WEBVTT 00:00.864 --> 00:07.090 According to the usual media releases, the Artemis II mission was a manned moon orbit by NASA in 00:07.090 --> 00:11.616 cooperation with the European and Canadian space agencies. 00:11.616 --> 00:15.303 It started at the beginning of April 2026. 00:15.303 --> 00:22.880 After their spectacular flight around the moon, the four Artemis astronauts are said to have landed their capsule 00:22.880 --> 00:27.630 safely in the Pacific Ocean on the night of April 11, 2026. 00:27.630 --> 00:36.474 Four astronauts in an Orion spacecraft and the ground crew are said to have tested systems and workflows in preparation 00:36.474 --> 00:42.496 for future manned moon landings as part of the Artemis program. 00:42.496 --> 00:49.664 Officially, it is said to be the first manned moon flight since Apollo 17 in 1972. 00:49.664 --> 00:53.523 But what exactly was it like on Apollo 17? 00:53.523 --> 00:58.643 Media professionals discovered overwhelming evidence of NASA image falsification. 00:58.643 --> 01:06.712 They argued that the television images and photos of the moon landings were full of mistakes, tricks and inconsistencies. 01:06.712 --> 01:15.440 Many images also contained obviously computer-generated elements - in short, it all looked fake! 01:15.440 --> 01:23.296 The alleged orbit around the moon in April 2026 once again reveals many inconsistencies. 01:23.296 --> 01:27.790 So are we being told the next fairy tale by NASA? 01:27.790 --> 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. 01:35.140 --> 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. 01:43.872 --> 01:49.393 Despite the different times of day, the cloud formations are almost identical, which means 01:49.393 --> 01:53.720 that at least one image must have been processed. 01:53.720 --> 02:01.046 There is also no conclusive explanation as to why the illumination of cities can be seen on a colored image 02:01.046 --> 02:06.096 of the earth, which should have been taken in daylight. 02:06.096 --> 02:12.700 In the NASA videos of the Artemis II mission, we see further evidence of image processing. 02:12.700 --> 02:18.740 For example, an object appears to pass through the head of astronaut Jeremy Hansen. 02:18.740 --> 02:23.670 Or a red dot on an object mysteriously disappears. 02:23.670 --> 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 02:33.124 --> 02:37.730 the floating objects the crew interacts with in the spaceship. 02:37.730 --> 02:44.034 They constantly play with stuffed animals, their food, the microphone and other objects to convince the 02:44.034 --> 02:50.553 public that they are really floating in space and not simply suspended on ropes in a studio. 02:50.553 --> 02:56.406 But look at how this food bag is spinning near this astronaut's face. 02:56.406 --> 03:01.894 You can see how the edge grazes his forehead, causing a picture error and the bag flies right 03:01.894 --> 03:06.640 through it instead of realistically touching his face. 03:09.401 --> 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. 03:20.352 --> 03:25.344 Now look for the red dot on the white bag. 03:25.344 --> 03:31.400 While the bag rotates slowly, the red dot does not rotate with it. 03:31.400 --> 03:37.271 Across multiple frames, the red dot remains in exactly the same shape and position without 03:37.271 --> 03:43.336 realistically moving or rotating with the rest of the bag. 03:43.336 --> 03:50.123 Then, as the bag continues to rotate, the red dot suddenly disappears completely at some point. 03:51.843 --> 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 04:01.234 --> 04:08.400 rotations, the red dot mysteriously and inexplicably reappears. 04:08.400 --> 04:14.791 This is because they are digital and not physical objects with which they interact using a 04:14.791 --> 04:18.794 technology called augmented virtual reality. 04:18.794 --> 04:24.920 The red dot on the pack does not seem to rotate with the pack and eventually disappears completely. 04:24.920 --> 04:32.540 An amateur recreation of the scene shows how easily "weightlessness" can be simulated in such video sequences. 04:32.540 --> 04:36.776 I still think this guy outdoes anything NASA does. 04:36.776 --> 04:39.870 I mean, he does it with his cell phone on TikTok. 04:39.870 --> 04:42.383 It can be that simple. 04:42.383 --> 04:47.529 Because people look at what's being done on the ISS or at Artemis and say: "You can't 04:47.529 --> 04:50.843 possibly fake something like that. You're crazy!" 04:50.843 --> 04:56.123 You think they're just doing a parabolic flight that only lasts 20 seconds and all that. 04:56.123 --> 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. 