Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee Gives The Most Hilarious Speech About The Moon You Have Ever Heard

Democrat members of Congress are not exactly known for being super intelligent.

And Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters go to the top of the “no super intelligent list”.

Anyone remember when Maxine Waters said she was going to get to the bottom of this whole “Bitcom” thing?  (erroneously referrring to Bitcoin)

That’s a face only God and her mother could love…

Yikes!

But that’s not even the best part….then she did it again later!

ADVERTISEMENT

As we leave Maxine so she can keep focusing on getting to the bottom of the “Bitcom” case, we now go to her colleague Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who has some very entertaining thoughts about the Moon.

Here’s a quick summary of what is Trending on Twitter:

Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D) recently made a statement suggesting that the moon is “made up mostly of gases,” sparking a widespread discussion and fact-checking across social media. The comment has led to a mix of humorous reactions and serious clarifications, with many online users expressing disbelief or confusion. Some highlighted the lack of an atmosphere on the moon, while others humorously suggested the moon is made of cheese. This event has underscored the importance of scientific literacy in public discourse, with some questioning the Congresswoman’s understanding of basic astronomy.

Watch here:

While most people are focusing on the fact she thinks the Moon is made up mostly of gases, I don’t think that’s even the best part….

I think the best part is when she says it would be nearly impossible for us to land on the Sun!

That is such an underrated part of the clip, I don’t know how that’s not getting more attention!

The Sun is almost too hot to live in — how brilliant Sheila!

Now I can clearly see how you rose to such a prominent position in life to become a member of Congress!

ADVERTISEMENT

Because this clip is solid gold, I have a third backup just in case we need it:

I actually don’t think we should mock her too much about the gases comment….

I am not at all convinced we ever went to the Moon, and I am also not at all convinced we truly know what the Moon is made of.

It very well could be made of plasma.

After all, do you know what the Bible tells us?

The Bible tells us God made TWO lights in the sky.

ADVERTISEMENT

Did you know that?

It doesn’t say God made one light and one reflector of light.

Read it, it says point blank — from Genesis 1:16, which says, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

He made TWO lights.

Not one light and one reflector.

Things to ponder!

Also worth pondering whether we ever went to the Moon in the first place…

I know this is going to make a lot of people flare up with some extreme Cognitive Dissonance and you’ll write angry comments below and send me angry emails, but I’m sorry we operate in reality here and all signs point to the fact that we very possibly never landed on the Moon 50 years ago…

Here’s why:

“Was The Moon Landing Fake?”

Was the Moon Landing Fake?

That’s not my question…

That was Patrick Bet-David’s question to Avi Loeb, the author of “Interstellar”.

ADVERTISEMENT

I found the clip to be very fascinating.

The short answer from Avi?

No.

The reason?

Moon Rocks.

Yes, really.

I’ll let you watch below, but what I find most compelling is exactly what PBD brings up when he questions Loeb.

To me, the single-most compelling question or piece of evidence is not camera angles, or “wrong shadows” in old footage, or foot prints on the moon, or strange landscapes…

All of that is interesting, but to me it’s not the PRIME thing.

To me, the primary question is a simple and basic one: why did we (we meaning all of Earth) go to the Moon in 1969 and then just never go back for over 50 years?

Have we EVER gone back?

Many say we haven’t.

So….did we really go the first time?

THAT is the question.

Watch Pat ask Ari:

It’s actually not the first time PBD has gone down this road.

Pat is a smart guy….VERY smart.

Intuitive.

I think he knows something is very wrong here.

Check out his prior interview with Bart Sibrel.

I think from that interview to this latest one with Ari, I sense Pat becoming more and more skeptical of the original Moon Landing story.

Maybe that’s just me, but I can feel it.

Pat was skeptical to Bart about his claims it was fake, but flash forward and Pat now seems much more skeptical of the original story itself.

Check it out:

FACT CHECKED: So We Never Actually Landed On The Moon?

Earlier today I was joking around on Twitter and I posted this Tweet below…

Read this.

But read it slowly:

If you don’t get it, read it again.

It’s a joke.

A stolen joke, I admit it.

It was a throwaway joke from the inimitable Norm Macdonald.

Miss that guy so much, but at least we have YouTube.

Anyway, back to the serious topic at hand.

While I was joking in the tweet above, a very serious question remains: Did we truly go to the moon back in 1969?

I smell a FACT-CHECK coming!

Now you might think that’s a crazy question, but if you start to dig into it you quickly realize there is a very logical, rational, and evidence-based argument to claim that no, we did not.

COULD not have done it even if we wanted to!

So I wanted to show this interview to you.

