Transcription
NASA continues to release new images and videos from their latest moon mission, exposing themselves more with each one. Meanwhile, backpedaling space fantasy fanboys are working overtime making excuses for all the anomalies and inconsistencies.
Let's start with a quick slideshow of some of the new Earth and Moon images being given to the public, claimed to be real handheld photographs taken by astronauts through windows in a rocket flying at speeds between 3,000 and 22,000 mph. Most things filmed outside through your car window going just 65 mph are a blur. Yet NASA never seems to have this problem, even at the incredible speeds they claim to attain. To a discerning eye, the colors, lighting, and textures in these pictures are all very synthetic and unrealistic, looking much more like CGI than actual photography.
Here is actual video of the moon taken from Earth by a Nikon P900 Super Zoom camera. We can see the moon's color, lighting, and textures from Earth in amazing detail with just an 83 time zoom camera, which first of all suggests the moon isn't 240,000 m away as claimed, but also shows how unnatural and unrealistic the new Aremis images actually are. Even AI bots that are trained to detect and differentiate real photographs from CGI are claiming the new NASA images are fake. In 2026, with the level of realism that CGI, AI, and deep fake technologies have achieved, to see these images and not be at least a little suspicious, if they could possibly be fake, is frankly disingenuous and gullible beyond belief.
Let's look at this image called a setting Earth. Notice how clear the craters, shadows, and subtle textures appear. It looks like the camera is only a few dozen or at most a few hundred miles away from the moon's surface, being generous. NASA claims, however, that at its nearest, Artemis 2 was never any closer than 4,000 m away from the moon. Now, let's compare that with the following Apollo 11 image from 1969, where the astronauts were supposedly only 60 m away from the lunar surface. Look at the difference in detail between 60 m away and 4,000 m away. Why does everything look far more textured and detailed from 4,000 m away than it does from 60? Could it be because photo fakery has come a long way since the 60s and it actually has nothing to do with their supposed distance from the moon? Notice how much more detailed the lighting, shadows, textures, and contrast are on the Aremis moon images.
Also, as a quick aside, if all of these moon craters were supposedly created by meteor impacts hitting the surface, how is it even remotely possible that every single meteor arrives at a straight 90° above the surface's zenith? Every crater is a perfect circle. None of them are oblong or elongated as they would have to be if meteors were actually striking from all angles.
Now, let's look at this image called a distant crescent of home. Notice first of all the wonky shape and how both the tiny Earth and the moon appear to be smooshed from top to bottom. This is similar to the effect seen during the live stream when during one section of time the moon drastically changed shape from a circle to a potato. In this image, the crew was allegedly 40,000 m away from the lunar surface and 252,000 m away from Earth. Earth's diameter is supposedly four times wider than the moon. While visually in this picture, the moon's diameter is at least four times wider than the Earth. Being generous, it actually appears five or six times. Now, doing the math, 252,000 / 40,000 is 6.3, meaning the crew was 6.3 times closer to the moon than the Earth. But for an object that's actually four times smaller to appear four times larger, the observer must be situated 16 times closer to the smaller object. In this case, however, Artemis is only 6.3 times closer to the moon than Earth. That is a factor of over 10x discrepancy between the relative size and alleged distances of these two objects in the camera. The Earth should appear considerably larger in this picture.
Now compare it back with the setting Earth picture we analyzed first. Here we are supposedly 4,000 mi from the lunar surface and approximately 243,000 mi away from Earth. So compared to the last image where the crew was 252,000 mi away from Earth, here the crew is only 9,000 mi closer to Earth than in that image. That is a factor of approximately 4%, meaning the size of the Earth should only change a maximum of 4% between the two pictures. In reality, however, and you can measure this for yourself with a ruler and the original nasa.gov images, the Earth changes size a factor of over 1,000% between the two pictures. The Earth is only 4% closer in the second image, but yet appears 1,000% larger.
There was a similar size discrepancy in the images sent from Artemis claimed to be halfway to the moon. During their live stream, they stated they were halfway to the moon and yet the moon appeared much smaller than it does on Earth. In their hello world image here, only a portion of Africa and a bunch of ocean is shown, leaving the entire other six continents to impossibly fit on the other 50% of their CGI globe. In addition to this, they took another similar shot called Dark Side of the Earth, where the exact same cloud patterns are shown as in Hello World. Some people are claiming these images were taken only minutes apart from one another. But as you can see directly from nasa.gov, they state that one was taken on April 2nd and the other was taken on April 3rd. Either way, if they were taken on different days, how could the clouds stay the same? And if NASA has written it wrong on their own website and these were taken the same day, how can the brightness of Earth change so much when the sun, the only light source in space, is fully eclipsed by the Earth? They also show Earth images like this, where part of the Earth globe is completely dark, hidden behind a terminator line. How is it that Earth can be shown three totally different ways like this? fully lit, dimly lit, and completely dark.
Finally, let's take a look at some video glitches proving they are using CGI, or more specifically, augmented virtual reality, to create all the floating objects the crew interacts with on the spacecraft. They are constantly playing with stuffed toys, their food, the microphone, and other objects to convince the public that they're really floating in outer space and not simply suspended on wires in a studio. But watch as this food pouch spins near this astronaut's face. You can see as the edge grazes his forehead, it glitches out and goes right through rather than realistically touching his face. There is no change in direction of the pouch from hitting his head and instead it just continues floating right through as if he wasn't there at all.
Now pay attention to the red spot on the white pouch. As the pouch spins around slowly, the red dot doesn't spin with the pouch. For several frames, you can see the red dot stay in exactly the same shape and space, not realistically moving and turning with the rest of the bag. Then, as the bag continues to turn, at one point you can see the red dot just vanishes completely. For several turns, the bag continues spinning around, but the red dot is nowhere to be found. And then finally after some more turns the red dot mysteriously and inexplicably reappears. This is because these are digital and not physical objects which they are interacting with using a technology called augmented virtual reality. By wearing special VR contact lenses, you are able to see a digital overlay of pre-rendered interactable 3D objects within your physical 3D space. The objects do not exist in physical space, but are seen and interactable live in real time through the use of this technology.
Remember, NASA takes over $70 million per day of American taxpayer money. A big budget Hollywood movie like Gravity starring Sandra Bulock was filmed 100% on Earth using nothing but wires, green screens, and CGI. That movie cost 100 million to make. That's NASA's budget for a day and a half. Imagine what kind of movie can be made with NASA's yearly budget of $24 billion. In fact, you don't have to imagine because this entire Artemis 2 charade and everything else from NASA is exactly that, a big budget Hollywood production made with the express purpose of disseminating this propaganda into the minds of the masses. The loyal NASA fanboy sickopants will try to make excuses and brush these impossible anomalies and wild discrepancies under the rug, but the more discerning amongst us are waking up. And I'm seeing this Artemis mission backfire as many more people are finally seeing through the lies.