1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:00,864


2
00:00:00,864 --> 00:00:07,090
According to the usual media releases, the Artemis
II mission was a manned moon orbit by NASA in

3
00:00:07,090 --> 00:00:11,616
cooperation with the European and Canadian space agencies.

4
00:00:11,616 --> 00:00:15,303
It started at the beginning of April 2026.

5
00:00:15,303 --> 00:00:22,880
After their spectacular flight around the moon, the four
Artemis astronauts are said to have landed their capsule

6
00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:27,630
safely in the Pacific Ocean on the night of April 11, 2026.

7
00:00:27,630 --> 00:00:36,474
Four astronauts in an Orion spacecraft and the ground crew
are said to have tested systems and workflows in preparation

8
00:00:36,474 --> 00:00:42,496
for future manned moon landings as part of the Artemis program.

9
00:00:42,496 --> 00:00:49,664
Officially, it is said to be the first
manned moon flight since Apollo 17 in 1972.

10
00:00:49,664 --> 00:00:53,523
But what exactly was it like on Apollo 17?

11
00:00:53,523 --> 00:00:58,643
Media professionals discovered
overwhelming evidence of NASA image falsification.

12
00:00:58,643 --> 00:01:06,712
They argued that the television images and photos of the moon
landings were full of mistakes, tricks and inconsistencies.

13
00:01:06,712 --> 00:01:15,440
Many images also contained obviously
computer-generated elements - in short, it all looked fake!

14
00:01:15,440 --> 00:01:23,296
The alleged orbit around the moon in April
2026 once again reveals many inconsistencies.

15
00:01:23,296 --> 00:01:27,790
So are we being told the next fairy tale by NASA?

16
00:01:27,790 --> 00:01:35,140
For example, take a look at these two images of the
Earth's orb that were supposedly taken by the Orion spacecraft.

17
00:01:35,140 --> 00:01:43,872
The one, bright, picture from April 2 and the other, dark,
from April 3, are supposed to show the night side of the earth.

18
00:01:43,872 --> 00:01:49,393
Despite the different times of day, the cloud
formations are almost identical, which means

19
00:01:49,393 --> 00:01:53,720
that at least one image must have been processed.

20
00:01:53,720 --> 00:02:01,046
There is also no conclusive explanation as to why the
illumination of cities can be seen on a colored image

21
00:02:01,046 --> 00:02:06,096
of the earth, which should have been taken in daylight.

22
00:02:06,096 --> 00:02:12,700
In the NASA videos of the Artemis II mission,
we see further evidence of image processing.

23
00:02:12,700 --> 00:02:18,740
For example, an object appears to pass
through the head of astronaut Jeremy Hansen.

24
00:02:18,740 --> 00:02:23,670
Or a red dot on an object mysteriously disappears.

25
00:02:23,670 --> 00:02:33,124
Let's take a look at some video bugs that prove they're using CGI
- more specifically, "augmented virtual reality" - to create all

26
00:02:33,124 --> 00:02:37,730
the floating objects the crew interacts with in the spaceship.

27
00:02:37,730 --> 00:02:44,034
They constantly play with stuffed animals, their food, the
microphone and other objects to convince the

28
00:02:44,034 --> 00:02:50,553
public that they are really floating in space
and not simply suspended on ropes in a studio.

29
00:02:50,553 --> 00:02:56,406
But look at how this food bag is
spinning near this astronaut's face.

30
00:02:56,406 --> 00:03:01,894
You can see how the edge grazes his forehead,
causing a picture error and the bag flies right

31
00:03:01,894 --> 00:03:06,640
through it instead of realistically touching his face.

32
00:03:09,401 --> 00:03:20,352
The direction of the bag does not change when it touches his
head, but simply floats through as if it were not even there.

33
00:03:20,352 --> 00:03:25,344
Now look for the red dot on the white bag.

34
00:03:25,344 --> 00:03:31,400
While the bag rotates slowly, the
red dot does not rotate with it.

35
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:37,271
Across multiple frames, the red dot remains in
exactly the same shape and position without

36
00:03:37,271 --> 00:03:43,336
realistically moving or rotating with the rest of the bag.

37
00:03:43,336 --> 00:03:50,123
Then, as the bag continues to rotate, the red
dot suddenly disappears completely at some point.

38
00:03:51,843 --> 00:04:01,234
The bag continues to rotate for several more revolutions, but
the red dot is nowhere to be seen. And then, after a few more

39
00:04:01,234 --> 00:04:08,400
rotations, the red dot mysteriously and inexplicably reappears.

