According to the usual media releases, the Artemis II mission was a manned moon orbit by NASA in
cooperation with the European and Canadian space agencies.
It started at the beginning of April 2026.
After their spectacular flight around the moon, the four Artemis astronauts are said to have landed their capsule
safely in the Pacific Ocean on the night of April 11, 2026.
Four astronauts in an Orion spacecraft and the ground crew are said to have tested systems and workflows in preparation
for future manned moon landings as part of the Artemis program.
Officially, it is said to be the first manned moon flight since Apollo 17 in 1972.
But what exactly was it like on Apollo 17?
Media professionals discovered overwhelming evidence of NASA image falsification.
They argued that the television images and photos of the moon landings were full of mistakes, tricks and inconsistencies.
Many images also contained obviously computer-generated elements - in short, it all looked fake!
The alleged orbit around the moon in April 2026 once again reveals many inconsistencies.
So are we being told the next fairy tale by NASA?
For example, take a look at these two images of the Earth's orb that were supposedly taken by the Orion spacecraft.
The one, bright, picture from April 2 and the other, dark, from April 3, are supposed to show the night side of the earth.
Despite the different times of day, the cloud formations are almost identical, which means
that at least one image must have been processed.
There is also no conclusive explanation as to why the illumination of cities can be seen on a colored image
of the earth, which should have been taken in daylight.
In the NASA videos of the Artemis II mission, we see further evidence of image processing.
For example, an object appears to pass through the head of astronaut Jeremy Hansen.
Or a red dot on an object mysteriously disappears.
Let's take a look at some video bugs that prove they're using CGI - more specifically, "augmented virtual reality" - to create all
the floating objects the crew interacts with in the spaceship.
They constantly play with stuffed animals, their food, the microphone and other objects to convince the
public that they are really floating in space and not simply suspended on ropes in a studio.
But look at how this food bag is spinning near this astronaut's face.
You can see how the edge grazes his forehead, causing a picture error and the bag flies right
through it instead of realistically touching his face.
The direction of the bag does not change when it touches his head, but simply floats through as if it were not even there.
Now look for the red dot on the white bag.
While the bag rotates slowly, the red dot does not rotate with it.
Across multiple frames, the red dot remains in exactly the same shape and position without
realistically moving or rotating with the rest of the bag.
Then, as the bag continues to rotate, the red dot suddenly disappears completely at some point.
The bag continues to rotate for several more revolutions, but the red dot is nowhere to be seen. And then, after a few more
rotations, the red dot mysteriously and inexplicably reappears.
This is because they are digital and not physical objects with which they interact using a
technology called augmented virtual reality.
The red dot on the pack does not seem to rotate with the pack and eventually disappears completely.
An amateur recreation of the scene shows how easily "weightlessness" can be simulated in such video sequences.
I still think this guy outdoes anything NASA does.
I mean, he does it with his cell phone on TikTok.
It can be that simple.
Because people look at what's being done on the ISS or at Artemis and say: "You can't
possibly fake something like that. You're crazy!"
You think they're just doing a parabolic flight that only lasts 20 seconds and all that.
The guy is not on a parabolic flight, the guy is playing with potatoes and water balloons right in his front yard.
In another video you see enthusiastic people allegedly taking photos of the Artemis astronauts.
Strangely enough, the astronauts do not exist on their cell phone displays.
Which reality is true now?
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.
It's kind of strange, but when you look at what people are photographing here, you realize that
there are no astronauts in the pictures at all.
That's the strangest thing about it.
I don't understand why that should be the case.
You can see that she is standing next to this man's shoulder, but somehow he is right in the center of her frame.
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.
I have questions, folks.
There are no astronauts in this picture.
Now I thought maybe this was an AI generation, but it's been going on for far too long.
These people have correct words on their patches.
I don't think that's AI.
Well, I don't want to claim that I'm absolutely right.
Maybe this scene was AI after all.
Because honestly, I looked up that scene, and it was a little different.
A little different from what I see here.
So if you can prove that this is fake, that this is AI, great.
That would actually answer a question for me, but right now I have questions.
Observers raised the question of whether the space capsule was merely dropped from an airplane and never returned from space.
Because at the time the capsule landed, a NASA aircraft was spotted right above the landing site.
This conjecture would be supported by the fact that no water vapor was produced when the capsule plunged into the
ocean, although the temperature of the outer capsule could reach over 2,700°C according to official figures.
Someone has been tracking the flights that took place in the area where the Artemis II landed in the sea.
And it was precisely this interesting aircraft that caught his eye.
So he typed in: "What is that?" ... "NASA, a NASA airplane."
Could it have been the plane that dropped the capsule into the sea?
Look, I know a lot of people think this is far-fetched, like you're making it up.
You have no proof of that.
Another oddity: Trump speaks of a delay in the radio signals of nine seconds due to the allegedly
enormous distance between the space capsule and Earth.
In the video, a woman can be heard saying that she has adjusted the fans and that the crew
should raise their thumbs if everything feels good.
However, an astronaut can be seen raising his thumb even before the woman has finished her sentence.
Judge for yourself how the other crew members react.
Was the crew close by, on Earth, and not far away in space?
Here you can see that they can't keep up with what they're supposed to be doing.
They should pretend that there is a delay of about nine seconds because they are so far away.
But when you are in a studio somewhere on earth, there is no such delay.
You can tell there are a few glitches when they're trying to remember this whole delay thing.
They are talking to each other.
A woman says: "I've adjusted the fans.
Give me a thumbs-up if it feels good."
And the guy gives her a thumbs-up before she's even finished her sentence.