This is Patrick Bet David, a guy who I’ve really come to respect.

PBD plays it right down in the middle in this one, challenging his guest Bart Sibrel but doing it respectfully and allowing him to state his case.

And his case is remarkable clear.

Some people get caught up in analyzing the photos and the shadows and all this other nonsense or the reflections in the glass and claiming it was faked because of some really hard to follow technical details.

Sibrel doesn’t do that.

He simply states a very clear and logical case that goes like this:

In order to believe we landed on the moon in 1969 you have to believe this simple claim:

That we went 1,000 times FARTHER than we can currently send astronauts today…

50 years ago…

On the first attempt…

With one-millionth the computing power of today’s cell phone!

In fact, Werner von Braun, the lead scientist of the space mission for NASA, stated the odds of them going to the moon, successfully, with 1960s technolgoy, was a 1 in 10,000 chance!

That’s your lead brainiac saying that!

There is no other example in history where we achieved a technological advancement and then 50 years later could not replicate it.

No other example in history.

In every other example, we are not only replicating it but exceeding it just a few years later.

Certainly, 50 years later the advancement from that first breakthrough is many multiples greater.

And yet, not so with the moon.

We haven’t been back.

No other country has been back.

In fact, NASA now says the technology to do it “hasn’t been invented yet!”

Why?

Because there’s a massive thing called the Van Allen Radiation Belts that would cook you alive!

The clip of the NASA rocket scientist saying that is right in the video below.

So without further adieu, I give you Patrick Bet David asking Bart Sibrel: was the moon landing FAKED?

Watch here:

Backup here:

If that caught your attention, let’s go much deeper…

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon…

WARNING!  WARNING!

Time for another installment of hard-hitting investigative journalism…where we aren’t afraid to create a little cognitive dissonance along the way!

Some of you will be very bothered by this article…

“How dare he question the moon landings!”

Sorry folks, but we don’t create the news here…we just report on it.

We also don’t create the “truth”…we just seek it out and set it free.

So buckle up buttercup, this could get bumpy for a few of you.

I can already hear many others saying “it’s about time Noah covered this!”

So here we go….

Did Buzz Aldrin just admit (again) that the moon landings were faked?

Well, it sure looks like it.

But we’ll give you all the evidence and let you decide.

A clip of Buzz Aldrin on Conan O’Brien’s Late Night Show from 2000 is suddenly going viral right now thanks to this post on TikTok:

@msmastafoxx

Wait Til The End…🧐 #MsMastaFoXX #MyCreatorLife #Buzz #buzzaldrin #Nasa #Conspiracy #conspiracytiktok #Woketok #Viral #fyp #conanobrien #MoonLanding

♬ original sound – MsMastaFoXX👽CF👁️Neocodeist🧬

In the clip, Buzz pretty clearly says the video of the astronauts walking on the moon was fake.

I don’t know how else you interpret that.

I mean, I know this is a comedy show, but nothing about this clip appears to be a joke or a bit.

Even Conan is taken aback and temporarily at a loss for how to respond (and it’s his job to never be caught off guard as a talk show host).

So watch the clip for yourself.

And for anyone shouting “CONTEXT!” I’ve got you covered.

Here is the full interview to watch the segment in context:

The Reuters Fact-Check team has already investigated and determined what you heard Buzz say is totally “False”.

Just another one we all got wrong!

God bless the fact-checkers, I don’t know where we’d be without them!

So somehow they’ve labeled this as “False” despite the part I bolded below where they seem to even admit that the footage is, in fact, mostly made of animations.

This is their full report:

Social media users are sharing a video of astronaut Buzz Aldrin being interviewed by American television host Conan O’Brien and claiming that Aldrin discussing parts of the moon landing broadcasts being animated is proof that it was all faked.

He was referring to animations used by broadcasters at the time in their coverage of the moon landing, intercut with real footage. The moon landing did take place and men did walk on the moon.

Examples of the erroneous social media posts can be seen ( here ) and ( here ).

A longer video of the interview, dated May 17, 2000, can be seen on YouTube ( here ).

At the 1:29 mark, O’Brien says: “Let’s talk about this because this is fascinating. I remember very clearly; I think anybody who was alive at the time does. I remember my parents waking me up and we went down, and we watched you guys land on the moon.”

Aldrin responds: “No, you didn’t. Because there wasn’t any television, there wasn’t anybody taking the picture. You watched animation so you associated what you saw with… you heard me talking about, you know, how many feet we’re going to the left and right and then I said contact light, engine stopped, a few other things and then Neil said ‘Houston, tranquility base. The Eagle has landed.’ How about that? Not a bad line.”