05:02.790 --> 05:09.440 In another video you see enthusiastic people allegedly taking photos of the Artemis astronauts. 05:09.440 --> 05:14.463 Strangely enough, the astronauts do not exist on their cell phone displays. 05:14.463 --> 05:17.963 Which reality is true now? 05:17.963 --> 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. 05:25.790 --> 05:31.483 It's kind of strange, but when you look at what people are photographing here, you realize that 05:31.483 --> 05:34.896 there are no astronauts in the pictures at all. 05:34.896 --> 05:36.743 That's the strangest thing about it. 05:36.743 --> 05:39.162 I don't understand why that should be the case. 05:39.162 --> 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. 05:45.703 --> 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. 05:53.956 --> 05:55.963 I have questions, folks. 05:55.963 --> 05:59.300 There are no astronauts in this picture. 05:59.300 --> 06:07.363 Now I thought maybe this was an AI generation, but it's been going on for far too long. 06:07.363 --> 06:11.076 These people have correct words on their patches. 06:11.076 --> 06:13.496 I don't think that's AI. 06:13.496 --> 06:17.469 Well, I don't want to claim that I'm absolutely right. 06:17.469 --> 06:19.783 Maybe this scene was AI after all. 06:19.783 --> 06:25.663 Because honestly, I looked up that scene, and it was a little different. 06:25.663 --> 06:28.636 A little different from what I see here. 06:28.636 --> 06:34.316 So if you can prove that this is fake, that this is AI, great. 06:34.316 --> 06:40.143 That would actually answer a question for me, but right now I have questions. 06:40.143 --> 06:49.263 Observers raised the question of whether the space capsule was merely dropped from an airplane and never returned from space. 06:49.263 --> 06:56.128 Because at the time the capsule landed, a NASA aircraft was spotted right above the landing site. 06:56.128 --> 07:03.240 This conjecture would be supported by the fact that no water vapor was produced when the capsule plunged into the 07:03.240 --> 07:11.310 ocean, although the temperature of the outer capsule could reach over 2,700°C according to official figures. 07:11.310 --> 07:17.816 Someone has been tracking the flights that took place in the area where the Artemis II landed in the sea. 07:17.816 --> 07:21.950 And it was precisely this interesting aircraft that caught his eye. 07:21.950 --> 07:28.576 So he typed in: "What is that?" ... "NASA, a NASA airplane." 07:28.576 --> 07:33.180 Could it have been the plane that dropped the capsule into the sea? 07:33.180 --> 07:39.043 Look, I know a lot of people think this is far-fetched, like you're making it up. 07:39.043 --> 07:42.240 You have no proof of that. 07:42.240 --> 07:49.043 Another oddity: Trump speaks of a delay in the radio signals of nine seconds due to the allegedly 07:49.043 --> 07:53.963 enormous distance between the space capsule and Earth. 07:53.963 --> 07:58.816 In the video, a woman can be heard saying that she has adjusted the fans and that the crew 07:58.816 --> 08:02.336 should raise their thumbs if everything feels good. 08:02.336 --> 08:08.783 However, an astronaut can be seen raising his thumb even before the woman has finished her sentence. 08:08.783 --> 08:12.928 Judge for yourself how the other crew members react. 08:12.928 --> 08:18.585 Was the crew close by, on Earth, and not far away in space? 08:18.585 --> 08:23.690 Here you can see that they can't keep up with what they're supposed to be doing. 08:23.690 --> 08:29.243 They should pretend that there is a delay of about nine seconds because they are so far away. 08:29.243 --> 08:34.870 But when you are in a studio somewhere on earth, there is no such delay. 08:34.870 --> 08:40.256 You can tell there are a few glitches when they're trying to remember this whole delay thing. 08:40.256 --> 08:42.530 They are talking to each other. 08:42.530 --> 08:45.216 A woman says: "I've adjusted the fans. 08:45.216 --> 08:48.116 Give me a thumbs-up if it feels good." 08:48.116 --> 08:52.649 And the guy gives her a thumbs-up before she's even finished her sentence. 08:52.649 --> 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." 08:59.950 --> 09:04.668 And then suddenly they all give him a thumbs-up and he says, "Oh, hey!" along the lines of: 09:04.668 --> 09:08.634 "Hey, that's the first time I've ever given a thumbs-up. That feels great." 09:08.634 --> 09:10.016 Listen, that's crazy. 09:10.016 --> 09:12.620 "And we have adjusted the fan speed. 