Ha, Petra Liverani here?
Maybe take a read on this:
The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever. - 24 posts
if you after reading that STILL believe "people landed on the Moon", as you maintained ad nauseam on Piece of Mindful, there is little else I can do for you. Only YOU can get out of that slumber....
The Impossibility of Space Travel
Re: Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter "oral" histories
I follow two rules of critical thinking and I'd be very curious to know if you think of yourself as following particular rules and what they are if you do. If you can't identify rules that you follow it mightn't be a bad idea.
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong.
2. Confine analysis to the most irrefutable relevant facts in the first instance.
The word "impossible" rings alarm bells for me. We might think something is impossible but we could be mistaken in that thinking.
Rather than judging by what I think I know to be true and possible/impossible (how it seems to me the disbelievers of the moon landings judge things) my priority is the pieces of the puzzle - the evidence - as a first priority and ask, "Do all the pieces of the puzzle fit together?", "Do pieces contradict each other?", "Is everything according to expectations?"
When I did that with the moon landings all the pieces fit - no contradictions and especially considering the utterly alien conditions on the moon, everything 100% corresponded with expectations.
At the same time as looking at all the evidence I was doing due diligence. I checked every claim I could made by the naysayers to see if the Apollo enthusiasts had a response to it ... and they always did. And what they so clearly evince in their responses is a far greater understanding of the moon, space and space travel than the naysayers.
So before I look at anything you have to say I want to know what you've looked at in response to the naysaying. What have you looked at and what is your response to the responses to the naysaying? Just give me one response to a debunking of the naysayers that you don't think stands up.
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong.
2. Confine analysis to the most irrefutable relevant facts in the first instance.
The word "impossible" rings alarm bells for me. We might think something is impossible but we could be mistaken in that thinking.
Rather than judging by what I think I know to be true and possible/impossible (how it seems to me the disbelievers of the moon landings judge things) my priority is the pieces of the puzzle - the evidence - as a first priority and ask, "Do all the pieces of the puzzle fit together?", "Do pieces contradict each other?", "Is everything according to expectations?"
When I did that with the moon landings all the pieces fit - no contradictions and especially considering the utterly alien conditions on the moon, everything 100% corresponded with expectations.
At the same time as looking at all the evidence I was doing due diligence. I checked every claim I could made by the naysayers to see if the Apollo enthusiasts had a response to it ... and they always did. And what they so clearly evince in their responses is a far greater understanding of the moon, space and space travel than the naysayers.
So before I look at anything you have to say I want to know what you've looked at in response to the naysaying. What have you looked at and what is your response to the responses to the naysaying? Just give me one response to a debunking of the naysayers that you don't think stands up.
Re: Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter "oral" histories
So where's your debunking of the debunking aSHIFT? Just one example is all I'm asking.
The debunkers can't be right, can they? If astronauts really didn't land on the moon the attempted debunking (or at least a reasonable amount of it) has to be wrong surely. We all know 9/11 debunking of the "conspiracy theories" is a load of crap so shouldn't the same apply to the debunking of the moon landing conspiracy theories?
-
aSHIFT.
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:12 pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Contact:
Re: Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter "oral" histories
the hours you had to do your slave job Rat Race nonsense "that's how I love to spend my valuable TIME", whatever you do during the day and the hours counting coming home, having dinner and preparing to write your post from Western Australia (6-9), if I recall well....
not even permitted you to READ all the 24 posts under the link The Impossibility of Space Travel. EVER.
let alone reflect upon them, do deeper research yourself and come with a coherent response to what not only me, I am irrelevant for your "moon landings" and even for the Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever. have come up with.
So BEFORE your "critical thinking" you cannot even perform the first step
critical READING, WATCHING, LISTENING
if you cannot even go over hurdle 1
and claim you are the expert in hurdles 2 to 4
why bother taking you seriously on any of the steps, hurdles of what you in your critically corrupted mind call "critical thinking" ?
I gave you just one thing to do and you cannot even do that.Just one example is all I'm asking.
What did you think you asked me for?
you understand the stupidity of asking for
"moonlandings" in 1969 (twice, within 5 months, cause it was SOO easy!)
when Space Travel is IMPOSSIBLE
and always will BE
you are not THAT stupid, are you?
I have no idea what you mean with that nor whom it refers to.The debunkers ....