40
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:14,791
This is because they are digital and not
physical objects with which they interact using a

41
00:04:14,791 --> 00:04:18,794
technology called augmented virtual reality.

42
00:04:18,794 --> 00:04:24,920
The red dot on the pack does not seem to rotate
with the pack and eventually disappears completely.

43
00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:32,540
An amateur recreation of the scene shows how easily
"weightlessness" can be simulated in such video sequences.

44
00:04:32,540 --> 00:04:36,776
I still think this guy outdoes anything NASA does.

45
00:04:36,776 --> 00:04:39,870
I mean, he does it with his cell phone on TikTok.

46
00:04:39,870 --> 00:04:42,383
It can be that simple.

47
00:04:42,383 --> 00:04:47,529
Because people look at what's being done on
the ISS or at Artemis and say: "You can't

48
00:04:47,529 --> 00:04:50,843
possibly fake something like that. You're crazy!"

49
00:04:50,843 --> 00:04:56,123
You think they're just doing a parabolic
flight that only lasts 20 seconds and all that.

50
00:04:56,123 --> 00:05:02,790
The guy is not on a parabolic flight, the guy is playing
with potatoes and water balloons right in his front yard.

51
00:05:02,790 --> 00:05:09,440
In another video you see enthusiastic people
allegedly taking photos of the Artemis astronauts.

52
00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:14,463
Strangely enough, the astronauts do
not exist on their cell phone displays.

53
00:05:14,463 --> 00:05:17,963
Which reality is true now?

54
00:05:17,963 --> 00:05:25,790
What I don't understand is why four astronauts go out so people
can take pictures of them and then they're not actually there.

55
00:05:25,790 --> 00:05:31,483
It's kind of strange, but when you look at what
people are photographing here, you realize that

56
00:05:31,483 --> 00:05:34,896
there are no astronauts in the pictures at all.

57
00:05:34,896 --> 00:05:36,743
That's the strangest thing about it.

58
00:05:36,743 --> 00:05:39,162
I don't understand why that should be the case.

59
00:05:39,162 --> 00:05:45,703
You can see that she is standing next to this man's
shoulder, but somehow he is right in the center of her frame.

60
00:05:45,703 --> 00:05:53,956
I don't know if it's just a super wide angle lens
or what's going on, but I don't see any astronauts.

61
00:05:53,956 --> 00:05:55,963
I have questions, folks.

62
00:05:55,963 --> 00:05:59,300
There are no astronauts in this picture.

63
00:05:59,300 --> 00:06:07,363
Now I thought maybe this was an AI
generation, but it's been going on for far too long.

64
00:06:07,363 --> 00:06:11,076
These people have correct words on their patches.

65
00:06:11,076 --> 00:06:13,496
I don't think that's AI.

66
00:06:13,496 --> 00:06:17,469
Well, I don't want to claim that I'm absolutely right.

67
00:06:17,469 --> 00:06:19,783
Maybe this scene was AI after all.

68
00:06:19,783 --> 00:06:25,663
Because honestly, I looked up that
scene, and it was a little different.

69
00:06:25,663 --> 00:06:28,636
A little different from what I see here.

70
00:06:28,636 --> 00:06:34,316
So if you can prove that this is fake, that this is AI, great.

71
00:06:34,316 --> 00:06:40,143
That would actually answer a question
for me, but right now I have questions.

72
00:06:40,143 --> 00:06:49,263
Observers raised the question of whether the space capsule was
merely dropped from an airplane and never returned from space.

73
00:06:49,263 --> 00:06:56,128
Because at the time the capsule landed, a NASA
aircraft was spotted right above the landing site.

74
00:06:56,128 --> 00:07:03,240
This conjecture would be supported by the fact that no water
vapor was produced when the capsule plunged into the

75
00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:11,310
ocean, although the temperature of the outer capsule
could reach over 2,700°C according to official figures.

76
00:07:11,310 --> 00:07:17,816
Someone has been tracking the flights that took place
in the area where the Artemis II landed in the sea.

77
00:07:17,816 --> 00:07:21,950
And it was precisely this
interesting aircraft that caught his eye.

78
00:07:21,950 --> 00:07:28,576
So he typed in: "What is that?" ... "NASA, a NASA airplane."

79
00:07:28,576 --> 00:07:33,180
Could it have been the plane that
dropped the capsule into the sea?

