Can Anyone Explain ANY Of These Strange Things About The NASA Artemis II? | WLT Report 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.

Can Anyone Explain ANY Of These Strange Things About The NASA Artemis II?

19.5k views

Sorry folks, but we have to have another tough conversation about NASA and the Artemis II.

I keep trying to avoid this story, but NASA keeps throwing absurdities in my face that I just can’t ignore.

This is the 6th installation of this series where we discuss details about the Artemis II that just don’t make any sense.

In case you missed it, here were the prior installments…

ADVERTISEMENT

Part 1:

Let’s Talk About The Artemis II Moon Launch

Part 2:

Let’s Talk About The Artemis II Moon Launch — Part 2

Part 3:

Let’s Talk About The Artemis II Moon Launch — Part 3

Part 4:

WATCH: Astronaut Abruptly Stops Talking After Earpiece Seemingly Stops Working — FAKED?

Part 5:

ANSWERED: Why Would NASA Lie To Us About The Moon Landings?

ADVERTISEMENT

And now we dig into Part 6....

Buckle up!

We're going to talk about a bunch of things in this one, starting with this scene from before the launch.

Right before the launch, the Astronauts walked out to the press for a photo op and people are now noticing something very strange....

When you look at the phone screens of the people taking photos of the Astronauts, it doesn't look like the screen is seeing them.

See here:

And backup here:

ADVERTISEMENT

But as always, we're not stopping there.

We do our homework around here, so allow me to show you what I was able to confirm on this.

I went directly to NASA's YouTube channel to watch the source video, which you can find here:

And sure enough, I was able to confirm the same results!

This is really wild, but here is a freeze-frame I took from the official NASA video on YouTube:

Pay particular attention to this phone:

That phone is pointing directly at that Astronaut....

Do you see him on the screen?

Let me help out, here's a zoom in:

ADVERTISEMENT

I don't see him on that screen, but it's amazing what we can do now with technology...

I went to Grok and I asked Grok to upscale and clean up the image to show me better what is on the phone screen.

I remember watching them do that on Star Trek: The Next Generation back in the 1990s, they would always ask the all-powerful ship's Computer to upscale images and it miraculously could do it.

Flash-forward 30 years and we can now do it too, with Grok.

Here's what it gave me:

One final zoom-in for you:

Do you see an Astronaut standing there?

Me either!

Come on folks, you gotta admit that is strange!

ADVERTISEMENT

But that's just where we start.

Next we have to talk about the Orion Capsule after it splashed back down.

Doesn't it look....oddly small from the outside?

But setting the size aside, we have to talk about the HEAT....and the complete lack of steam upon touchdown?

Allow me to give you some facts as we consider this one.

As the Orion Capsule was blasting back into Earth's atmosphere, it was traveling at roughly 25,000 mph (for reference, bullets typically max out at around 3,000 mph, so these Astronauts were going roughly 8x the speed of the fastest bullet).

That seems a little hard to believe, but setting the speed aside, let's talk about HEAT.

The outside of the Capsule reached temps of ~5,000°F, which NASA tells us translated to about 500°F on the internal structure, but inside the cabin the Astronauts enjoyed a comfy 70-72°F:

I know, I know, NASA engineers are brilliant and they designed such a brilliant heat shield that it all just works and don't ask any questions about it, and definitely don't ask where they were disbursing all of that heat during re-entry....because you do know how a heat shield works, right?  It pulls heat from one area (the hot area) and disburses it into a different area (a colder area).  But when you're traveling through the Atmosphere and all around you is 5,000°F, even if you have the most brilliant heat shield possible, where exactly are you disbursing all that heat?

Even setting that aside, we are led to believe that tin can heated up to 5,000°F and then about 5 minutes later touched down in the freezing cold Ocean and there was no steam of any kind?

Hot metal + Cold Water = STEAM, right?

Where was the steam?

Here's the splashdown were you can see no steam of any kind:

And how about the guys crawling all over the outside of the Capsule?