You are in a supposed conversation with ME
and fail already there on all sides.
it's like a 9/11 firefighter putting out electric fires
happy with his water hose
Ciao
aSHIFT. - take control over your OWN life
the more we are, the more we share
the more we share, the more we are
listen to Eye AM Eye Radio
the more we are, the more we share
the more we share, the more we are
listen to Eye AM Eye Radio
Re: Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter "oral" histories
When I say debunkers I mean the people who refute the claims made by those who disbelieve the moon landings. When I set out to determine the truth of the moon landings I looked at all the claims made by the disbelievers and then at the responses to those claims by the Apollo enthusiasts so to simplify, "the debunkers" refers to Apollo enthusiasts or similar.
Here is an Apollo enthusiast page with links to various debunkings.
https://swprs.org/the-moon-landing-debate/
So we would assume that if the moon landings were fake then just as the debunking of the so-called 9/11 "conspiracy theories" doesn't stand up neither would the moon landing debunking stand up. The thing is though that while I can see the 9/11 debunking is nonsense I don't see the same thing with the moon landings debunking.
What is clear with 9/11 and covid is that the debunking trail ends with those opposing the narrative whereas with the moon landings the debunking trail ends with those supporting the narrative.
However, I have now looked at your "impossibility" page and I'm afraid I cannot identify anything that is clearly fact (or even if a fact) that means the moon landings were impossible for me to work with. Can you just put forward one thing you believe to be an irrefutable fact that you think makes the moon landings impossible.
-
aSHIFT.
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:12 pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Contact:
Re: Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter "oral" histories
Petra, this is not Piece of Mindful Blog where we're gonna repeat the nonsensical cycle
OTHERS than me, hence why I linked the thread on this very forum you joined. So the style should be familiar and the names other than me also.
instead of derailing further your enormous insights into the 9/11 (for most, for me it's always the 12th of September, I was marked for unmarkedness!) baby hoax (compared to the Future we are facing all of us....)
you stick to your fantasies.
about men bunnyhopping on the Moon, 250,000 miles higher than "we" ever went before....
this says it all about your total incapacity to deduce anything useful out ofHowever, I have now looked at your "impossibility" page and I'm afraid I cannot identify anything that is clearly fact
OTHERS than me, hence why I linked the thread on this very forum you joined. So the style should be familiar and the names other than me also.
instead of derailing further your enormous insights into the 9/11 (for most, for me it's always the 12th of September, I was marked for unmarkedness!) baby hoax (compared to the Future we are facing all of us....)
you stick to your fantasies.
about men bunnyhopping on the Moon, 250,000 miles higher than "we" ever went before....
aSHIFT. - take control over your OWN life
the more we are, the more we share
the more we share, the more we are
listen to Eye AM Eye Radio
the more we are, the more we share
the more we share, the more we are
listen to Eye AM Eye Radio
-
aSHIFT.
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:12 pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Contact:
Re: The Impossibility of Space Travel
The Moon Hoax was never meant to be serious, to be credible.
They knew beforehand it would be staged.
Anyone who thinks "oh JFK says we will be on the Moon before the decade is over, so let's work our arses off to achieve the thermodynamically impossible, even though """he's dead now"""" you know..." is mistaken.
It was not in the 1960s or even 50s (((they))) knew Space Travel was impossible and always would be.
They KNEW that way before.
Since 1584, a full century BEFORE the concept of gravity was even introduced, we KNOW the Forces of the Cosmos are WAAAAAY to big to handle for any species, no matter how technologically advanced.
In the upcoming mix, I hope to finalize it tonight, a beautiful 75 year mother day I must say, you hear McBenis (a space believer) and me talk about this in more detail. With much more, a lot of CalmCardKen with great advanced music mixes, so keep your Eye AM Eyes open for that.
Simon Stevin, when science was still science, established that the position of the Moon and Sun with respect to the Earth cause our daily tides.
So since then we know that at least the Moon, if it were accessible, has such an enormous (back then ether, mysterious G forces) attraction on us, that vice versa the same must apply.
So the idea a space thingy can just circumvent ALL those attractive ethereal eternal and exponentially complex forces, is absurd from the onset.
It's like asking to polder in the whole world oceans.
You can ask the best Dutch water engineer
They won't succeed.
The complexities are simply too enormous.
In everything.
And in 4D
Everything changes, is dynamic.
Meaning that if we would be able to calculate so many factors, the best Space simulators cannot even comprehend what is going on MORE than we can observe/perceive...., the next microsecond the situation is different. With new uncertainties.
On Earth (((they))) could have staged it better, especially considering the surface.