The moon landing took place on July 20, 1969 with astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. NASA said in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. However, in 2009 NASA released a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon ( here ).

A video compiled by CNN shows the available footage from the mission ( here ), including takeoff and the astronauts climbing down and walking on the moon.

An article ( here ) by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum explains the challenges of recording footage of the moon landing and walking.

NASA contracted with Westinghouse for a black and white camera costing $2.29 million to capture the iconic moment, according to the museum. Photographs of the camera, which was stored in the lunar module’s Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly near the ladder Armstrong can be seen climbing down, can be seen ( here ).

“For us today, we can thank technicians for having recorded the broadcast, though the tapes assumed to be of the highest quality were never located despite searches for them in the last few decades,” the article reads. “What we see now on YouTube or in films are high definition scans of those best available copies.”

An article by Vox ( here ) says some television networks built sets to recreate some of the moments that were not able to be captured on video.

The National Science and Media Museum discussed the Apollo 11 broadcast on its website ( here ): “Many broadcasters used simulations to flesh out their Apollo programming. Networks paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for scale models of Apollo command modules and rockets. During the broadcast, these were used to create simulations of the mission which were then intercut with real footage.”

“The thing to remember is what news was like in the late 1960’s, not 24-hour continuous coverage,” Margaret Weitekamp, Chair of the Space History Department at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, said by phone. “The coverage of that trip needed to be explained to the public without the ability for continuous relay of video we are now used to.”

“Animations would have been a part of a constellation of different ways that that story was told over a series of days. At the time, the coverage would have been combined with animations that helped provide a broader picture of what was being done. But this certainly doesn’t invalidate that those landings took place.”

There is no evidence that the moon landing was faked or that astronauts did not walk on the moon. However, there is plenty of evidence that it happened. Reports about the landing can be seen ( here ), ( here ) and ( here ).

Photographs of the moon landing can be seen ( here ), ( here ), and ( here ).

Reuters has previously debunked claims that the moon landing was faked ( here ), ( here ), ( here ).

VERDICT False. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin explaining that broadcasters used animations during their coverage of the moon landing does not prove that it was faked.

But that’s far from the first time Buzz has seemed to admit the whole thing was a fake.

You have to wonder if on his death bed Buzz will finally and unequivocally confess to the fake?

Watch this clip on Rumble where an 8-year old girl asks Buzz why we never went back to the moon after 1972…

A GREAT question!

Because there is no other example in recorded history where something new was discovered and then we just stopped going there.

Imagine discovering America in 1492 and then the Europeans just decided to never send another boat.

Right, didn’t happen.

Would never happen.

Doesn’t pass the smell test.

So watch this short clip where Buzz says the reason we never went back is because we never went in the first place!

It must have felt good to finally get that off his chest I guess?

And again, if you want the full context and full interview, I have that here:

Oh, then there was this gem…

Bart Sibrel (more on him in a minute) caught Buzz one day out on the street and he asked him something simple: swear on this Bible that you actual went to the moon.

Buzz becomes visibly agitated and then punches Bart in the face.

Watch:

https://twitter.com/HaymakerHub/status/1528208649306390528

Cause that’s normal, right?

For more on Bart, his book Moon Man is a must read:

Bart is most famously known for his film: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.

For anyone who believes the moon landings are 100% real and beyond any reproach, I challenge you to watch this 45 minute video and then report back to me.

I’ve never heard from anyone who has watched this and not had their eyes opened:

Backup here (since that will likely get taken down by the Tube):

And one more backup here:

Now let’s examine the big Press Conference Buzz, Neil and the third guy had when they got back from WALKING ON THE FREAKING MOON!

You’d think they’d have smiles from ear to ear that simply wouldn’t wipe off…right?

You know, something like how Sir Edmund Hillary looked after climbing Mount Everest — see below:

Nope!

Instead they looked like this…☝️

You might say they looked exactly as you or I might look if you had just faked a Moon Landing and deceived and entire nation.

But that’s just my take, you be the judge.

Do these look like guys who just walked on the Moon?

You can watch the whole solemn press conference here on Rumble — it’s stunning:

So…did Neil and Buzz and the third guy really walk on the Moon?

Or was it all faked?

And if it was faked, was it faked because….it has to be?

Perhaps because there is a FIRMAMENT over our world, like Genesis tells us?

It’s literally in the first 7 verses of the Bible, almost as if God wanted to make it pretty hard to miss?

Genesis 1:

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Almost as if we couldn’t be through the firmament, let alone get to the Moon, even if we wanted to?

If this is blowing your mind, then I’m only getting started.

