Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

727

Just passed by Neil DeGrasse Tyson's youtube video about the moon landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTChrirK-hw

His arguments amount to:

  1. "We saw the rocket take off."

  2. "It would be easier to go to the moon than to fake all the documents and designs."

"So, yeah, no. We went to the Moon."

Insert Climate Change narrative.

For a world renowned physicist, this seems like retard explanation.

What evidence do we have that this guy actually has any intelligence, at all? He sounds like an actual idiot.

His argument's are elementary to shred.

Socrates would shred No.1 in a single question.

"What if the rocket didn't go to the Moon, and, instead, went literally anywhere else?"

Do we have any real world examples of this? Yes.

In fact, the vast majority of rocket launches are not broadcast, leaving plenty of footage to draw from. The vast majority of these rockets never go to the moon, they merely deliver satellite payloads.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/south-korea-rocket-launch-fails-to-deliver-dummy-payload-into-orbit-124234821923

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB_ZlORvD4c

So, we know they can fake realistic, drama filled rocket launches and not all rockets have to carry a real payload. We have real world examples.

To argue that a rocket launch is impossible to fake is idiocy. There are many examples.

To argue that no one has ever sent a dummy payload is idiocy. There are many examples.

Why is this fake physicist taken seriously?

As to No. 2, "The Rothschild Leak" comes to mind.

The Internet has all but scrubbed this one, like the faked Epstein suicide video, where they had a replica cell made.

But, the point of the "Rothschild Leak" was to discredit the Podesta Leaks. It was 32GB, far more data than was faked for the lunar landing, and it was faked in a matter of weeks after the Podesta emails were released on Wikileaks. Not only were they able to fake 32GBs of documents, they were also able to scrub the Internet of the leak, almost completely, when Internet users proved (within a single day) that the leaks were fake af.

https://archive.md/bnhVK

This seems to be a common "debunking" strategy.

https://pic8.co/sh/bxz7EE.png

Military.com suggests that such a conspiracy would require 411,000 people to keep a secret.

Again, this argument is a stupid red herring.

We already had a Great Moon Hoax in 1835. Not enough documents and articles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax

We also know that Enron fraudulently generated far more documents than the Moon Landing required, to the tune of over $70 Billion. We also know the establishment media played along throughout the entire fraud, ONLY TO REPEAT a massive scandal with an Enron executive's daughter where Theranos pumped out tons of misinformation about a product that was entirely bogus. Only idiots insist that massive frauds don't regularly take place in society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal

So, can it be done? Yes. Has it been done? Yes.

The argument that "it would be too big" is pure idiocy, as it has happened and we have a fair number of examples.

To give people the benefit of the doubt that they would not lie for money or ideology is also idiocy.

Personally, after having gone around the Moon debates a number of times, I'll tell you that I would not use these arguments to debate on either side.

My first concern is the "phone call" between the President and the astronauts. While we can certainly send radio waves to the moon, a backpack walkie talkie is almost certainly not going to pull off a two way conversation to Earth. Even in this day and age.

I also think it is problematic that they destroyed all of the footage.

We have a plethora of fake rocks, as well.

https://pic8.co/sh/jqRHVT.png

We do, indeed, have modern contracts with Nokia and energy companies to put facilities on the Moon.

https://www.nokia.com/about-us/news/releases/2020/10/19/nokia-selected-by-nasa-to-build-first-ever-cellular-network-on-the-moon/

https://www.the-sun.com/tech/4169991/nasa-moon-nuclear-power-plant/

So, while I may still be on the fence about whether the moon landing is fake or not, I am 100% certain that the people arguing the lunar landing was totally real are idiots, as they do not use sound logic or any facts, at all.

I do not understand why this idiot, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, is assigned any credibility, at all. He is either a a total idiot, a lying asshole, or both. "Intellectually dishonest" is why he deserves to have his teeth kicked in.