80
00:07:33,180 --> 00:07:39,043
Look, I know a lot of people think this
is far-fetched, like you're making it up.

81
00:07:39,043 --> 00:07:42,240
You have no proof of that.

82
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:49,043
Another oddity: Trump speaks of a delay in the
radio signals of nine seconds due to the allegedly

83
00:07:49,043 --> 00:07:53,963
enormous distance between the space capsule and Earth.

84
00:07:53,963 --> 00:07:58,816
In the video, a woman can be heard saying that
she has adjusted the fans and that the crew

85
00:07:58,816 --> 00:08:02,336
should raise their thumbs if everything feels good.

86
00:08:02,336 --> 00:08:08,783
However, an astronaut can be seen raising his
thumb even before the woman has finished her sentence.

87
00:08:08,783 --> 00:08:12,928
Judge for yourself how the other crew members react.

88
00:08:12,928 --> 00:08:18,585
Was the crew close by, on Earth, and not far away in space?

89
00:08:18,585 --> 00:08:23,690
Here you can see that they can't keep up
with what they're supposed to be doing.

90
00:08:23,690 --> 00:08:29,243
They should pretend that there is a delay of
about nine seconds because they are so far away.

91
00:08:29,243 --> 00:08:34,870
But when you are in a studio
somewhere on earth, there is no such delay.

92
00:08:34,870 --> 00:08:40,256
You can tell there are a few glitches when
they're trying to remember this whole delay thing.

93
00:08:40,256 --> 00:08:42,530
They are talking to each other.

94
00:08:42,530 --> 00:08:45,216
A woman says: "I've adjusted the fans.

95
00:08:45,216 --> 00:08:48,116
Give me a thumbs-up if it feels good."

96
00:08:48,116 --> 00:08:52,649
And the guy gives her a thumbs-up
before she's even finished her sentence.

97
00:08:52,649 --> 00:08:59,950
And you see Glover here - I can't remember his name -
holding his hands in front of his face, like, "Oh, man."

98
00:08:59,950 --> 00:09:04,668
And then suddenly they all give him a
thumbs-up and he says, "Oh, hey!" along the lines of:

99
00:09:04,668 --> 00:09:08,634
"Hey, that's the first time I've ever
given a thumbs-up. That feels great."

100
00:09:08,634 --> 00:09:10,016
Listen, that's crazy.

101
00:09:10,016 --> 00:09:12,620
"And we have adjusted the fan speed.

102
00:09:12,620 --> 00:09:17,180
Give me a thumbs up if you're happy with it."

103
00:09:17,180 --> 00:09:19,780
Oh, look at his face.

104
00:09:19,780 --> 00:09:21,940
You show the thumbs-up.

105
00:09:21,940 --> 00:09:27,023
And now he goes: "Hey!", this guy. "Oh, man."

106
00:09:27,023 --> 00:09:34,720
This situation in which she asks for a thumbs
up and he does it immediately is clear proof.

107
00:09:34,720 --> 00:09:39,736
Let me rewind so that you can see that they are talking normally.

108
00:09:39,736 --> 00:09:45,710
For some reason he doesn't give her a
thumbs-up, apart from the "reply" to the lady:

109
00:09:45,710 --> 00:09:54,803
"We are three minutes ahead of the scheduled
start time and have adjusted the fan speed."

110
00:09:56,503 --> 00:10:04,400
"Oh, man," the lady even said, "thumbs up."

111
00:10:06,820 --> 00:10:10,080
More and more people are distrusting the NASA narrative.

112
00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:14,920
Critical comments and videos about
inconsistencies are therefore piling up online.

113
00:10:14,920 --> 00:10:19,644
The media, which has been brought into line,
together with so-called "fact checkers" try to

114
00:10:19,644 --> 00:10:22,676
explain away these obvious mistakes afterwards.

115
00:10:22,676 --> 00:10:30,207
For example, Swiss Radio and Television (SRF), which ran
a "fact check" on the question of why the cloud formations

116
00:10:30,207 --> 00:10:34,976
on the Artemis images of the globe always look the same.

117
00:10:34,976 --> 00:10:43,257
SRF asked an "expert" to speak, whose answer was indeed
that "clouds move quite slowly over the earth's surface" and

118
00:10:43,257 --> 00:10:49,088
"cloud formations look similar over a long period of time".

119
00:10:49,088 --> 00:10:54,780
Are readers once again supposed to believe
the experts over their own observations?