09:12.620 --> 09:17.180 Give me a thumbs up if you're happy with it." 09:17.180 --> 09:19.780 Oh, look at his face. 09:19.780 --> 09:21.940 You show the thumbs-up. 09:21.940 --> 09:27.023 And now he goes: "Hey!", this guy. "Oh, man." 09:27.023 --> 09:34.720 This situation in which she asks for a thumbs up and he does it immediately is clear proof. 09:34.720 --> 09:39.736 Let me rewind so that you can see that they are talking normally. 09:39.736 --> 09:45.710 For some reason he doesn't give her a thumbs-up, apart from the "reply" to the lady: 09:45.710 --> 09:54.803 "We are three minutes ahead of the scheduled start time and have adjusted the fan speed." 09:56.503 --> 10:04.400 "Oh, man," the lady even said, "thumbs up." 10:06.820 --> 10:10.080 More and more people are distrusting the NASA narrative. 10:10.080 --> 10:14.920 Critical comments and videos about inconsistencies are therefore piling up online. 10:14.920 --> 10:19.644 The media, which has been brought into line, together with so-called "fact checkers" try to 10:19.644 --> 10:22.676 explain away these obvious mistakes afterwards. 10:22.676 --> 10:30.207 For example, Swiss Radio and Television (SRF), which ran a "fact check" on the question of why the cloud formations 10:30.207 --> 10:34.976 on the Artemis images of the globe always look the same. 10:34.976 --> 10:43.257 SRF asked an "expert" to speak, whose answer was indeed that "clouds move quite slowly over the earth's surface" and 10:43.257 --> 10:49.088 "cloud formations look similar over a long period of time". 10:49.088 --> 10:54.780 Are readers once again supposed to believe the experts over their own observations? 10:54.780 --> 10:58.780 Seen from the ground, the sky is constantly changing. 10:58.780 --> 11:03.523 The cloud images in every weather app also change significantly within a few hours. 11:03.523 --> 11:05.720 - That doesn't go together. 11:05.720 --> 11:12.380 It seems as if every effort is being made to prevent this obvious deception from being exposed. 11:12.380 --> 11:16.608 Who actually has an interest in this and why? 11:16.608 --> 11:24.880 Critics have been questioning NASA's credibility for some time now, pointing to countless inconsistencies. 11:24.880 --> 11:32.064 Below you can see some examples of video editing of official NASA footage. 11:32.064 --> 11:34.683 Look closely. 11:39.433 --> 11:44.234 Well? Discovered what? Here again. 11:44.234 --> 11:48.653 Still haven't seen anything? Let's go into detail, zoom in and slow down the shot. 11:48.653 --> 11:51.799 The microphone cable starts to move wildly. 11:51.799 --> 11:56.960 The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch. 11:56.960 --> 12:03.920 Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed above or below the 12:03.920 --> 12:10.623 hand when the hand is moved quickly and so it virtually merges with it or passes through the hand. 12:10.623 --> 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. 12:17.163 --> 12:21.816 The image calculation software does not get the so-called collision detection right. 12:21.816 --> 12:29.463 In other words, it cannot track exactly which picture element should collide with which and thus cause repulsion. 12:29.463 --> 12:33.856 In this way, the hand becomes a passing, non-colliding object. 12:33.856 --> 12:37.060 I hope that was halfway understandable. 12:37.060 --> 12:41.240 The phantom microphone a little further back in the movie is also nice to look at. 12:41.240 --> 12:42.953 Now it's here. 12:42.953 --> 12:44.826 Now it's gone. Back again. 12:44.826 --> 12:46.913 Gone again. And back again. 12:46.913 --> 12:51.070 Yes, the image calculation went really wrong. 12:51.070 --> 12:57.583 The microphone clearly comes from 3D software and was calculated into the scene completely incorrectly. 12:57.583 --> 13:02.883 It can't be a camera error, because cameras simply record whatever comes in front of their lens. 13:02.883 --> 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 13:09.745 --> 13:13.503 cable, but would affect the entire image, or large parts of it. 13:13.503 --> 13:19.854 Firstly, this microphone: first it glitches, then the light reflections that were there before 13:19.854 --> 13:25.436 are gone - immediately from one image to the next. 13:25.436 --> 13:31.022 Secondly, astronaut actor Don Pettit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space. 13:31.022 --> 13:34.170 Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality. 13:34.170 --> 13:40.922 The end of the clip is crucial, because - oops - here the coffee suddenly separates from the 13:40.922 --> 13:44.983 container and pops out of it without losing its shape. 