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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

In the spirit of the flat earth and space is fake bullshit, there are two things I'm not sure about:

1) Did we fake the moon landing? Seems plausible, we were at the height of cold war propaganda and the bankers wanted to make the US seem superior to Russia. The moon rover looks like a grade school arts and crafts experiment with popsicle sticks and tinfoil.

2) Douglas Vogt and others claim that the sun micronovas every ~12k years while the earth's rotation changes. The original book the CIA banned was "the adam and eve story" by Thomas Chan - he theorized that when the earth's poles reverse, the rotation of the earth tilts 90 degrees as the heavier poles move to the equator. Chan's version makes sense, and would cause tidal waves that explain the erosion you can see in the continental shelf on google earth. But is there any hard evidence of the micronova? There are petroglyphs that look like plasma toroids that are drawn with the perspective of people on different parts of the world looking at the same point in the sky, which is convincing. Vogt and others claim NASA found fission tracks and isotopes on the moon and earth that can only be explained by massive radiation... but how do we know this came from a micronova? Researching this would explain a strong desire to get to the moon and take samples and first hand observation as well.

I'ld like to learn more about these two things.

In the spirit of the flat earth and space is fake bullshit, there are two things I'm not sure about: 1) Did we fake the moon landing? Seems plausible, we were at the height of cold war propaganda and the bankers wanted to make the US seem superior to Russia. The moon rover looks like a grade school arts and crafts experiment with popsicle sticks and tinfoil. 2) Douglas Vogt and others claim that the sun micronovas every ~12k years while the earth's rotation changes. The original book the CIA banned was "the adam and eve story" by Thomas Chan - he theorized that when the earth's poles reverse, the rotation of the earth tilts 90 degrees as the heavier poles move to the equator. Chan's version makes sense, and would cause tidal waves that explain the erosion you can see in the continental shelf on google earth. But is there any hard evidence of the micronova? There are petroglyphs that look like plasma toroids that are drawn with the perspective of people on different parts of the world looking at the same point in the sky, which is convincing. Vogt and others claim NASA found fission tracks and isotopes on the moon and earth that can only be explained by massive radiation... but how do we know this came from a micronova? Researching this would explain a strong desire to get to the moon and take samples and first hand observation as well. I'ld like to learn more about these two things.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I’m convinced that the Moonlanding was fake. One of the best arguments I’ve heard so far is that the “arts and crafts project” that you were talking about, the moon lander, had to take off from the moon and meet the orbital velocity of the shuttle above in order to dock it. In other words, the space shuttle was orbiting the moon at extremely high speed, and that popsicle stick moon Lander had to bring itself to those same speeds in order to mount the shuttle.I don’t know the exact numbers, but it would to have had to go damn fast.On top of the extremely precise calculations that would have needed to be made and exact speeds met or you end up in the middle of outer space. And that crap sure as hell doesn’t look capable of doing anything like that. Looks like it would fall apart at 20 miles an hour. NASA has admitted we are not capable of landing on the moon in this modern age. That isn’t hard evidence necessarily, but there is a lot of that too

Edit: Not the space shuttle, the spaceship.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

One of the best arguments I’ve heard so far is that the “arts and crafts project” that you were talking about, the moon lander, had to take off from the moon and meet the orbital velocity of the shuttle above in order to dock it. In other words, the space shuttle was orbiting the moon at extremely high speed, and that popsicle stick moon Lander had to bring itself to those same speeds in order to mount the shuttle.

LMFAO! The space shuttle didn't even exist when we were landing on the moon.

[–] • 0 pt

The rocket/ spaceship. I used the wrong word

[–] • 0 pt

Orbital velocity on the moon is only 1500-1600 m/s. It's not that fast, and the calculations aren't that hard. I landed on the moon in KSP:RSS 3 times yesterday.

It's a simulation yes, but the engineering and math are right on.

[–] • 0 pt

Only about a mile per second... a mile is almost 1700 meters

[–] • 0 pt

Yeah, vs 7800 m/s which is Earth's orbital velocity.

It's not nearly as hard, that's why moon SSTOs were a thing in the 60s and they're still not for Earth today.