Fake footage that changed the world

click here to go directly to daily updates on blog

The major events of our time are defined by what we saw on TV – the greatest hypnotic propaganda device ever invented.

Fakeologist contends that ALL the iconic video of our time is FABRICATED – created in a Hollywool studio to deceive the public and sear into the memory of the collective subconscious so deeply that it is unchangeable and unforgettable.

JFK-Zapruder Film

9/11 – Hezarkhani Shot

Moon Hoax – Apollo 11 landing

Nuke (Tsar) Bomb

10 thoughts on “Fake footage that changed the world

  1. Petra Liverani

    OK, so I’m on board with just about every claim of faked event imaginable and I’ve certainly picked a few up myself without prompting from others but there are two things I believe to be true:

    — man-made climate change (although since I’ve realised what a fraud the supposed science for COVID, AIDS, etc is am open to revisiting)

    — the Apollo moon landings (while I recognise the Challenger disaster is probably the most in-your-face psyop of all time and that obviously NASA lies)

    The Apollo moon landings
    To me everything we’re shown perfectly fits expectations according to the very different conditions lunar conditions, namely:
    — no air pressure
    — low gravity
    — brightly-lit lunar surface during lunar dawn against a black sky

    And the evidence fits in a way you really wouldn’t expect from fakery in my opinion. For example, there are only the slightest traces of lunar dust seen in the wrinkles of the mylar covering the landing pads of the lunar module that can only be seen by zooming in to high res photos. Surely, if you’re going to fake dust on the landing pads you wouldn’t do it in such a discreet manner. Similarly, there is the faintest of blast craters, that is we can see a radial exhaust pattern but virtually no crater. Surely, if you’re going to fake a blast crater you wouldn’t just fake a radial exhaust pattern.

    If this is fakery then it’s absolutely nothing like the fakery of every other psyop known to man. I believe the psyop MO is extremely strict and someone would have to do a lot of convincing of me to persuade me that they decided to change the fakery MO JUST for Apollo.

    To me, what we see are things that you simply couldn’t anticipate if you were faking the moon landings. What we see is obviously correct in “hindsight” but I don’t think could have been predicted with “foresight”.

    Another thing that stands out is the knowledgeability of those responding to the moon hoax claims. Their debunking seems perfectly legitimate while I recognise everywhere else: 9/11, COVID, Sandy Hook, etc all the debunking is complete bunkum. For example, I think this person does a great job of debunking Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon.

    I suspected that Bill Kaysing, the first person to come out and say the moon landings didn’t happen, may have been a CIA plant, whose purpose was to get people who tend to disbelieve the government by default to not believe in the moon landings so that when real crimes happened such as 9/11, they would be laughed at as “conspiracy theorists”. Check out his Wikipedia page and check out his nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen – doesn’t that name have intelligence agency having a laugh all over it?

    1. Steve

      The thing is, how did NASA be ablr to communicate to someone “on the moon”, yet cell phones were in their infancy in the 80’s and the recption was crappy? Yep! All Fake!