13:44.983 --> 13:51.535 The color layer is clearly detached from the shape layer, which is only possible if the object originates 13:51.535 --> 13:54.103 from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong. 13:54.103 --> 13:59.081 A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its images with virtual 13:59.081 --> 14:02.516 reality. This is also the case here in the third example: 14:02.516 --> 14:07.136 A plush figure appears out of nowhere and can even be interacted with live. 14:07.136 --> 14:13.037 At first I thought the object could have been hidden behind a so-called mask, but you can see the 14:13.037 --> 14:16.608 actress's hand shining through it for a few frames. 14:16.608 --> 14:23.690 So the object was blended and not made visible from a mask, which would eliminate the other possibility. 14:23.690 --> 14:28.910 This one is also brilliant: no glitch, but a nice editing error. 14:28.910 --> 14:33.240 Have you seen it? Again at 15% speed: 14:33.240 --> 14:38.125 It disappears into thin air like a ghost, including an environmental error on the 14:38.125 --> 14:41.586 left-hand side, where a few objects slip upwards. 14:41.586 --> 14:48.256 A so-called soft aperture has been installed here, which allows the transition between two scenes to be smooth. 14:48.256 --> 14:55.560 It's just stupid when such fades appear in supposedly unedited videos, where they simply shouldn't exist. 15:00.512 --> 15:05.223 Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in. 15:05.223 --> 15:11.540 We see magicians on board the ISS who simply appear out of nowhere with an insertion sequence. 15:11.540 --> 15:15.240 David Copperfield would be green with envy. 15:15.240 --> 15:20.136 Here is a layer error: You can see a shadow on this white rectangle in the background. 15:20.136 --> 15:24.363 And now take a close look at what happens to the head of the rear performer. 15:24.363 --> 15:31.018 The computer calculates part of the said shadow one level in front of the astro actor, which is why his head 15:31.018 --> 15:34.796 is initially partially covered by it, as if by a lintel. 15:34.796 --> 15:41.463 But then the head moves through the shadow plane, which creates a logic problem for the software. 15:41.463 --> 15:47.520 The bald head first connects with the shadow and then melts through it. 15:47.520 --> 15:50.430 Clear CGI calculation error. 15:50.430 --> 15:56.199 In the next shot, the so-called tracking, i.e. object tracking, goes badly wrong: 15:56.199 --> 15:59.213 The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone. 15:59.213 --> 16:04.454 Now this hand is pulled away and without a correction movement, but with a nasty graphic glitch, the 16:04.454 --> 16:07.712 fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone. 16:07.712 --> 16:10.930 But it gets really funny when you return your hand. 16:10.930 --> 16:18.936 The fingers literally slide under the left hand without any resistance, which simply doesn't work physically. 16:18.936 --> 16:24.396 The computer's efforts to produce a clean image are clearly visible. 16:24.396 --> 16:32.149 You can clearly see the cut edges around the fingers as dark outlines and even eroded fingertips. 16:32.149 --> 16:39.355 No, dear NASA fans, these are NOT transmission errors. 16:39.355 --> 16:46.541 Probably seen unintentionally: Ask yourselves why a green screen is needed behind the ISS 16:46.541 --> 16:51.543 if all the space shots are supposed to be real. 16:51.543 --> 16:56.670 We are therefore heading towards a time when clear evidence of forgery due to negligent or 16:56.670 --> 17:02.020 unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur. 17:02.020 --> 17:10.226 This is obviously heavily edited footage that is presented to the public as authentic and genuine. 17:10.226 --> 17:12.832 This raises the following questions, for example: 17:12.832 --> 17:18.472 Why do astronauts suddenly vanish into thin air in official NASA videos? 17:18.472 --> 17:27.008 Why were six out of seven crew members of the Challenger still alive in 2017 according to image and video analysis? 17:27.008 --> 17:31.596 Allegedly all of them died in the 1986 explosion. 17:31.596 --> 17:34.962 Why are most astronauts Freemasons? 17:34.962 --> 17:40.280 Where is all the money really going if the Artemis program is a sham? 17:40.280 --> 17:46.310 This has so far cost around 93 billion dollars and is mainly financed with taxpayers' money. 17:46.310 --> 17:56.360 Question flimsy answers presented under the guise of "fact checks" and "expert opinions" and form your own opinion. 17:56.360 --> 18:00.960 If this program has given you food for thought, don't keep it to yourself. 18:00.960 --> 18:08.713 Help spread these facts and encourage others to think about NASA's inconsistencies.