Because BEFORE "Apollo", with astronots in dune buggies hopping around in LOOSE SEDIMENT, the Moon was imagined MORE geologically (selenologically ; Selene = Gaia's sister (not really in Greek mythos, but I make my own; mystory vs. history) by TinTin and Robert Heinlein
than what those sand clowns did there in their sandpit.
If you get the chance to visit a lunar landscape on Earth, DO IT.
It is outworldly to be there, it is special.
You don't need to wait for Elon Muskusrat's Voyagers though.
Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain (but offshore Africa)
NOTE: NO sand. Hard rocks. Crispy. Painful. A Harsh Mistress...
that is how the Moon should be....
They knew beforehand it would be staged.
Anyone who thinks "oh JFK says we will be on the Moon before the decade is over, so let's work our arses off to achieve the thermodynamically impossible, even though """he's dead now"""" you know..." is mistaken.
It was not in the 1960s or even 50s (((they))) knew Space Travel was impossible and always would be.
They KNEW that way before.
Since 1584, a full century BEFORE the concept of gravity was even introduced, we KNOW the Forces of the Cosmos are WAAAAAY to big to handle for any species, no matter how technologically advanced.
In the upcoming mix, I hope to finalize it tonight, a beautiful 75 year mother day I must say, you hear McBenis (a space believer) and me talk about this in more detail. With much more, a lot of CalmCardKen with great advanced music mixes, so keep your Eye AM Eyes open for that.
Simon Stevin, when science was still science, established that the position of the Moon and Sun with respect to the Earth cause our daily tides.
So since then we know that at least the Moon, if it were accessible, has such an enormous (back then ether, mysterious G forces) attraction on us, that vice versa the same must apply.
So the idea a space thingy can just circumvent ALL those attractive ethereal eternal and exponentially complex forces, is absurd from the onset.
It's like asking to polder in the whole world oceans.
You can ask the best Dutch water engineer
They won't succeed.
The complexities are simply too enormous.
In everything.
And in 4D
Everything changes, is dynamic.
Meaning that if we would be able to calculate so many factors, the best Space simulators cannot even comprehend what is going on MORE than we can observe/perceive...., the next microsecond the situation is different. With new uncertainties.
On Earth (((they))) could have staged it better, especially considering the surface.
Because BEFORE "Apollo", with astronots in dune buggies hopping around in LOOSE SEDIMENT, the Moon was imagined MORE geologically (selenologically ; Selene = Gaia's sister (not really in Greek mythos, but I make my own; mystory vs. history) by TinTin and Robert Heinlein
than what those sand clowns did there in their sandpit.
If you get the chance to visit a lunar landscape on Earth, DO IT.
It is outworldly to be there, it is special.
You don't need to wait for Elon Muskusrat's Voyagers though.
Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain (but offshore Africa)
NOTE: NO sand. Hard rocks. Crispy. Painful. A Harsh Mistress...
that is how the Moon should be....
aSHIFT. - take control over your OWN life
the more we are, the more we share
the more we share, the more we are
listen to Eye AM Eye Radio
the more we are, the more we share
the more we share, the more we are
listen to Eye AM Eye Radio
-
rachel
- Posts: 4253
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1843 times
Re: The Impossibility of Space Travel
Might as well stick this one here. I don't really get Petra's argument about the Apollo audio files proving the moon landings happened; though I've not listened. I would say they prove people who work for NASA actually do things, and they simulate doing other things. But it doesn't mean just because something exists as an audio, that it is what people claim it to be after the event.
I didn't get to posting on the flight part of the Smolensk plane crash, because I already proved beyond reasonable doubt using official documents, official satellite imagery, published academic research on the crash, and visual media in the form of news reports and the memorial service, that no plane crashed in Smolensk on 10 April 2010. Yet there is a whole set of black box data for the said flight with audio recordings between the pilot and fight traffic controller on the ground. But not only that, there were actually two sets of black box data officially found. It was reported they were found, and then it was reported some hours later, they were found again...and that's why, I hazard a guess, there are two quite uniquely different official versions of the crash, which took place a two totally different official times, both it would appear with the corresponding blackbox data...but the first version was disappeared and memory-holed to be replaced by the second version. I might have to go back and add that part of the story, because it's so fascinating.
