In order to undermine the true conspiracies, the CIA has found a tactique: It uses agents who propagate weird insane conspiracies, like they were "whistleblowers", and they mix with them the true conspiracies, giving for them weak, not convicing, easily debunkable arguments.
David Icke is a well known so called conspiracist; you probably, like myself, receive mails from him advertising for books he has written to supposedly expose the new world order of which he claims to be a whistleblower.
According to him, not only the moon landing would be fake, but we would furthermore be invaded by aliens, and our leaders would be disguised reptilians or lizards.
It is sure that, with a such conception, moon hoaxers must be regarded as deranged, total nuts, if they associate their belief in the moon hoax with such weird and insane conceptions.
But is David Icke sincere in his convictions?
In this video I am going to show that I more than doubt about it!
David Icke has published what he calls to be a huge list of moon landing hoax evidence.
What is this huge list worth?
I am going to show that this evidence is worth absolutely nothing, that it is total bullshit, and that, if this is all the anti conspiracists know about the moon hoax, no wonder that they take the moon hoaxers for nuts, for I would also do if myself I was not knowing more about it.
He first says, showing a crosshair on the center of the image: "This + indicates camera lens axis but man's shadow does not seem to point camera that way".
This is a completely incorrect assumption, the position of the photographer's shadow on the image depends on the orientation of the camera relatively to the sun, as this animation shows; when the photographer has the sun right in his back, the photographer's shadow is always on the middle of the image, and is not in profile; if he pivots on the right from this position, his shadow moves on the left, and it is in profile oriented right; conversely, if he pivots on the left from the central position, his shadow moves on the right, and it is in profile oriented left; it always works that way.
So, first assumption of David Icke completely wrong!
Then he shows shadows which are not parallel; but it is normal that they are not parallel when they are vertical, which happens when the photographer has the sun in his back or in front of him; it is only when they are horizontal, which happens when the photographer has the sun on his side, that they are parallel.
This animation shows examples taken by anti moon hoaxers of unparallel shadows.
This destroys the argument of David Icke.
However, these unparallel shadows have a very remarkable property: They always converge toward a common point.
And this is something which can be checked on the photos of Apollo.
And precisely, if we prolong the shadows on the photo of Apollo 11 shown by David Icke, we can see that they don't converge on a common point, and that is the real anomaly!
An anomaly which has not been pointed out by David Icke who showed instead a WRONG anomaly.
Some moon hoaxers also say that it should not be possible to see the shadow of the photographer's legs on the photo he takes; it is the case if he takes the photo on a horizontal surface, but the photographer can take his legs on his shadow if he takes the photo on a descent, like I show on the photo of the right I have taken myself as I was on a descending road, but you can see that my shadow is not at all homogeneous; see how the shadow of the bust and especially the head is small relatively to the one of the legs; we don't see this distortion on the astronaut's shadow of the photo of Apollo 11.
So, instead of showing real problems, David Icke shows wrong ones, and has a weird conception of photography which would make laugh any competent photographic expert (including myself).
On this photo, David Icke shows again something completely wrong.
He shows the central crosshair that he claims to be the "Direction of sunlight casting shadow of Surveyor3".
But this is not at all the direction of the sunlight if we consider the position of the photographer's shadow on the photo; the fact that the photographer's shadow appears on the left means that he has the sun a little on his right.
And it is absolutely not abnormal that the photographer's shadow and Surveyor's shadow are not parallel; what is abnormal is that Surveyor's shadow bends too much relatively to the photographer's shadow.
I show here a photograph taken myself; I have put two trashbins close to myself, and you can see that the shadows of these two trashbins both bend toward my shadow, but moderately, not as much as Surveyor's shadow.
So, once again, David Icke draws a completely wrong conclusion, either showing an ignorance of photography, or an intention of misleading people.
Then David Icke shows this photo of diverging shadows.
This time the shadows are horizontally oriented, so it could be abnormal.
However Goddard Center has made a demonstration which shows that it is not necessarily abnormal (and the mythbusters have reproduced this demonstration), for the simple reason that the relief of the rock can deviate the shadow, and bend it.
However, unintentionally, Goddard has itself proven the anomaly, for, look at the end of the rock's shadow on the photo of Apollo 14 and on the photo of Goddard: It does not end the same; Goddard claims to have exactly reproduced the rock of the photo of Apollo 14 (and Goddard does not support the moon hoax), and yet the shadow it projects is not the same as the one of the rock of the photo of Apollo 14!
Once again David Icke has misled people in not showing the real problem.
One piece of evidence which is also often shown is that the lunar module can be visible on a photo of Apollo 15, and is not on another photo on which we can see the same hill in the background.
However, it is absolutely not abnormal that we can't see the lunar module on the second photo, for the simple reason that this second photo is taken from a different point of view.