Corruption happens. Jack Parsons was a devil worshipper. Let's not blindly trust potential criminals.

Just passed by Neil DeGrasse Tyson's youtube video about the moon landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTChrirK-hw His arguments amount to: 1. "We saw the rocket take off." 2. "It would be easier to go to the moon than to fake all the documents and designs." "So, yeah, no. We went to the Moon." Insert Climate Change narrative. For a world renowned physicist, this seems like retard explanation. What evidence do we have that this guy actually has any intelligence, at all? He sounds like an actual idiot. His argument's are elementary to shred. Socrates would shred No.1 in a single question. "What if the rocket didn't go to the Moon, and, instead, went literally anywhere else?" Do we have any real world examples of this? Yes. In fact, the vast majority of rocket launches are not broadcast, leaving plenty of footage to draw from. The vast majority of these rockets never go to the moon, they merely deliver satellite payloads. https://www.nbcnews.com/video/south-korea-rocket-launch-fails-to-deliver-dummy-payload-into-orbit-124234821923 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB_ZlORvD4c So, we know they can fake realistic, drama filled rocket launches and not all rockets have to carry a real payload. We have real world examples. To argue that a rocket launch is impossible to fake is idiocy. There are many examples. To argue that no one has ever sent a dummy payload is idiocy. There are many examples. Why is this fake physicist taken seriously? As to No. 2, "The Rothschild Leak" comes to mind. The Internet has all but scrubbed this one, like the faked Epstein suicide video, where they had a replica cell made. But, the point of the "Rothschild Leak" was to discredit the Podesta Leaks. It was 32GB, far more data than was faked for the lunar landing, and it was faked in a matter of weeks after the Podesta emails were released on Wikileaks. Not only were they able to fake 32GBs of documents, they were also able to scrub the Internet of the leak, almost completely, when Internet users proved (within a single day) that the leaks were fake af. https://archive.md/bnhVK This seems to be a common "debunking" strategy. https://pic8.co/sh/bxz7EE.png Military.com suggests that such a conspiracy would require 411,000 people to keep a secret. Again, this argument is a stupid red herring. We already had a Great Moon Hoax in 1835. Not enough documents and articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax We also know that Enron fraudulently generated far more documents than the Moon Landing required, to the tune of over $70 Billion. We also know the establishment media played along throughout the entire fraud, ONLY TO REPEAT a massive scandal with an Enron executive's daughter where Theranos pumped out tons of misinformation about a product that was entirely bogus. Only idiots insist that massive frauds don't regularly take place in society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal So, can it be done? Yes. Has it been done? Yes. The argument that "it would be too big" is pure idiocy, as it has happened and we have a fair number of examples. To give people the benefit of the doubt that they would not lie for money or ideology is also idiocy. Personally, after having gone around the Moon debates a number of times, I'll tell you that I would not use these arguments to debate on either side. My first concern is the "phone call" between the President and the astronauts. While we can certainly send radio waves to the moon, a backpack walkie talkie is almost certainly not going to pull off a two way conversation to Earth. Even in this day and age. I also think it is problematic that they destroyed all of the footage. We have a plethora of fake rocks, as well. https://pic8.co/sh/jqRHVT.png We do, indeed, have modern contracts with Nokia and energy companies to put facilities on the Moon. https://www.nokia.com/about-us/news/releases/2020/10/19/nokia-selected-by-nasa-to-build-first-ever-cellular-network-on-the-moon/ https://www.the-sun.com/tech/4169991/nasa-moon-nuclear-power-plant/ So, while I may still be on the fence about whether the moon landing is fake or not, I am 100% certain that the people arguing the lunar landing was totally real are idiots, as they do not use sound logic or any facts, at all. I do not understand why this idiot, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, is assigned any credibility, at all. He is either a a total idiot, a lying asshole, or both. "Intellectually dishonest" is why he deserves to have his teeth kicked in. Corruption happens. Jack Parsons was a devil worshipper. Let's not blindly trust potential criminals.