Anyway, that's not this, and I don't actually disagree with what Petra is saying in his introduction. The people selling us the story have got to construct the box to keep our minds from wondering out of...it therefore necessitates them writing both sides of the story they are going to use as an argument. Pretty much like...The Beatles were either who they are said to be, else Paul died in 1967. Even though, if you bother to look, both real and fake Paul exist into the 1980s, possibly later... Paul didn't die, there is a different reason he visually went missing in 1967...but he never went missing in audio...that's still very much him on the records. When the original Beatles EMI contract ended at the end of 1966, Paul set up a studio in Scotland and that is where he primarily chose to worked from, then and now. To Petra Liverani's post.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/pr ... s-the-moon
Just a question as a mental exercise; if Petra Liverani is controlled opposition, it therefore suggests with regards to the hierarchy of importance, the controllers are willing to give up 911 before they are willing to give up the moon landings. Why would that be?
From a Biblical point of view, New Jerusalem is going to come down from heaven and land on earth... I'll just leave that one there for people to ponder. Also, if you look at the link, note the problem if we assume it's going to land on a spherical earth.
I didn't get to posting on the flight part of the Smolensk plane crash, because I already proved beyond reasonable doubt using official documents, official satellite imagery, published academic research on the crash, and visual media in the form of news reports and the memorial service, that no plane crashed in Smolensk on 10 April 2010. Yet there is a whole set of black box data for the said flight with audio recordings between the pilot and fight traffic controller on the ground. But not only that, there were actually two sets of black box data officially found. It was reported they were found, and then it was reported some hours later, they were found again...and that's why, I hazard a guess, there are two quite uniquely different official versions of the crash, which took place a two totally different official times, both it would appear with the corresponding blackbox data...but the first version was disappeared and memory-holed to be replaced by the second version. I might have to go back and add that part of the story, because it's so fascinating.
Anyway, that's not this, and I don't actually disagree with what Petra is saying in his introduction. The people selling us the story have got to construct the box to keep our minds from wondering out of...it therefore necessitates them writing both sides of the story they are going to use as an argument. Pretty much like...The Beatles were either who they are said to be, else Paul died in 1967. Even though, if you bother to look, both real and fake Paul exist into the 1980s, possibly later... Paul didn't die, there is a different reason he visually went missing in 1967...but he never went missing in audio...that's still very much him on the records. When the original Beatles EMI contract ended at the end of 1966, Paul set up a studio in Scotland and that is where he primarily chose to worked from, then and now. To Petra Liverani's post.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/pr ... s-the-moon
Priming the disbelievers: the moon landings and 9/11
“If you’re not wondering whether you’re under mind control you probably are.”
“We want our adversaries to find themselves in a wilderness of mirrors.”
James Angleton, head of counterintelligence operations, CIA
While we can trace the predictive programming for the 9/11 mainstream narrative to well before the Twin Towers were even built (see reference to “the towers” in Porky Pig, 1949) we can also trace predictive programming of a different kind: for those with an inclination to disbelieve the authorities, seeds were planted before both the moon landings and 9/11.
In this post, I will show how three artefacts - one for the moon landings and two for 9/11 - planted seeds for the disbelievers...
The News-Benders, 1968 - planting the seeds that the moon landings were faked
Just a question as a mental exercise; if Petra Liverani is controlled opposition, it therefore suggests with regards to the hierarchy of importance, the controllers are willing to give up 911 before they are willing to give up the moon landings. Why would that be?
From a Biblical point of view, New Jerusalem is going to come down from heaven and land on earth... I'll just leave that one there for people to ponder. Also, if you look at the link, note the problem if we assume it's going to land on a spherical earth.
-
rachel
- Posts: 4253
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1843 times
Re: The Impossibility of Space Travel
While I've brought up New Jerusalem, if we assume there is some reality to the prophecy, it's usually depicted as a cube...and isn't it interesting, you can fit a cross in a cube.
Is that a hidden Easter Egg?
So the dimensions are:
Which means it is either a cube...or it could be a pyramid. I fancy the latter, because mountains are more like pyramids than cubes.
Do you like this next one, Napoleon?
Is that a hidden Easter Egg?
So the dimensions are:
The city’s exact dimensions are measured by an angel and reported to be 12,000 stadia, the equivalent of 1,400 miles or 2,200 kilometers, in length, width, and height (Revelation 21:15-16). Even though these proportions may have symbolic importance, this doesn’t mean they can’t be literal. In fact, Scripture emphasizes that the dimensions are given in “man’s measurement” (Revelation 21:17). If the city really has these dimensions (and there’s no reason it couldn’t), what more could we expect God to say to convince us?
Which means it is either a cube...or it could be a pyramid. I fancy the latter, because mountains are more like pyramids than cubes.
Do you like this next one, Napoleon?