I can't touch my metal pots for several minutes after cooking with them on my stove.

You mean to tell me this metal can heated up to 5,000°F and five minutes later these guys are crawling all over the outside with no problem?

And what magical kind of paint perfectly preserved the NASA logo on the outside?

ADVERTISEMENT

The paint on my house fades after about 5 years of being in 100 degree sun....

Where can I get some of this magical NASA paint that survives perfectly pristine after being heated up to a 5,000°F fireball?

This is not from the Artemis II, but these NASA videos allegedly from Space are absolutely hilarious.

Look at the look of sheer panic on their faces as the one Actor errrrrrr I mean "Astronaut" drops the ball and gravity takes it right to the floor:

This guy also cracks me up...

Bro, do you just wear that NASA space suit everywhere you go now?

Look at him rocking the NASA space suit outside his house like it's his normal Tuesday outfit:

Also, where are all the Satellites in orbit?

NASA and SpaceX tell us there are currently about 15,000 satellites orbiting the Earth.

ADVERTISEMENT

So....where are they?

Do you see any?

I know the answer is just that Space is huge and you can't see them from this far up, and maybe that is true, but you'd think you would see something?

Or how about this....if you are NASA and you achieve this view, where is all the video footage?

As you know, I run my own YouTube/Rumble Channel called The Daily Truth Report, so I know an opportunity for good video footage when I see it, and if I were NASA with this view of the Earth, you'd better believe I'd be shooting video until it was coming out of my ears!  And I'd be zooming in and out.  I'd zoom in until the Satellites eventually came into focus.  The footage would be historic!  They'd play it 24/7 on the news for weeks if you got that kind of footage.

But what does NASA do?

Virtually nothing.

Why?

And on a somewhat related topic, we'll end with this...

I am far from the first person to bring this up, it's been discussed to great degrees, but every single rocket launch you've ever seen goes up, out, then down.

It looks like this every time:

Now I know the official explanation is it just looks like that to us, it's actually going out in orbit around the Earth because it physics don't allow it to go straight up, kind of like when you're swimming in the ocean and fighting a strong rip current, you don't swim perpendicular against it, you swim mostly parallel to it eventually working your way over the top.

So fair enough Space Boys, even if I give you that, can someone explain to me why we still never get a full, uncut, unedited video shot of the full launch from launch pad to Space?

If we were really going to Space, wouldn't NASA want to have cameras everywhere on this bad boy?

Wouldn't you have GoPro cameras all over the Rocket and Capsule itself?

And since they're traveling in a comfy 72 degrees inside, wouldn't you have multiple cameras inside just continually filming?

And wouldn't you even follow the rocket with a plane to get even more footage?

Or at the very least, use something like a Nikon P900 or P1000 that has zoom so good it can literally zoom in to the surface of the Moon?

Wouldn't you use a bunch of those to continuously film the entire launch into Space?

And yet....we get none of that.

We get edited-together footage that always cuts out and has gaps in it, and we get camera men who can't seem to even keep the rocket in focus and in frame.

This is a humorous satire on the topic:

If I was NASA and I really flew around the Moon for 10 days, I would have so many cameras on the inside and outside of that Capsule that it would take weeks to go through all the footage!

And yet, we have virtually nothing.

Why?

Meanwhile, they've already cancelled the Artemis III mission, did you know that?

Happened a couple months ago:

NASA Says Artemis III Moon Mission Is Now Cancelled

Color me extremely shocked, but NASA has just scrapped its plans for the Artemis III mission.

Check out this Tweet from NASA back on October 28, 2024 telling us that the Artemis III mission will send astronauts back to the Moon for the first time in over 50 years:

Wow!

Incredible, right?

Actually, I told you at the time it would never happen.

They've been playing this same game for over 50 years.

