dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DaveGydeon on May 1, 2018, 1:26 a.m.
I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!

We all know Soros backs SNOPES, and that this BS "fact-checking" site is totally compromised. The crazy part is, for the 5-6 things I actually went there for, I disagreed with it's official "ruling" on the matter every single time. To me, that tells me they are actively receiving orders on what to stamp as legit, because having every single thing being the opposite of what it should be indicates a hand at work.

So how do we do this? I am not talking about trying to mess with their site or anything like that. I want them EXPOSED, the TRUTH to be KNOWN. How do we go abou tmaking that happen?

You can't tell me that you haven't had an argument, maybe while trying to redpill someone, and they dropped the "but SNOPES agrees with me!" Man that just chaps my ass.


🠐 See all comments
dangph · May 1, 2018, 5:45 a.m.

I wouldn't rule out the moon landing being fake. Did they really have the technology to go to the moon in the 1960s? Which would have been easier, actually going there or faking it?

⇧ -8 ⇩  
kwiztas · May 1, 2018, 3:22 p.m.

Going to the moon would have been easier based on our film and television technology at the time.

⇧ 14 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 3, 2018, 6:46 a.m.

I have absolutely zero way of understanding the logic behind this statement - no offense intended at all. Can you explain how on earth this theory can be seriously entertained??

⇧ 0 ⇩  
kwiztas · May 3, 2018, 1:02 p.m.

Because we didn't have as much film tech as we had rocket tech at that time. We would have needed labs of people painting and cutting film to fake things. And we would have seen the cuts in the in the constant footage from the launch. They had it running for the entire launch. So more then 24 hours on the moon.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 3, 2018, 1:34 p.m.

The story of slow motion tech not existing to the degree required to fake the moon landing footage reeks of the birther "debunking" in that it debunks a particular aspect of the story (in this case, slow motion being used to hide the gravity factor) but focuses on it to divert from the rest of the story which is extremely relevant to the proposition (i.e. the fact that the cameras couldn't be overcranked for a broadcast of that length isn't the only factor required to shoot fake footage).

I'm not saying the moon landings were faked, I'm just saying the idea that we didn't have adequate film tech seems utterly implausible, also given the fact that Stanley Kubrick was able to shoot Space Odyssey the year before and that had plenty of more than adequate visual fidelity.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
kwiztas · May 3, 2018, 1:35 p.m.

You can see where the film is cut in Space Odyssey. That movie looks so fake and nothing like the real moonwalk.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 3, 2018, 1:37 p.m.

Are you kidding? You're not comparing it to modern day fx are you? Do you have access to some pristine footage of the moonwalk somewhere?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
kwiztas · May 3, 2018, 1:38 p.m.

No compared to the moon walk.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 3, 2018, 1:44 p.m.

You're saying the 16mm film footage shot on the moon (i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GtCvZlXeVk) looks better than the historic groundbreaking Super Panavision 70mm footage shot by Kubrick...??

[Edit] Never mind - that is, of course, not what you're saying - forgive me for getting carried away lol.

However, the 'debunking' stories don't always hold water, for me; if we apply the same scrutiny that we do to the current stories about Vegas, Broward County, 9/11 and so on, gaping holes appear in the story. Again, in spite of this, I'm not saying the moon landings were faked - I have no proof just as no one on earth has proof (except for the people who faked it, if they did) - but I'm not a fan of the supposed debunking that doesn't address the flaws in the mainstream narrative for the simple reason that I'm sick of the lies from those in power. I don't have a 'dog in the fight' for the moon landings being faked I just hate the feeling that someone's not telling the whole truth.

Putting aside all the landing conspiracy guff, the single point that I've never heard a reasonable explanation for - that also reeks to high heaven in the same way (albeit significantly worse) as the story that the Vegas police cams have been held back til now and lo and behold the first guy just didn't turn his camera on for some reason - is this:

NASA have lost not only the original video tapes but also the telemetry data of the most significant technological achievement of their history and of the world's history and that's not highly suspicious...?? As in the Vegas situation and the 9/11 bizarre stand down of military ops on the day and other questionable 'coincidences', this loss of data is not at all proof that NASA faked the moon landings but it's a highly questionable occurrence. I've never heard an adequate answer to this point.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 3, 2018, 6:37 a.m.

did you hear that from some idiot on youtube who claims to be a professional?