120
00:10:54,780 --> 00:10:58,780
Seen from the ground, the sky is constantly changing.

121
00:10:58,780 --> 00:11:03,523
The cloud images in every weather app also
change significantly within a few hours.

122
00:11:03,523 --> 00:11:05,720
- That doesn't go together.

123
00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:12,380
It seems as if every effort is being made to
prevent this obvious deception from being exposed.

124
00:11:12,380 --> 00:11:16,608
Who actually has an interest in this and why?

125
00:11:16,608 --> 00:11:24,880
Critics have been questioning NASA's credibility for
some time now, pointing to countless inconsistencies.

126
00:11:24,880 --> 00:11:32,064
Below you can see some examples of
video editing of official NASA footage.

127
00:11:32,064 --> 00:11:34,683
Look closely.

128
00:11:39,433 --> 00:11:44,234
Well? Discovered what? Here again.

129
00:11:44,234 --> 00:11:48,653
Still haven't seen anything? Let's go
into detail, zoom in and slow down the shot.

130
00:11:48,653 --> 00:11:51,799
The microphone cable starts to move wildly.

131
00:11:51,799 --> 00:11:56,960
The astronaut tries to knock it
away and creates a beautiful glitch.

132
00:11:56,960 --> 00:12:03,920
Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the
cable should be displayed above or below the

133
00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:10,623
hand when the hand is moved quickly and so it
virtually merges with it or passes through the hand.

134
00:12:10,623 --> 00:12:17,163
So we can see that the cable is a generated 3D object,
because there is no other way to explain this scene.

135
00:12:17,163 --> 00:12:21,816
The image calculation software does not
get the so-called collision detection right.

136
00:12:21,816 --> 00:12:29,463
In other words, it cannot track exactly which picture
element should collide with which and thus cause repulsion.

137
00:12:29,463 --> 00:12:33,856
In this way, the hand becomes a passing, non-colliding object.

138
00:12:33,856 --> 00:12:37,060
I hope that was halfway understandable.

139
00:12:37,060 --> 00:12:41,240
The phantom microphone a little further
back in the movie is also nice to look at.

140
00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:42,953
Now it's here.

141
00:12:42,953 --> 00:12:44,826
Now it's gone. Back again.

142
00:12:44,826 --> 00:12:46,913
Gone again. And back again.

143
00:12:46,913 --> 00:12:51,070
Yes, the image calculation went really wrong.

144
00:12:51,070 --> 00:12:57,583
The microphone clearly comes from 3D software and
was calculated into the scene completely incorrectly.

145
00:12:57,583 --> 00:13:02,883
It can't be a camera error, because cameras
simply record whatever comes in front of their lens.

146
00:13:02,883 --> 00:13:09,745
And the transmission can't be to blame either, because it would
be impossible for this to only cut out the microphone head or the

147
00:13:09,745 --> 00:13:13,503
cable, but would affect the entire image, or large parts of it.

148
00:13:13,503 --> 00:13:19,854
Firstly, this microphone: first it glitches,
then the light reflections that were there before

149
00:13:19,854 --> 00:13:25,436
are gone - immediately from one image to the next.

150
00:13:25,436 --> 00:13:31,022
Secondly, astronaut actor Don Pettit
demonstrates how to drink coffee in space.

151
00:13:31,022 --> 00:13:34,170
Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality.

152
00:13:34,170 --> 00:13:40,922
The end of the clip is crucial, because - oops -
here the coffee suddenly separates from the

153
00:13:40,922 --> 00:13:44,983
container and pops out of it without losing its shape.

154
00:13:44,983 --> 00:13:51,535
The color layer is clearly detached from the shape
layer, which is only possible if the object originates

155
00:13:51,535 --> 00:13:54,103
from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong.

156
00:13:54,103 --> 00:13:59,081
A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof
that NASA creates its images with virtual

157
00:13:59,081 --> 00:14:02,516
reality. This is also the case here in the third example:

158
00:14:02,516 --> 00:14:07,136
A plush figure appears out of nowhere
and can even be interacted with live.

159
00:14:07,136 --> 00:14:13,037
At first I thought the object could have been
hidden behind a so-called mask, but you can see the

160
00:14:13,037 --> 00:14:16,608
actress's hand shining through it for a few frames.

161
00:14:16,608 --> 00:14:23,690
So the object was blended and not made visible from
a mask, which would eliminate the other possibility.