(post is archived)

[–] • 8 pts

The longer it’s been that we haven’t gone back, the less likely we’ve ever gone.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

It was only 42 years between Charles Lindbergh's first trans-Atlantic flight and the first alleged moon landing. Its been almost 50 years since the last landing on the moon.

[–] • 2 pts

You haven't been back to Vietnam either...

[–] • 2 pts

you pay for it

[–] • 3 pts

We pay nasa about 85 million a day we need to increase that to about 1 billion a day and they will tell us it takes 10 years to get to the moon in 10nyears if we increase it to 10 billion a day it will take them 20 years to get to thebmoon but they say screw that we have been there let's go to mars!!! Lol

[–] • 1 pt

I’m already paying for quite a lot. I think a few scientists would be peanuts. Especially considering you know, we already have the tech.

[–] • 2 pts

Wait you haven't heard? The tech we used to get to the moon has been destroyed, and it is a painful process to build it again. But we got velcro, that's pretty cool I guess.

[–] • 0 pt

20 years. Thats how many years of Nass total budget is needed for another manned mission to the moon.

Or instead dozens of other robotic missions and jwst.

[–] • 4 pts

OP great use of logic there. Loved the read I'm saving it for posterity.

[–] • 4 pts

Sure keep believeing that fucking fairy tale.. we went to the moon with less computing power then a fucking walmart wrist watch.

Also the moonlanding story is fucking hillarious.

Every ounce of weight mattered on the original moooon landings. Yet they took a fucking dunemoonbuggy and a golf club!! Lol

They did a live broadcast with a phone call to the president on live tv with almost no delay perfect worked perfect

They went through the van allen radiation belts in a tin and aluminum hull! Lol and 3 different nasa astrounaghts recently said we dont have the technology to get through the van allen belts now one said we would need 5 foot thick lead shield.

Not one picture from the moon or the flight that shows stars for some reason.

The greatesr human achievment and nasa recorded over the telemtry data! Sure right good one lol.

Almost no clear goos pictures of the earth from the moon and not one picture of an astronaught with the earth in the back ground

One timeline with modern technology said 20 years to get to the moon in 1969 they did it faster i guess they had really good tech back then! Lol

The rock buzz aldrin gave to a museum in holland was petrified wood. Lol!

In the interview after they got back one astrobaught said i dont remember seeing any stars! Lol go out and lokk at the sky u will see stars now imagine being on the moon with no atmospher and saying you couldnt see stars

They fucking way they talk during their time on the moon sounds more like guys going to the beach not guys 290,000 miles from earth in the vacum of space where any tiny mistep is certain death. Go back and listen and realise there is no fucking way they should be that gib and relaxed.

Im sure there is more but those 10 things should at least make you raise your eyebrows and think maybe something is not right

[–] • 1 pt

You don't need a computer to go to the moon.

Ffs it's like throwing a rock. That is all it is. And saturn v could throw a very large rock a very long way and the maths don't lie. That amount of thrust gets you to the moon.

All you retards need to actually debunk whether saturn v existed or not. Good fuking luck with that.

Meanwhile I suggest you Stfu until you've flown model rockets and used simulations.

Cause sure as shit saturn v could reach the moon and back

[–] • 0 pt

Ya and take a golf club and a moon buggy and make a live phone call on TV

You are either a paid shill from our goverment or a 60+ year old that has to believe your generation was the best ever... guess what the greatest generation and their fucking kids destroyed the constitution and united states because they are fucking simple minded idiots easily tricked by the jews...

Now go back to eating lead pains chips you fucking retarded nigger jew

[–] • 0 pt

Oh well. You're right. Buggys. Clubs. Totally beyond our tech

[–] • 4 pts

Space travel is both fake and gay

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

I like to call it "Stanley Kubric's greatest work"

[–] • 3 pts

ever made if you haven't seen it and are interested.

it's made by the same guy who did 9/11: the new pearl harbor (arguably the best 9/11 video, too).