They keep telling us we'll surely go "back" (hmmmmm, back?) to the Moon in a few months or in a few years.  Everyone gets excited.  Then at the last minute they cancel it, but no one notices or cares.  Then a few months or years later, wash, rinse, repeat.

And right on schedule, NASA has just announced the Artemis III Moon Mission Is Now Scrapped:

To be clear, they still claim that Artemis II will joyride Astronauts to and around the Moon in 2026 for a fun little joyride mission, but it will not bother to stop and land on the Moon.

The Guardian explained more details here:

Nasa announced on Friday radical changes to its delayed Artemis III mission to land humans back on the moon, as the US space agency grapples with technical glitches and criticism that it is trying to do too much too soon.

The abrupt shift in strategy was laid out by the space agency’s recently confirmed administrator, Jared Isaacman. Announcing the changes on Friday, he said that Nasa would introduce at least one new moon flight before attempting to put humans back on the lunar surface for the first time in more than half a century, in 2028.

The new, more incremental approach would give the Nasa team a chance to test flight and refine its technology. As part of the changes, the Artemis II mission to fly humans around the moon this year, without landing, would also be pushed back from its latest scheduled launch on 6 March to 1 April at the earliest.

“Everybody agrees this is the only way forward,” Isaacman told reporters at a news conference. “I know this is how Nasa changed the world, and this is how Nasa is going to do it again.”

The revised course came as Nasa has been wrestling with a number of delays and technical problems. Earlier this week, the independent body that reviews space safety issued a blunt report sharply criticising the space agency’s current plans as too risky.

The aerospace safety advisory panel recommended that Nasa rethink its objectives for Artemis III, which had been conceived as the first human landing on the moon since the final flight in the Apollo series in December 1972. The panel said that the call for a revision was urgent, “given the demanding mission goals”.

Isaacman said that under the new plan, the eventual moon landing would be achieved through evolutionary steps rather than big leaps in technological procedures. “We’re going to get there in steps, continue to take down risk as we learn more and we roll that information into subsequent designs,” he told CBS News.

He added: “We’ve got to get back to basics.”

Step one in the revised schedule is the launch of the Artemis II moon mission, which has been plagued by delays. The rocket was returned to its hangar at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida earlier this week.

Engineers had discovered a blockage in the rocket’s helium flow in the upper stage of the booster.

The latest delay followed disappointment in February, when Nasa was forced to put off the launch of Artemis II after hydrogen was found leaking from its Space Launch System rocket.

Artemis II will send four astronauts on a 10-day journey around the moon, designed to take people further into space than ever before, beyond the record set by Apollo 13 in 1970.

Isaacman said on Friday that additional missions would then be included in the schedule. He likened the extra steps to the approach taken in Nasa’s original moon landing in which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first stepped on to the lunar surface in 20 July 1969.

That legendary event was hazarded only after three separate moon missions had been completed.

The Artemis III mission will no longer aim to land on the moon. Instead, under the revised plans, it will be launched by mid-2027 as a low-Earth orbit designed to test essential technologies.

Here is the new NASA administrator, Jared Isaacson, explaining how excited he is to get into Low Earth Orbit soon.

But over 50 years ago, we flew to the Moon no problem?

Now we can't get to Low Earth Orbit?

Say what?

Watch here:

Consider me shocked....shocked I say!  [massive sarcasm alert]

I told you back in January that EXACTLY this very thing would happen:

NASA Plans To Send Astronauts Back To The Moon In February

And for more reading, you might find this absolutely fascinating:

Did We Go To The Moon In 1969? The Moon Rocks Are The Clue!

I had Jovan Pulitzer on my show yesterday, and you know it was a good show (because of the Guest!) when you're still thinking about it the next day!

And that's exactly what I've been doing all day today...thinking about my chat with Jovan and re-running it through my head.

The whole thing was fascinating as it always is each time I get the pleasure of having him come on my show...I have so much fun getting to chat with him, I suddenly look up and a couple hours have flown by!

But the thing that's still running through my head a full day later is what Jovan told me about the Moon.

