Editor’s Note: Since Candace Owens has made popular the questioning of the authenticity of the moon landings, I share this video which goes through the principal objections one by one showing if they have any basis in reality or science.
+ + +
+ + +
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!
+ + +
The astronauts themselves were a source of much of the moon landing scepticism.
Neil Armstrong was asked to swear on the Bible, that he walked on the moon. He refused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psa7EMFrNsY
And this weird behavior at a post flight press conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPozcLkafbQ
So far no one that I’ve seen alive (for long) has confessed to faking the moon landing, and those who talk about it are called “conspiracy nuts.” So it must be real, right? Seriously, I’ve seen all the arguments in the video “ad nauseam” over the years and this particular video is not going to settle it. Perhaps someday the truth will come out.
Even Saint Alphonsus says that it would be a mortal sin to swear an oath without neceessity. Thus if someone ask you John, if you would swear on the bible that you were a man, you should similarly refuse to take the oath.
As for the videos you share they contain nothing that would even support an argument that these men never went to the moon. And, I would remind you, though it is not chic to say it, that even Saint Alponsus would say it is a mortal sin to refuse factual evidence, since we are obliged as Christians to live in the truth.
The video published here above in the article contains a complete refutation of all the major objections, and if despite that you still hold that these men did not go to the moon, bring forth evidence. Incredulity is not evidence. Incredulity without evidence is a sin both in the natural and supernatural orders, that leads to Hell, as Our Lord says, when He rebuked the Jews of His day who saw His works but refused to believe.
I reiterate here what I consider the strongest meta-argument against the fake landing theory: the Russians would have known that and blown the whistle to the whole world. This never happened. How would you explain that?
Roberto, blowing the whistle on the fake landing would have been a massive losing proposition for the Soviets in the propaganda war with the U.S. The American government would simply have replied that the Soviets were trying to slander democracy with a “conspiracy theory.” The U.S. was probably hoping that the Soviets would do try this.
There is no scientific proof, admitted by the world scientific community, that MRNA is a poison for human beings.
Is it a proof that I must have no doubt on it ?
Well if you exclude all the doctors and scientists in the world who say it is poison, then you are not being rational. I have reported here at FromRome the 10’s of thousands of medical professionals in the Netherlands and 100s of thousands in Germany, and this is probably true in other nations too. So …
Yes, indeed. But we know that all “scientists” at the heads of pharma industry, who are prescriptors, who decide in such or such chamber etc. are all MRNA evangelists. Maybe not anymore in the US. But here in France, it’s a massive propapaganda against RFK and the US. They say it’s a come back to middle age, they are stupid and dangerous because MRNA saved millions of lives.
But I must say, I do not understand why Candace Owens says this now. Why not before? It’s not the good timing to eventually reveal crazy massive gaslighting from decades ago. What would be the point? When all the world watches what DJT does and repares! It’s so important to all of us, who are prisoned in countries in the EU, the area where there is still the idiot propaganda..to have some fresh air from other continents!
And I must also say that I watched the series on Brigitte and i was not convinced. All the staff around is interesting and, OK it’s for some people a discovery that those people are false, dishonnest, and unsane. But there is no proof, apart some photos and deductions, of what they claim.
I found the work seemed to be serious, but was not. And I followed the genuine guys who claimed that in France and was not convinced fromthe beginning. At the end, here, everybody jokes about it but does not really care.
So why the moon story in all the actual problems to solve? No need.
The Bridgette case that Owens got involved in is very strange indeed. Why does someone not just get a glass or hair and do a DNA test. It reminds me of many of the controversies of the day which keep the masses from understanding and realizing and stopping the real globalist threats.
In the early 1980’s in the third year of my degree course I was able to examine and study thin sections of the Lunar rocks and regolith (lunar soil).
The samples were notable for showing:
– no weathering implying no atmosphere or water;
– brittle fractures implying impact damage;
– pristine appearance that would not be expected of rocks of this age on the Earth;
– undulous extinction in cross polarised light implying recrystallisation due to impact damage;
– forcible intrusion by glassy material implying rapid heating with high pressure of short duration due to an impact event then rapid cooling due to the intrusion into very cold rocks;
– Lunar regolith fragments (breccias) made of smaller agglutinated fragments (breccias) made of smaller agglutinated fragments (breccias) up to seven levels. Implying repeated impact events reworking the lunar soil over an exceptionally long period of time;
– a mineral assemblage of an unusual chemical composition typically not seen on Earth.
-there was no sign of life in the regolith indicating a sterile environment.
This is consistent with the source of the samples coming from the Moon, a place characterised with no atmosphere; geologically inactive for a long period of time; lifeless, bombarded by meteorites and larger objects. We were told that radiometric dating gave ages of 3500 million years for the basalts; these form the darker areas on the moon which are considered to be lava flooding huge impact basins and are clearly visible from the Earth.
Thin microscope slide sections look like this:
http://www.cas.usf.edu/~jryan/moonrocks.html
There was one question about why the sample thin sections were not made to standard thickness and the answer given was ‘it made them look more spectacular and pretty’.
As scepticism has grown about the Moon landings I have considered whether the Moon samples could have been faked and I think that would be extremely difficult to do. One could also argue the samples might have been collected by an unmanned mission but the diversity of the samples means this surely would have been more difficult than a manned mission in those times. One of the samples (orange soil formed by a volcanic fire fountain event) was commented upon by the astronauts at the time of collection because of its startling appearance.
Only one geologist, Harrison Schmitt Apollo 17, actually visited the Moon and this seems odd that the science aspect was of low priority and therefore were the other missions more about propaganda and testing the technology?
Recent events have resulted in general mistrust in science. Dr Yeadon has stated that he thinks that 95% of his understanding of Science is based on trust rather than direct observation. Therefore perhaps future Lunar visiting astronauts could spray a white circular patch about a mile across on the surface because that should be possible to see in an amateur telescope.
Thank you for posting this video by Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut.
I had reached my peak skepticism about the first moon landing just six weeks before you posted this, after watching Capricorn One, a 1977 movie by Peter Hyams about a faked manned mission to Mars, the script for which he wrote even before the last moon landing in 1972.
Hyams had worked for CBS broadcasts of the Apollo programme. He had shared this reflection on the Apollo 11 landing, which set him off on his space hoax movie theme:
“There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have … came from a TV camera.”
So, six weeks later, I watched all of this Everyday Astronaut explainer in one sitting, with just one break. Tim explained all the objections and supposed “gotchas” and inconsistencies clearly and without condescension.
A week later, after the death of Jim Lovell, I watched Apollo 13 as a “believer”!
I grew up at Satelite Beach Florida, and I saw rockets take off the the Space Shuttles return from California. But for me the most important evidence is the rock from the moon. And I did watch Candace’s show on the “faked” moon landings, but the guy she had on argued in the same way Sedevacantists do, with innuendo and no verified facts.