On this schema extracted from the mission report of Apollo 15, the red cross indicates the position of the lunar module, the green cross indicates the position that the first photograph was taken from, and the blue cross indicates the position that the second photograph was taken from; the hills are on the bottom of the schema.
This explains why the lunar module, visible on the first photo, could not be on the second one, there is nothing abnormal about this.
It is true that the lunar module is not visible either on the other photos of the panoramic taken on the second point of view, but a possible argument could be that the second point of view was too distant for the lunar module to be visible on the panoramic made at this point.
However, there are other problems which have no excuse, but of course Icke would never mention them.
You can see that the lunar module is quite close to the hills in the background relatively to their height.
In reality, the "hills" in the background were mountains which were quite high, but they also were very distant from the landing site, kilometers away.
This means that there is no way that the lunar module could be seen so close to these mountains on the photo of Apollo 15.
We should rather have seen something like this photo I have modified to put the mountains of the background farther away from the lunar module.
And there is still better.
On two adjacent photos of Apollo 15 (AS15-82-11057 and AS15-82-11056), we can see two reflections of the sun, one small very luminous one, and one bigger lighter one, and if we draw a line between the centers of these reflections, this line must meet the sun.
Example on AS15-82-11057:
And on AS15-82-11056:
And now, if we make a panoramic with these two photos, and we prolong the lines of reflections, these two lines must cross on the sun.
But we can see that these two lines, which should meet just above the top of the photos, meet much too high to be both caused by the sun.
The only possible conclusion is that these reflections cannot have been caused by the immobile sun, but by a spotlight instead which has been moved between the two photos.
But of course, David Icke would NEVER have mentioned this valid anomaly!
Then David Icke shows this stereoscopic view with this legend: "I bet you thought the lunar sky was solid black? Wrong subtraction of yellow and blue from the chroma scale reveals that the studio lighting representing the sun is reflecting on the background".
Once again, it is a completely delirious explanation; what we see on the right is simply a reflection on the camera's lens, and his explanation proves strictly nothing.
But David Icke would never have shown us the true anomaly which is that the boot's shadow is abnormaly thin compared with the leg's one.
Then David Icke claims that we can already see the rover's tracks while the rover is not unpacked yet, and he shows us what he claims to be the rover's package.
But in reality it is not at all the rover's package, but the ALSEP's one.
The ALSEP is the set of instruments which were supposed to make measurements on the moon.
Instead of showing us a wrong anomaly, Icke would never have shown us the real anomaly which is that the shadow of the rendez-vous antenna is oversized relatively to the LM's one!
Then David Icke shows us a photo of Pete Conrad taken by Alan Bean in Apollo 12, pointing at a reflection on the visor which is "suspicious", of which he gives his own interpretation, like it was the only possible thing which could be said about this photo.
Yet, there are things which can be said about this photo:
1) Conrad is holding a core tube which he holds against his body, and therefore we should see the shadow of this core tube between his arm and his body on the reflection of his shadow in his visor, and we don't.
2) The reflection of Conrad's camera on his visor is strange; it seems to have legs.
He also shows this stereoscopic view with this legend: "Camera pointed at studio lights causes lens flares";
Completely wrong again, for the camera does not point at the studio lights.
David Icke would naver have mentioned a real point.
On a spherical reflecting surface, the height of the sun's reflection depends on the elevation of the sun.
The astronauts have the same spherical visor, the sun is the same for both of them, so the sun's reflection should be at the same height on both of their visors.
But you can see that, while the sun's reflection is on the top of Bean's visor, the sun's reflection is lower on Conrad's one.
There is also the fact that the horizon line which appears in the reflection of the visor is aligned with the horizon line which is behind Alan Bean.
And also there is another shrewd point which can be pointed at when one knows about the projection of objects on a reflecting surface (like the astronauts' visors).
When I take a photo so that a mirror appears oriented right, my own reflection also appears oriented right.
Conversely, if I had taken the photo so that the mirror was appearing oriented left, my own reflection would also have appeared oriented left.
We can see that, on the photo of Alan Bean, he appears oriented left; so the reflection of Pete Conrad should also appear oriented left, but it appears oriented right instead as you can see (it is very visible on his helmet).
There is even better: on the visor's reflection, PETE CONRAD DOES NOT WEAR HIS BACKPACK!
How does he manage to breathe?
These are valid points, but of course David Icke would never have mentioned them.
Then David Icke shows photos of Apollo 11, and describes completely meaningless anomalies for these photos, which prove absolutely nothing.
Yet, there are very simple obvious simple things to say about these photos when we COMPARE them.
While on a photo a lem's window appears dark, it appears lit on the next one.
And while on a photo there is a metallic bar which comes across a luminous object, on the second photo, this metallic bar is still lit, but the object it comes across now appears dark.