    2. JD

      Hey Petra,
      Random surfing brought me here, and while I’m in no way qualified to answer any of the many technical questions this subject should bring up. I can, however, offer insight in that I too had ‘open eyes’ for quite a while before giving any consideration to the moon landing . As rabbit holes go, for me, it was definitely a slower ‘point/counterpoint’ process where most ‘answers’ required further learning…which brought more questions. (If only I’d stayed home watching Star Trek rather than living my damn life, I thought). 9/11 grabs you…its palpable…irreversible…diving into it just makes it clearer. Apollo doesn’t have that immediate, visceralfeeling. Could have something to do with almost every aspect of it being unimaginable…whether real or not, there’s only 13 people who can tell us how close to exactly as crazy as the smartest people in the world had assumed calculated and anticipated down to the smallest detail that it would be. And with such an incredible challenge you’d want and need all the brains asking all the questions solving all the problems before they happen and then questioning every part of their newest brilliant solution because hey, there’s a lot more than the lives of some of the greatest men to walk the planet riding on this… Anywho, back to your comment: You mentioned having looked at the mylar…close enough to have analyzed to what extent dust was there. Revisit that. That’s one of the things that I couldn’t ‘sell myself’ on. I build things…for a living and enjoyment. Give a good look at the build quality of the lander. Then research the specs. You can buy metal sheet of a similar thickness and some rivets to make yourself a box or whatever you could use outside your place maybe a storage box or birdhouse…just for the most basic understanding of what a basic build entails…Now secure it to your vehicle and head on out to the highway. You should have used more blocking? Or thicker sheets? You can’t be serious man…we’ve been beating ourselves up finding places to SHED weight. There has to be tradeoffs when you’re trying to accomplish the (almost?) impossible. Alright, you can bring the dune buggy, but you’re gonna have to figure out how to navigate more through ituition cause we had to axe that window you wanted. Yes you can bring the golf clubs. Joking aside, that craftsmanship you’re looking at in the lander just went an unimaginable distance at unfathomable speed through an environment you’d be concerned in a tank as to ‘how she’s holding up’. And here’s the thing: the hard part is the end. That’s really really a concern. Take that birdhouse or whatevrr you built and hold a lighter to it-somewhere far from your hands-a keep the lighter on it. How long did that last? How long until you can pick it back up comfortably? What I’m sayiing is theres no way the first time man ever experienced the unfathomable speed of 25000mph over such an incredible distance through an environment we chave only hypothesized about…knowing certain death comes with the slightest mistake or any number of wrong place/time out of anyones control…I’m not even gonna bring up vaccuum…no possible way it happened in that ‘craft’ . Then you dive into the weight cuts they had to make again and again…again, I’m not at all qualified…but the entirety of the lander doesnt hold up to deep scrutiny. Be sure to watch the ‘relaunch’…I’d say that was another of the first few things I couldnt get right with. Theres a lot wrong with it, but…just like when they are bouncing around carefree, even taking a few falls…remember, any little fuckup means your life, right.
      So even the greatest and most fearless of men aint gonna be looking to put any more stress on the suit…which weighs a ton is not at all comfh lets face it youre happy to be there and that all is going well but gou want to do the job and get on with it everyone knows the second half is a coin flip at best. Ok so they are departing moon to do the rendesvous (at what speed again) and they figure the best means of doing so is…well just watch it…to me it’s a tad on the ‘explody’ side of the ‘calm/controlled manuever’ spectrum. Also’ go ahead and watch the ‘docking’. Then think about the speed thats involver. Then go watch a video on youtube of a rocket test sled going 6000mph…they show it at the most reduced frame rate possible and you still barely catch it…cause its the fastest thing you have ever seen…that speed needs to be almost tripled frot his ‘rendesvous ok. While youre on youtube, lookup the damage done from the speed of the ultrafast very high altitude test plane program either nasa or airforce ran maybe x12 something like that. That can serve as an intro to the reentry deep dive you should checkout…its a doozzy(remember when yyou burnt your hand). Theres a lot more but I fucking hate typing…last thing I’ll tell you to look at…maybe the most powerful…the rendezvous was qyite something to watch/contemplate right? Well look into the big one they had to do once out of earths orbit, while on the way to the moon at roughly 20kmph where getting knocked off line a degree or two would crush the mission they have to do the first transformer type rearrange the caboose proceedure. Theres video of neal practicing with a lander type craft (This video will not boost your confidence in this mission…but dont worry its never a problem when it matters most). That reminds me what I was saying earlier…all that we learn of what went into this, and looking into it you see these nasa fans shooting out rediculous questions even today about mars and shit, but I never came across some of the natural inclusions you’d expect to see given the scope of it all. No mention of having to call an audible from what we expected this to be or that upon buuilding up to 25k there was a feeling about 19k that felt we’d released from atmosphere or about having to redesign a gasket after the first and the suit freezing over a bit more than expected for one of the guys…I guess I’m saying that I love the idea we went…and the Americans can do anything aspect…and we should push any and all limits and there are genius’ we need to be punching numbers and looking up…but what yoj find when deep diving this particular rabbit hole does not line up with this story…about doing something unimaginably difficult after spending the money on the best craft possible with the best possible men at the helm…going to pull off not just a first ever but many first evers…man and machine…with a littany of x factors in an impossibly unaccommidating environment nobody knows for sure but we think this and this and this…but if the slightest thing is off its all over. Maybe it did just workout where the most complex ever held up to the most challenging relentless unforgiving ever and there wasnt an issue (aside from the 13 melodrama episode of course (if only 12’s neilson ratings hadnt dipped)…but any rational person can compute the chances of everything just going right somehow….repeatedly…without the issues that popup in EVERY other business bringing a product to market. There was a ton of money spent, sure…and those people were so proud of what they were doing as their part to beat the big red wolf, no doubt. But nobody had a rough day and missed a stich or greased a weld orany of 8million other mission crushing x factors. How many cars or planes draw flags before market…how many recalled after release? Ask the same question for levis or beef jerky or anything coming to market without a bunch of live and learn testing having been done and having relired on 20000 employees working for as little as they will accept putting together parts that were made in 100s of different factories for as little as possible.
      But I’m not saying it wasnt mans greatest ever achievement, to this day an inspiration to everyone that literally anything is possible. And that’s true, really. Wanna hear something really really exciting? Nasa recently said they hope to be able to go back by 2024 so mark your calender that’ll really be something!

      1. Bob

        By 2030 we’ll own nothing and be happy.
        Personally I’m skeptical we’ll go back to the moon, assuming we ever went in the first place. Going back has the possibility of turning skeptics into believers, because recording devices are so much more advanced. It’d be a lot harder to fake with cameras mounted all over the vehicle, GoPros on Astronauts, and hopefully multiple 24/7 livestream cameras placed on the moon. They said less than 10 years ago we’d have humans on Mars by ’25. Timelines don’t mean much these days.

  2. lazylaurenlazylauren

    A few years ago I was watching raw news footage of September 11 obtained from NIST. It’s unedited and often telling. I noticed something that looked like a paper cut out slowly falling the way paper falls from high up, the cut out was shaped like a life size human. I was wondering if there is a way that they could make that appear to be a real human by speeding up the video and blurring it slightly. I don’t know anything about photo shop or film editing but I imagine that could be done. I will try to find that video on line.

  3. Pingback: Tsar’s away! | Fakeologist.com

Leave a Reply