We were on the topic of Conspiracy Theories and so I randomly asked him "Do you think we went to the Moon in 1969?"

I had no idea what his answer was going to be....

And quite frankly what he said shocked me.  It was not the answer I would have expected if you had asked me ahead of time.

ADVERTISEMENT

Let me post the full video links to the interview here in case you missed it and then scroll down and I'll break down what he said and all my thoughts as I sit here one day later.

Watch here:

Backup here on Rumble if needed:

And then here are all the links you need that we mentioned in the interview:

📺 LIVE with Jovan Pulitzer -- Forensic Breakdown of Trump Shooting: https://rumble.com/v577ipp--live-with-jovan-pulitzer-forensic-breakdown-of-trump-shooting.html

📺 Jovan Pulitzer Explains How He Caught Them All In Arizona! (Watermarked Ballots?): https://rumble.com/v54f1zb--jovan-pulitzer-explains-how-he-caught-them-all-in-arizona-watermarked-ball.html

📺 Jovan w/ Roseanne Barr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83krSAxLWuU

⭐️ Food Forest Bible (Paperback): https://amzn.to/4coEaPU

⭐️ Food Forest Bible (Hardcover): https://amzn.to/4eJXqbZ

🔥 Follow Jovan Pulitzer on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/JovanHuttonPulitzer

Ok, so now let's really dig into the topic that Jovan has sent spinning through my head ever since we talked yesterday....Did we got to the Moon in 1969 like they told us we did?

If you've been a long-time reader of this site, you probably know I've grown very skeptical on that topic.

I've grown skeptical of almost EVERYTHING the Government has told us, especially the things like this that they try so hard to indoctrinate us with.

I grew up thinking "of course we went to the Moon!"  And dreaming of space exploration and the wonders that we would see in my lifetime.  The Star Trek world coming to life!

Warp drives...

Holodecks...

Food replicators...

Beaming down to the surface...or beaming up!

How cool!

And perhaps we will still get that reality, but let's just say the more I've looked into it, the more skeptical I have become that we actually went to the Moon.

I'll explain why in a bit, but my opinion is less important than Jovan's opinion.

In fact, if it were anyone else who gave me the theory Jovan gave me, I'd probably have dismissed it outright, but since it's Jovan it gives me pause to really take it in and consider it.

So basically, he told me he believes we actually went, and the biggest thing that convinced him was the Moon Rocks.

Actually, what he said at first was that he hasn't really spent any time investigating it so he doesn't want to speak to something he's not fully educated on (which is very respectful) but then in typical Jovan fashion it turns out he does actually know a ton about it!

So he told me that we brought back a ton of Moon Rocks and they are verifiably not from Earth.  They are also verifiably not just asteroids or other space debris because they don't have the fire scarring you would have if they entered Earth through its atmosphere.

Fascinating!

I have to say that almost nothing I learn about the Moon Landings makes me think they were real, and the more I dig in the more skeptical I typically become on the topic as I learn more.

But verifiable Moon Rocks?  That has my attention.

Then he shocked me a bit more by saying he thinks there's a "Second Right Answer" here about the Moon Landing.

Watch the interview for yourself and I hope I'm not mistating anything he said, but he continued to say he does think it's likely we faked the FIRST alleged trip to the Moon in 1969 in order to "win" the race against the Russians, but then the Moon Rocks prove we eventually did get there at some point.

And then why did we stop going?  Because it got too expensive and we just didn't see enough value in the Moon or returning to it!

Wow!

It's entirely unfair for me to have a one-sided conversation about this topic writing this article, so I think I'm going to have to have Jovan back on and do an extended conversation/debate on this topic, what do you think?  Would you like to see that?

Because as much as I greatly respect his opinion, I'm finding this a bit tough to believe....and the debate of ideas is so much fun, even if I'd likely end up losing in any debate with Jovan!  That's almost certain.