I think you have understood by now: David Icke never mentions a SINGLE valid anomaly; he makes up wrong photographic rules which would make him the laughing stock of any real photographic expert (including myself; even if I would not call myself a photographic expert, I still know enough about photography to see that the rules he edicts are pure bullshit!).
Is David Icke an idiot for as much?
No, I don't think so, I think he is doing it on purpose, to INTENTIONALLY mislead people, and make believe that moon hoaxers are deluded idiots who have no valid point.
Furthermore systematically showing wrong points on the moon landing hoax, David Icke also discredits the conspiracists by associating a crippled view of the moon hoax with completely delirious conspiracies, like aliens invading the world to take it over, leaders of our world being hidden reptilians, or lizards hiding among us.
Icke also mixes the moon hoax with the delirious theory of the flat earth, or hollow earth, or earth taking various unusual shapes.
How do you want people, when all they know about the moon hoax is the views of David Icke, not to consider the moon hoaxers as deranged people?
I would also do if I had not studied the moon hoax in great depth!
The truth is that David Icke is absolutely not a whistleblower of the new world order.
The truth is that David icke is a servant of Soros, that he is very probably paid by him to disinform you and mislead you.
When you buy a book of David Icke, where do you think that the money goes to?
Into Soros' pocket of course!
Who finances David Icke so that you all receive mails from him to read one of his books "exposing the new world order"?
George Soros of course.
By publishing his weird propaganda, Icke is simply serving the purposes of Soros, which is to discredit the real conspiracies by drowning them with delirious absurd ones, and by giving fake not credible arguments for the real ones.
And David Icke is not alone, there are plenty of other propagandists paid by Soros, like Eric Dubay and Matt Boylan (along with many other ones), who claim to be whistleblowers who fight against the new world order, but who are serving it instead, by making up completely weird absurd conspiracies, like the flat earth, and giving fake not convincing arguments for real conspiracies like the moon hoax.
All these "conspiracists" in fact work for George Soros, and are paid by him to midlead us and disinform us, and make those who swallow their delirious theories the laughing stock of "reasonable" people, who assimilate the serious moon hoax with completely absurd theories, with the conclusion that the moon hoax can only come out of a deranged mind.
For instance, they show this sequence supposed to prove that the sequence of Armstrong descending on the moon is fake.
But in fact this sequence has not been filmed in the time of Apollo, but much later, for an advertising, and so it proves absolutely nothing.
I am going to tell you something: I agree with the anti conspiracists that the people who believe in the weird theories of aliens, reptilians, lizards, flat earth absurdities, who deny the normal space exploration, the satellites, are complete NUTS!
They deserve to be mocked at, and I join with the anti conspiracists to mock at them!
Yes, if you believe in these complete absurdities, you are absolute idiots!
You feel offended?
Good, I want you to feel offended, because, by swallowing these idiocies, you undermine the work of the serious conspiracists, you fulfil the purpose of George Soros, you deserve my contempt!
Come back to your senses, and concentrate on the real problem, the real conspiracies which make sense!
As long as you believe in these stupidities, I'll consider that you are on the evil side, the side of George Soros, because you undermine my work to expose him!
What's currently happening in the world should be clear by now.
Only blind people cannot see it.
The globalists are progressively spreading chaos everywhere by destroying democratic countries that they claim to be led by a dictator.
They have successively destroyed, either directly or indirectly, Iraq, Libya, and (almost) Syria.
They use Ukraine to weaken Russia.
They use violent jihadists, that they show as being very cruel and inhumane.
Even Buddhism is not spared, and is also shown as being cruel and inhumane.
The intent is very clear: The globalists want to destroy all the religions, all of them, including christianism and judaism.
They all must disappear.
And what is the purpose of all these fantastic exploits NASA claims it is able to do, though it obviously does not currently have the technical capabilities of making them?
The answer is very clear to me: Look at the expressions of all these people who watch the fantastic exploit of Apollo 11: they reflect FASCINATION!
A fascination which eases the creation of a new religion which must replace all the existing ones, which must become the only religion as a cement for a new unified world.
A religion in which man is powerful enough to be his own GOD!
I have discussed both with creationists and Apollo worshippers; though they are completely opposed in their beliefs, THEY EXACTLY HAVE THE SAME STATE OF MIND!
No argument will convince them, no proof can shake their beliefs!
I have always thought that George Soros was financing NASA to fake space exploits.
I recently have had the confirmation of it in an article.
When I have read the technical description of New Horizons, what I have read was not making the least sense, it was violating all the normal rules of space travel.
This does not mean that the engineers are incompetent, this means that they don't agree with the machiavelical plan of George Soros, and try to expose him indirectly since they can't do it directly.
George Soros, along with his disciples, is a fanatic, and he will not hesitate to eliminate whoever comes across his way, which means that those who serve him cannot directly expose him, and can only use indirect ways to do it.
Please open your eyes, see what is going on!