[–] • 5 pts

Yes, it is, it's great.

And, anyone who watches "Astronauts Gone Wild" can easily see they are all lying. Typical liars reaction.

Dunno why some people here are so invested in the moon stuff being real.

[–] • 4 pts

think it's a part of the greatness of Whites, in their eyes, but it's unfortunately completely and obviously bullshit.

[–] • 2 pts

>think it's a part of the greatness of Whites, in their eyes

Didn't even think of it that way, makes sense, why they're so defensive, cause it's a white 'achievement.'

Whites don't need fantasy though to buttress their greatness. If it happened, well and good, add it to the list.

Unfortunately, there's just too much that is suspect, and so after years of researching I've come to reject it.

[–] • 3 pts

I don't know if we went to the moon or not, but in my retarded opinion, it would be really easy to prove by sending some drone up there to take photos, video or maybe even livestream from place where they were landing 50 years ago, probably students of astronautics could menage project like that. I can't imagine that sending something much more primitive than martian rover would cost much.

[–] • 3 pts

they basically had a spacecraft designed to do exactly this called the L.R.O. (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).

the mission was to go to the moon and take high-res photographs of the terrain, specifically capturing the moon landing locations.

the photos they provide are not large enough resolution to view fucking anything, however.

this was a fucking 2009 mission, and yet they couldn't provide a single high-res shot that proves anything.

satellites can read a license plate from space yet we cannot get a single image with high enough resolution of the moon landings to verifiably prove it, even with a fucking mission specifically setting out to do so.

[–] • 1 pt

you would just say the video was faked, photos were edited.. fly over there yourself

[–] • 1 pt

sure you can assume what i would or wouldn't say.

there's really no need to though since provided by the L.R.O. is completely fucking pathetic.

2009 and that's their high-res imaging.

[–] • 3 pts

In simple terms, if I can do something I want to do it better next time. Why haven't we gone back and done it better?

[–] • 4 pts

Sir it is ommon sense why we have not gone back. We don't have the technology any longer it takes 4 years to make a space suit now? Didn't you know? The first time in history technology has devolved in one specific area aka going to the moon technology in every field necessary to go back to the moon has in creased a thousand times or more but some reason nasa can't use any of the new materials better batteries computers materials and on and on and on!

Just use your logical brain and believe what (((they))) tell you to believe

[–] • 0 pt

They destroyed the jigs used to make the tools to make the parts for saturn v.

A tragedy. USA can not build another saturn v

The saturn v to thus day is the largest rocket ever made and has a payload more than twice that of the falcon heavy.

Moon deniers are fuking retards. The saturn v existed. That's a fact. Tje maths and physics state without question that that giant can deliver manned missions to the moon.

All else. Waving flags. Dust. Are complete distractions from that fact.

Oh that and 300kg of moon rock brought back as verified by large numbers of independent experts. Rocks that do not exist on earth

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a failure of a scientist. He's not very smart. He is a celebrity - because he is black.

Congrats for falling for the Jewish trick and why flat earth and moon fake and all those Jewish lies are pushed. Us whites never created anything, didn't build all societies, and have no culture of our own. /s

Any other jew tricks you'd like to push?

[–] • 7 pts

How am I pushing anything? I'm merely saying this "scientist" may not be a scientist, at all.

Accusing me of pushing an agenda seems like it makes you more of a candidate for (((fellow Internet user))), such as yourself.

What trick did I actually fall for?

Are you calling me a flat earther? Because bad jacketing people with flat earth IS a shill tactic.

[–] • 5 pts

I noticed the same thing on voat, if you question the aerospace industry a shill always shows up.

[–] • 3 pts

how dare someone ever have a opinion different than yours

[–] • 2 pts

Damn right, but it was better on Voat, I don't get these NASA supporters here.