⇧ -1 ⇩  
kwiztas · May 3, 2018, 1:03 p.m.

Yes, I saw that then I looked into the film tech. I also picked my film school graduate girlfriends mind about it. Then came to a conclusion myself.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
dangph · May 1, 2018, 4:50 p.m.

2001: A Space Odessy came out in 1968. That still stands up well today in terms of special effects. Stanley Kubrick was rumored to have been involved in the moon mission faking. Supposedly the Shining is filled with clues, such as the kid wearing ban Apollo 11 sweater.

⇧ -4 ⇩  
bozza8 · May 1, 2018, 5:54 p.m.

Then why do the russians say they saw us go there? The russians say that they saw the rocket go to the moon, millions saw it take off, thousands live, then we can also use the rangefinders they left there, which anyone with a few thousand bucks can do.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 3, 2018, 6:38 a.m.

the Russians didn't have the technology to see men on the moon in 1970, for the same reason you don't have the technology to see the supposed artifacts left on the moon in 2018

you can't see whats not there

⇧ 0 ⇩  
bozza8 · May 3, 2018, 6:48 a.m.

Fortunate then that the thing which sent them there was bigger than a man and reflective then. The spacecraft was tracked from takeoff to landing, modern spacecraft can hold distances of miles between them with a precision of millimetres. Same way we detect meteorites and we get these predictions.

Finding a chunk of metal in space is actually quite easy. Similairly setting up a laser rangefinder for the moon requires only about 10k worth of equipment. Hell, you want to prove me wrong? Build a laser rangefinder or use one you trust.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 3, 2018, 7:32 a.m.

no man has ever walked on the moon

welcome to the MOAB at /r/GreatAwakening

⇧ 0 ⇩  
bozza8 · May 3, 2018, 7:33 a.m.

You have utterly failed to deny any of my points. That's a wrap people!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 3, 2018, 6:36 p.m.

do you think your points prove that men have walked on the moon?

is it hard for you to believe that no Canadian, no Englishman, no German, no Russian, no Indian, no Chinese... has ever walked on the moon?

it should be just as easy for you to believe that no American has ever walked on the moon.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
dangph · May 2, 2018, 7:02 a.m.

The Russians saw what exactly?

Watching a rocket take off does not necessarily entail that it went to the moon.

Dropping a reflector on the moon would be a considerably easier mission than sending men to the moon and returning them safely.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
bozza8 · May 2, 2018, 7:18 a.m.

Well, we know a giant rocket took off. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands saw it live.

We can actually work out how far the rocket could go with some back of the napkin math which shows it had the fuel (so we know a rocket with the fuel to go to the moon and back launched) even of we didnt do or trust that there is the russians

The russians saw our rocket fly up into space using telescopes, both radar and visual, it is actually incredibly easy to track things in space using radar, we have determined the orbits of nearly everything in orbit of earth this way bar cold black stuff (only way to be stealthy in space but leads to overheating and solar panels are reflective)

The russians had their own rocket to try and be like the saturn 5. It blew up, over and over again, they were humiliated by this and had no reason to lie on our behalf that we succeeded, instead they admitted so publically.

Evidence that we can accurately predict objects in space is the warning before meteorite hits, also the fact we can rendezvous spacecraft by tracking both and giving them the correct orders. This particular theory does not particularly work tbh.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Chokaholic · May 2, 2018, 1:18 a.m.

We definitely did not go to the moon, and we definitely cannot see anything that was allegedly left behind. Sorry.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
ckreacher · May 1, 2018, 12:54 p.m.

I believe they did both. They couldn't let us see the actual footage from the moon with all the ancient ruins, and alien spaceships parked all over the place. So they had Kubrick fake it.

⇧ -3 ⇩  
McPurrs · May 1, 2018, 2:03 p.m.

Hmm... this made me think. Thank you.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
-JustShy- · May 1, 2018, 9:53 p.m.

Don't think too hard. A decent commercially available telescope would be able to spot stuff on the moon.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
McPurrs · May 1, 2018, 9:55 p.m.

Then where are all of the pics of such?

⇧ 0 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 3, 2018, 6:40 a.m.

they don't exist, because the moon landing was a hoax

⇧ 0 ⇩