And you see Glover here - I can't remember his name - holding his hands in front of his face, like, "Oh, man."
And then suddenly they all give him a thumbs-up and he says, "Oh, hey!" along the lines of:
"Hey, that's the first time I've ever given a thumbs-up. That feels great."
Listen, that's crazy.
"And we have adjusted the fan speed.
Give me a thumbs up if you're happy with it."
Oh, look at his face.
You show the thumbs-up.
And now he goes: "Hey!", this guy. "Oh, man."
This situation in which she asks for a thumbs up and he does it immediately is clear proof.
Let me rewind so that you can see that they are talking normally.
For some reason he doesn't give her a thumbs-up, apart from the "reply" to the lady:
"We are three minutes ahead of the scheduled start time and have adjusted the fan speed."
"Oh, man," the lady even said, "thumbs up."
More and more people are distrusting the NASA narrative.
Critical comments and videos about inconsistencies are therefore piling up online.
The media, which has been brought into line, together with so-called "fact checkers" try to
explain away these obvious mistakes afterwards.
For example, Swiss Radio and Television (SRF), which ran a "fact check" on the question of why the cloud formations
on the Artemis images of the globe always look the same.
SRF asked an "expert" to speak, whose answer was indeed that "clouds move quite slowly over the earth's surface" and
"cloud formations look similar over a long period of time".
Are readers once again supposed to believe the experts over their own observations?
Seen from the ground, the sky is constantly changing.
The cloud images in every weather app also change significantly within a few hours.
- That doesn't go together.
It seems as if every effort is being made to prevent this obvious deception from being exposed.
Who actually has an interest in this and why?
Critics have been questioning NASA's credibility for some time now, pointing to countless inconsistencies.
Below you can see some examples of video editing of official NASA footage.
Look closely.
Well? Discovered what? Here again.
Still haven't seen anything? Let's go into detail, zoom in and slow down the shot.
The microphone cable starts to move wildly.
The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch.
Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed above or below the
hand when the hand is moved quickly and so it virtually merges with it or passes through the hand.
So we can see that the cable is a generated 3D object, because there is no other way to explain this scene.
The image calculation software does not get the so-called collision detection right.
In other words, it cannot track exactly which picture element should collide with which and thus cause repulsion.
In this way, the hand becomes a passing, non-colliding object.
I hope that was halfway understandable.
The phantom microphone a little further back in the movie is also nice to look at.
Now it's here.
Now it's gone. Back again.
Gone again. And back again.
Yes, the image calculation went really wrong.
The microphone clearly comes from 3D software and was calculated into the scene completely incorrectly.
It can't be a camera error, because cameras simply record whatever comes in front of their lens.
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
cable, but would affect the entire image, or large parts of it.
Firstly, this microphone: first it glitches, then the light reflections that were there before
are gone - immediately from one image to the next.
Secondly, astronaut actor Don Pettit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space.
Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality.
The end of the clip is crucial, because - oops - here the coffee suddenly separates from the
container and pops out of it without losing its shape.
The color layer is clearly detached from the shape layer, which is only possible if the object originates
from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong.
A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its images with virtual
reality. This is also the case here in the third example:
A plush figure appears out of nowhere and can even be interacted with live.
At first I thought the object could have been hidden behind a so-called mask, but you can see the
actress's hand shining through it for a few frames.
So the object was blended and not made visible from a mask, which would eliminate the other possibility.
This one is also brilliant: no glitch, but a nice editing error.
Have you seen it? Again at 15% speed:
It disappears into thin air like a ghost, including an environmental error on the
left-hand side, where a few objects slip upwards.
A so-called soft aperture has been installed here, which allows the transition between two scenes to be smooth.
It's just stupid when such fades appear in supposedly unedited videos, where they simply shouldn't exist.
Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in.
We see magicians on board the ISS who simply appear out of nowhere with an insertion sequence.
David Copperfield would be green with envy.
Here is a layer error: You can see a shadow on this white rectangle in the background.
And now take a close look at what happens to the head of the rear performer.
The computer calculates part of the said shadow one level in front of the astro actor, which is why his head
is initially partially covered by it, as if by a lintel.
But then the head moves through the shadow plane, which creates a logic problem for the software.
The bald head first connects with the shadow and then melts through it.
Clear CGI calculation error.
In the next shot, the so-called tracking, i.e. object tracking, goes badly wrong:
The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone.
Now this hand is pulled away and without a correction movement, but with a nasty graphic glitch, the
fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone.
But it gets really funny when you return your hand.
The fingers literally slide under the left hand without any resistance, which simply doesn't work physically.
The computer's efforts to produce a clean image are clearly visible.
You can clearly see the cut edges around the fingers as dark outlines and even eroded fingertips.
No, dear NASA fans, these are NOT transmission errors.
Probably seen unintentionally: Ask yourselves why a green screen is needed behind the ISS
if all the space shots are supposed to be real.
We are therefore heading towards a time when clear evidence of forgery due to negligent or
unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur.
This is obviously heavily edited footage that is presented to the public as authentic and genuine.
This raises the following questions, for example:
Why do astronauts suddenly vanish into thin air in official NASA videos?
Why were six out of seven crew members of the Challenger still alive in 2017 according to image and video analysis?
Allegedly all of them died in the 1986 explosion.
Why are most astronauts Freemasons?
Where is all the money really going if the Artemis program is a sham?
This has so far cost around 93 billion dollars and is mainly financed with taxpayers' money.
Question flimsy answers presented under the guise of "fact checks" and "expert opinions" and form your own opinion.
If this program has given you food for thought, don't keep it to yourself.
Help spread these facts and encourage others to think about NASA's inconsistencies.