In this video, Candace Owens explains that the French Government has 3+ pedophile protectors in power, and that the courts and town of Amiens are corrupted by this sin. — After hearing of all the cases of incestuous pedophilia, mentioned in this video, you can totally understand why the Freemasons never want the Inquisition to come back.
+ + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +
Candace is proving to be an excellent investigative journalist. Her videos feature too many advertisements and a little too much self-reference but, that said, the angry ‘establishment’/institutional reactions to some of her videos prove that she is uncovering many sordid truths.
Has FromRome.info featured any videos in the last year or so concerning the Moon-landing hoax? The faked moon-landings commencing in 1969 have to be amongst the most deplorable lies ever perpetrated……prior to the Covid Plandemic!!
Here is a fairly recent c.90-minute interview by Candace with Bart Sibrel whose website – sibrel.com – contains a wealth of “Wow!” information:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIP0o41rqE
“Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.
Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” [1 Corinthians 5: 7, 8]
I have not, because I have never considered it fake. The videos about it that I have seen look entirely credible and the criticism I have heard of it is about at the level of what a pigmy in the 17th century would think of a class room science experiment.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/space-astronomy/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked
I was the student in my highschool at Satellite High, Satellite Beach florida, who won the Rensselaer Award for top math and science in the whole student body, so the arguments against the factuality of the landing make me laugh almost as much as those used by people who believe the world is flat.
But I will watch the Candace show. The basic problems I see with the claims of faking it, is whether what they allege is proof of faking it, proves that they faked it, because it is one thing to create a simulation of the landing and film it for publicity sake, and it is another thing to actually land on the moon, and these two things are not exclusive, nor does the one prove that the other did not happen. Indeed, you would expect that any large project being used for publicity, would want a good film and picture of the event, whether they event took place or not. But my biggest objection comes from the existence of the moon rocks which geologists all say are not of earth origin nor meteoric. But perhaps someone questions that too.
The specific objections, for example that the Saturn V did not have the power to put a capsule beyond the gravitation of the earth: I would like to see a mathematical chemical proof of that based on the quantity of fuel it contained, since my own brother once did the calculation, and he worked for a satellite design company. The argument about the Van Allen Belt radiation seem, too, to be a misunderstanding of how that radiation is sufficient to damage computer circuits we use today, but not back then when we used test tubes. Or to kill humans, but that is a question of time and exposure, inside a space ship etc.. That some of the rocks which were claimed to be authentic were fake, does not prove that all are fake. etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yET8Z1D2PUM
But I will admit that I do not understand what they deny, only the 1969 landing or all of the landings. Owens seems to deny the validity of all of the landings. But in her video no proof is brought forward, just verbal claims, the most untrustworthy of which are hearsay evidence, that is the claim by someone to have heard another say something.
The above YouTube link appears to be broken, so here is a c.37-minute interview with Bart Sibrel [ https://www.sibrel.com/ ] by Patrick Bet-David:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wfhBEHFQ_E
Steve, I don’t know this particular issue, but my main objection to the “fake landing” theory is the following: would it really be possible for Russians not having known of the fake landing? Wouldn’t they have spread far and wide proofs that their hated enemies have failed the Moon run ?
I guess you have an explanation for that, and I sincerely would like to know it.
There are a lot of disturbing problems with Apollo 11, not the least of which that the original “recordings” were “accidently” lost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
Here is Apollo 13. If one of the two voices is a voice on Earth there is a problem because if one of the voices is in the capsule it replies immediately without a 1-3 second delay which should result from the tremendous distance and the delay of the communication devices’ wiring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbj8Zo053Lc
Not to mention after the rockets fire to make the landing they are seen to blow tremendous gas or dust aside, but the surface of the moon after the landing is unchanged by any such debris.
Same problem with Apollo II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc1SzgGhMKc
Even though in videos of the men walking on the moon we see dust which is so light and fine that surely a lot of it would have been blown aside by the landing of the Moon Lander.