[–] • 0 pt

Like OP and you.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Your entire post is entirely consistent with shills pushing flat earth, fake moon, fake nukes, no white culture, others invented everything, and so on. All jew platforms.

When your springboard for a deep discussion is a discredited and disreputable "scientists"-celebrity, you immediately make your entire platform irrelevant. Especially when you use that to segway into other popular shill topics - and tow the shill line.

Don't want to get called out as a jew shill? Don't act like a jew shill. Real simple.

[–] • 5 pts

Hey, Fuck Face.

Stop being a kike.

Accusing people of being a flat earther is kikery.

I am not pushing any narrative.

I am merely pointing out that the arguments used by a "professional intellectual" are not actually valid arguments in any sense of the concept since the Greeks.

Let's point out how much of a kike you really are, since you are clearly a piece of shit.

Have you ever uncovered a Mossad agent and then exposed them? No.

Have I ever uncovered Mossad agents and exposed them? Yes.

So you name the Jew? No. You regurgitate bullshit.

Have I named the Jew? Yes. I've named Jews you've never even heard of.

The difference between me and you is that I actually use their names, where you just say "Jew" so nobody knows who the fuck you are actually talking about.

https://pic8.co/sh/OAeYzU.png

Have you ever published any original information exposing Jews? No.

Have I ever published original information exposing Jews? For years.

https://pic8.co/sh/GtCnJU.png

Has the media ever confirmed any of your leaks? Even ones that Wikileaks won't publish? No. You don't "do" research.

https://archive.is/PzpMq

Have security researchers confirmed your information was accurate and viable for use? No.

You see the problem? You're a piece of shit and I am actually doing something to expose the bankster cabal.

Have you ever reported Mossad to any intelligence agency OIG? No. Because you have no balls.

https://pic8.co/sh/1TEVND.jpg

https://pic8.co/sh/FeYU31.jpg

https://pic8.co/sh/QVxmNo.jpg

https://pic8.co/sh/lrHJ2S.jpg

I have covered human trafficking with a focus on child trafficking and I am a published author who has been exposing corruption long before 2016 and Q and notice I'm still standing afterwards.

I was the one who exposed Q Anon as a psyop and I even posted proof repeatedly, not being afraid to incite a fact checking war with Q tards, who doxxed me.

https://steemit.com/politics/@webofslime/mockingbird-x-0

Have you ever explained, to anyone, how the World Jewish Congress works and who the leaders are? No, because you're an idiot. You've never bothered to check. Zionist Congress? No... you've got no fucking clue.

Have you ever explained where the Israeli uranium came from? Via the Mormons who created "cut outs" in Australia? No, because you're not allowed to.

Have you ever posted a link to the Epstein documents that show he had child porn? No. Because you are a shill.

Have you ever done anything useful?

Because "naming the Jew" without their ACTUAL NAMES isn't naming the Jew... it's just a Mossad larp.

[–] • 2 pts

I didnt know black science guy had a real name.

[–] • 1 pt

Ha. Nice. Wish we didn't know it.

[–] • 2 pts

Don Pettit, NASA " We no longer have the technology to send humans to the moon".

[–] • 0 pt

Now put it back into full context.

[–] • 3 pts

"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."

Doesn't change much

[–] • 0 pt

Absolutely it does and it proves the dishonesty. For clarify, I was asking about the greater context, not the surrounding paragraph. But the paragraph is appreciated.

One, it says he had the technology and went. Opps.

Two, as is the full context, changes were made without blueprint updates. The technology actually is lost.

Three, the technology isn't beyond us, it simply hasn't been re-created because there was no need. That is, until SX and broader technology improvements.

The full context 100% changes what you stated and implied. In fact, it says the exact opposite of your dishonest implication and OP's shilling.

Opps.

[–] • 2 pts

Neil is a self proclaimed "science communicator". He has a degree, but he doesn't actually put to practice for actual reserch. He's more of a science media persona.

Load more (8 replies)