Please keep reading…👇

Biblical Trees Beyond the Ice Wall…?

Our governments and the so-called “Elites” have lied to us for a long time about just about everything, and I think it’s HIGHLY likely that they are lying to us about the shape of the Earth and the nature of where we live.

Everyone still ok?

Did we lose anyone?

Well buckle up buttercup because it’s about to get wild!

This article is probably going to be one of the most controversial things I have posted in a long time.

And I’m ok with that.

I know some people will judge a book by its cover and immediately write this off, but I give you one caution before you do…

There is a famous quote I’d like to share with you that has been attributed to many different people over time, so I’m not sure who said it first, but it goes like this:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

Powerful.

Read that again and let it sink in.

If you want to remain in ignorance, write off an idea before you even look into it.  Surefire way to stay uninformed.

So let me begin with a question:

Why is no one allowed to go to Antarctica?

Oh sure you can go, but only to a few selection locations.  And NO further.  And only with a guide.

Why is that?

Why is it so important to protect whatever’s down there?

Why have all the countries of the world signed on to a treaty about Antarctica?

Yes, even Russia and Ukraine, who are currently engaged in WW:III have agreed on one thing: something VERY important is down in Antarctica and we have to protect it and prevent anyone from going and exploring.

Why is that?

What could possibly be so important about ice?

Unless of course if they have lied to us about the shape of the Earth?

Unless Antarctica is not at the bottom of the “globe” but actually makes up the ring surrounding it?

Sounds crazy at first until you begin to investigate, and it very quickly becomes something that has you scratching your head.

Let’s start with this video:

Think that’s just some crazy Tik Tok video?

It’s not.

You’re probably familiar with Answers In Genesis, right?

They do NOT espouse a “flat Earth” world view, but they did publish this article titled:  “Stumped By Forests in Antarctica”.

Here is a portion:

Forests in Antarctica? This frigid, forbidding continent is full of surprising evidences for the worldwide flood.

Is Antarctica on your bucket list of vacation destinations? It’s on mine!

What could possibly be of interest in Antarctica? After all, the continent at the bottom of the world is covered in ice and snow, and the temperatures are always below freezing. As the coldest, driest continent, it has one of the harshest environments on the planet and harbors a world of extremes. Turbulent winds and snowstorms can last days and even weeks, and the endless barren terrain makes Antarctica the world’s largest desert!

For half the year it’s a polar summer, when the unforgiving sun shines 24/7. Then, during the six months of the polar winter, the continent plunges into complete darkness.

So why would I be interested in visiting Antarctica? Well, to see rocks, of course! I’m a geologist.

Unlike the Arctic, which is simply an ice sheet floating on the ocean, Antarctica is composed of rock covered in ice and snow. Huge jagged mountain ranges jut up through nearly a mile of ice and snow, exposing rocks with all sorts of treasures, if you know what to look for.

Just two summers ago, a team was surprised to discover not just one but five “forests” piled on top of each other. They claimed the supposedly 260-million-year-old fossils represent a series of different forests that grew slowly and were buried one on top of the other over millions of years. They were looking for clues to understand how climate changes contributed to their extinction.

Finding such mysteries then putting them in the biblical perspective is why I love my profession and want to visit places most people would never consider.

Found—Fossil “Forests” of a Strange Extinct Plant

The team was led by Erik Gulbranson, a professor of geosciences at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, who set up camp in the central Transantarctic Mountains. They found several layers of tree stumps buried upright with parts of their roots still connected. They also found impressions of long, broad, flat leaves jumbled together in massive mats.1

These remains have been identified as fossils of an unusual extinct plant called Glossopteris, which is unlike any plant alive today. Pieces of this plant are commonly found in large Permian coal beds that are mined throughout the southern hemisphere, such as in Australia and South Africa.

The discovery of these plants wasn’t the big surprise. In previous expeditions the same team found similar “fossil” forests in the same rock unit in the central Transantarctic Mountains. Lab studies confirmed that all the fossil wood specimens belonged to the same genus, Glossopteris.

But their earlier analysis uncovered a surprise. The long-held assumption was that the Glossopteris plant was strictly deciduous (meaning its leaves drop annually in the autumn). Scientists made this assumption because they usually find their fossil leaves in mats, similar to thick mats on the floors of modern deciduous forests. The new analysis showed they were a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. How could this be?

Based on their evolutionary assumptions about slow changes over millions of years, scientists suggested a possible explanation. They claimed that earth’s cooling climate had forced these late Permian polar forests to adapt to environmental stresses. The accumulation of these stresses ultimately caused their extinction.

There’s a lot more out there than your government is telling you!


 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.