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).

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 those level of claims 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).

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 those level of claims 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 to release fake videos beyond the obvious (i.e. Netanyahu is dead or the ISS is not real).

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 those level of claims 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. 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 to release fake videos beyond the obvious (i.e. Netanyahu is dead or the ISS is not real).