162
00:14:23,690 --> 00:14:28,910
This one is also brilliant: no glitch, but a nice editing error.

163
00:14:28,910 --> 00:14:33,240
Have you seen it? Again at 15% speed:

164
00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:38,125
It disappears into thin air like a ghost,
including an environmental error on the

165
00:14:38,125 --> 00:14:41,586
left-hand side, where a few objects slip upwards.

166
00:14:41,586 --> 00:14:48,256
A so-called soft aperture has been installed here, which
allows the transition between two scenes to be smooth.

167
00:14:48,256 --> 00:14:55,560
It's just stupid when such fades appear in supposedly
unedited videos, where they simply shouldn't exist.

168
00:15:00,512 --> 00:15:05,223
Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in.

169
00:15:05,223 --> 00:15:11,540
We see magicians on board the ISS who simply
appear out of nowhere with an insertion sequence.

170
00:15:11,540 --> 00:15:15,240
David Copperfield would be green with envy.

171
00:15:15,240 --> 00:15:20,136
Here is a layer error: You can see a shadow
on this white rectangle in the background.

172
00:15:20,136 --> 00:15:24,363
And now take a close look at what
happens to the head of the rear performer.

173
00:15:24,363 --> 00:15:31,018
The computer calculates part of the said shadow one
level in front of the astro actor, which is why his head

174
00:15:31,018 --> 00:15:34,796
is initially partially covered by it, as if by a lintel.

175
00:15:34,796 --> 00:15:41,463
But then the head moves through the shadow plane,
which creates a logic problem for the software.

176
00:15:41,463 --> 00:15:47,520
The bald head first connects with
the shadow and then melts through it.

177
00:15:47,520 --> 00:15:50,430
Clear CGI calculation error.

178
00:15:50,430 --> 00:15:56,199
In the next shot, the so-called tracking,
i.e. object tracking, goes badly wrong:

179
00:15:56,199 --> 00:15:59,213
The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone.

180
00:15:59,213 --> 00:16:04,454
Now this hand is pulled away and without a
correction movement, but with a nasty graphic glitch, the

181
00:16:04,454 --> 00:16:07,712
fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone.

182
00:16:07,712 --> 00:16:10,930
But it gets really funny when you return your hand.

183
00:16:10,930 --> 00:16:18,936
The fingers literally slide under the left hand without
any resistance, which simply doesn't work physically.

184
00:16:18,936 --> 00:16:24,396
The computer's efforts to produce
a clean image are clearly visible.

185
00:16:24,396 --> 00:16:32,149
You can clearly see the cut edges around the
fingers as dark outlines and even eroded fingertips.

186
00:16:32,149 --> 00:16:39,355
No, dear NASA fans, these are NOT transmission errors.

187
00:16:39,355 --> 00:16:46,541
Probably seen unintentionally: Ask yourselves
why a green screen is needed behind the ISS

188
00:16:46,541 --> 00:16:51,543
if all the space shots are supposed to be real.

189
00:16:51,543 --> 00:16:56,670
We are therefore heading towards a time when
clear evidence of forgery due to negligent or

190
00:16:56,670 --> 00:17:02,020
unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur.

191
00:17:02,020 --> 00:17:10,226
This is obviously heavily edited footage that is
presented to the public as authentic and genuine.

192
00:17:10,226 --> 00:17:12,832
This raises the following questions, for example:

193
00:17:12,832 --> 00:17:18,472
Why do astronauts suddenly vanish
into thin air in official NASA videos?

194
00:17:18,472 --> 00:17:27,008
Why were six out of seven crew members of the Challenger
still alive in 2017 according to image and video analysis?

195
00:17:27,008 --> 00:17:31,596
Allegedly all of them died in the 1986 explosion.

196
00:17:31,596 --> 00:17:34,962
Why are most astronauts Freemasons?

197
00:17:34,962 --> 00:17:40,280
Where is all the money really going
if the Artemis program is a sham?

198
00:17:40,280 --> 00:17:46,310
This has so far cost around 93 billion dollars
and is mainly financed with taxpayers' money.

199
00:17:46,310 --> 00:17:56,360
Question flimsy answers presented under the guise of "fact
checks" and "expert opinions" and form your own opinion.

200
00:17:56,360 --> 00:18:00,960
If this program has given you food
for thought, don't keep it to yourself.

201
00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:08,713
Help spread these facts and encourage
others to think about NASA's inconsistencies.

202
00:18:14,560 --> 00:18:14,940