kick out of it" or as stoner rock and rollers putting a random piece of pop culture into one of their songs. It is up to the viewer, I guess.
I have seen the "Stanley Kubrick interview" because I have watched Moon Hoax documentaries in good faith. Personally, I find it hilarious that people who must take the opinion that literally every photo and video from NASA is fake then cite that grainy video as "proof" when the guy does not even really look like Kubrick.
I am always happy to look at one of these write ups or documentaries, and it may be that I have a biased view since like 80% of the Moon Hoax videos on the internet are from flat earth people, so it is already hopeless to think they will make a convincing argument. But even with those that stay away from that and agree that the earth is a globe of the usual size and the moon is the usual distance away, the moon hoaxers always make arguments that are just plain wrong.
Like the "phone call on the moon." People are welcome to say that the phone call is fake, but there is nothing in the video physically wrong with the call, and claiming that there is just reveals people to be bad sources of information. Same for the "camera zoomed in on earth from across the space ship" which does not create any optical illusion as those videos claim. Same for the "aluminum foil on the lunar lander" which no one from NASA on down denies because it proves literally nothing. It proves that the lunar lander was engineered to a very specific set of requirements. This is why so many of us do not take moon hoaxers seriously.
The strongest evidence I have ever seen are those more recent videos from ISS which are obviously CGI. All this proves, though, is that the government does experiments trying to pass off CGI as real. Last month there were videos very obviously modified by something like AI of Netanyahu, leading to theories of his death. Now, pretty much everyone agrees he is alive, but those videos were still obviously fake. There are reasons for the government to release fake videos beyond the obvious (i.e. Netanyahu is dead or the ISS is not real).
Imagine citing this guy, literally this record, as evidence. I was just talking about this last night over at ConPro. The difference between something like "holocaust denial" (the gold standard) or "climate realism" and something like "moon hoax" or (god forbid) "flat earth" is so large I can't believe that people don't see it.
As I said, I am open to the moon landing being fake. It is just that I have never seen a strong case*. Part of this is that like 80% of the moon hoax stuff is from flat earthers, so it is from someone already unserious. But even non flat earth moon hoax, which is admittedly better, is still nothing like, for example, holocaust denial.
It goes without saying that neither the Chili Peppers nor Captain Beefheart are evidence that the moon landing was faked. If it turns out that they were faked, then those songs are amazing trolls of "the powers that be." But they could also just be jokes from stoner musicians.
* If you want to see what I mean by "a strong case," please see the handbooks.
Imagine citing a guy who was actually involved with the cabal and was revealing its secrets to 'wiseguys' who understand the comms? Yes, just imagine it.
I'm all too familiar with Don Vliet and his background. Have you examined the information contained in 'The Strange But Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Beginnings of Rock and Roll by Dave McGowan? I supplied him with some information as he wrote the series, because it's a subject I'm very familiar with through my own experiences.
It doesn't 'go without saying' that two bands are or are not evidence of a moon landing. The information being stated is true or not, depending on one's own evaluation, informed or not.
The Chili Peppers are DS brat former 'streetboys' given an alley.
Vliet was the scion of a Los Alamos chemical warfare scientist given a mission by 'the red queen, you know what I mean (or not).
The cards are not equal and not always held to the chest. The avant garde casts musicians to 'cast the spell'. They know things.
There are several books and articles that present a 'strong case' against a manned landing in 1969. You might take a look at Stanley Kubrick comms (oops, he mysteriously died shortly after - watch vids by by daughter as to why) in the last couple of movies he made that referred to the 69 landings.
Deep comms by people immersed in the field are to be distinguished from normal comms of propaganda by the minions (Chili Peppers). The Chili Peppers, as proof of their allegiance, played, on cue, "Fire" by Jimi Hendrix (another sacrificial victim of the cabal) , while the fire was lit to create a riot at Woodstock II like the plan it was. Deep comms for deep projects, the solution of which, as always, is a matter of information.
I get you, but as I said, all of these were preexisting "conspiracy theories" when the songs were written. One can interpret this to be "deep state propagandists telling the public what actually happened because the satanists get a kick out of it" or as stoner rock and rollers putting a random piece of pop culture into one of their songs. It is up to the viewer, I guess.
I have seen the "Stanley Kubrick interview" because I have watched Moon Hoax documentaries in good faith. Personally, I find it hilarious that people who must take the opinion that literally every photo and video from NASA is fake then cite that grainy video as "proof" when the guy does not even really look like Kubrick.
I am always happy to look at one of these write ups or documentaries, and it may be that I have a biased view since like 80% of the Moon Hoax videos on the internet are from flat earth people, so it is already hopeless to think they will make a convincing argument. But even with those that stay away from that and agree that the earth is a globe of the usual size and the moon is the usual distance away, the moon hoaxers always make arguments that are just plain wrong.
Like the "phone call on the moon." People are welcome to say that the phone call is fake, but there is nothing in the video physically wrong with the call, and claiming that there is just reveals people to be bad sources of information. Same for the "camera zoomed in on earth from across the space ship" which does not create any optical illusion as those videos claim. Same for the "aluminum foil on the lunar lander" which no one from NASA on down denies because it proves literally nothing. It proves that the lunar lander was engineered to a very specific set of requirements. This is why so many of us do not take moon hoaxers seriously.
The strongest evidence I have ever seen are those more recent videos from ISS which are obviously CGI. All this proves, though, is that the government does experiments trying to pass off CGI as real. Last month there were videos very obviously modified by something like AI of Netanyahu, leading to theories of his death. Now, pretty much everyone agrees he is alive, but those videos were still obviously fake. There are reasons for the government to release fake videos beyond the obvious (i.e. Netanyahu is dead or the ISS is not real).