ADVERTISEMENT

But to go with this story, I have to believe the following:

We made it to the Moon on the very first try with 1/200,000th (Jovan's number) the computer power that we have available to use today....and we nailed it on the first try (whether that was in 1969 or later if the first one was faked)...

The Government lied to us about faking the first one, but is totally telling the truth now about the others.  You can believe them, they're the Government!

Then we stopped going because it just got too expensive....I find it hard to believe this is the one incident in history where the Government finally decided to get fiscally conservative and reduce spending, but Jovan tells me there is precedent in the fact we also chose to not raid a highly valuable Afghanistan mine full of massive gemstones that we discovered and then let the Afghanis keep.

Oh, and then there is the Moon Rocks....

ADVERTISEMENT

That's the thing that's been running through my head all day long.  Jovan is right, even considering all the other anomalies in this story, if we have scientifically verifiable Moon Rocks, that sure does seem to suggest we brought them back with us.

So I started researching it today and I found this:

From NPR in 2009:

Listen to the NPR segment here:

Transcript:

STEVE INSKEEP, host:

Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep.

A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. No doubt it gave a warm feeling to the U.S. ally. But when an expert saw it in the national museum, he said he wasn't so sure it was real. Geologists have now identified the moon rock as petrified wood.

It's MORNING EDITION.

Or if you prefer, from Phys.org:

The Dutch national Rijksmuseum made an embarrassing announcement last week that one of its most loved possessions, a moon rock, is a fake -- just an old piece of petrified wood that's never been anywhere near the moon.

The Rijksmuseum is famous for its fine art collections, especially paintings by Rembrandt and other masters. One of its lesser known objects, the "moon rock", was first unveiled in October 2006 as the centerpiece of a "Fly me to the moon" exhibition. At that time, the museum said the rock symbolized the "exploration of the unknown, colonization of far-away places and bringing back of treasures..." A reading about the "moon rock" was even held on October 7 because it was a full moon!

The rock was given as a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969 by the U.S. ambassador to The Netherlands, J. William Middendorf II, during a visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin, soon after the first moon landing. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman.

When Drees died in 1988, the rock was donated to the Rijksmuseum, where it has remained ever since. According to a museum spokeswoman, Ms Van Gelder, no one doubted the authenticity of the rock because it was in the prime minister's own collection, and they had vetted the acquisition by a phone call to NASA.

According to an article published by the Rijksmuseum, at one time the rock was insured for approximately half a million dollars, but its actual value is probably no more than around $70.

Former U.S. ambassador, Mr Middendorf was unable to recall the exact details of how the rock came to be in the U.S. State Department's possession. It is known that NASA gave lunar rocks to over 100 countries in the 1970s, but when the rock was displayed in 2006 a space expert told the museum he doubted any material would have been given away so soon after the manned lunar landing.

Researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam immediately doubted the rock was from the moon, and began extensive testing. The tests concluded the rock was petrified wood. U.S. embassy officials were unable to explain the findings, but are investigating.

Ok, so now the story grows....

Why is it that everywhere you turn in this story you have to accept that "yes, sure we lied about this one detail here, but all the others are good!"

So now we most likely have NASA and the US Government faking the first mission in 1969 because we had to beat the Russians....but it's ok because the others were real.

I have to believe they just didn't see any value in returning to the Moon after 1972 and for the only time in recorded history that I can find chose NOT to spend millions and billions of dollars extremely wastefully...

And now I have to believe that yes, the Moon Rock given to the Dutch people was a fake, but the others are all real.  Trust us bro!

I don't know, my Spidey Sense is tingling!

Jovan is 1,00 times smarter and more accomplished than I am, and even that may be an understatement, but my Tin Foil hat is going crazy on this one!

What do you think....should we do another show and dig deep into the details?

Will Jovan end up converting me into a Moon believer?

Can I go back to believing in all my childhood fantasies that we will one day roam the stars like Jean Luc Picard on the bridge of the Enterprise NCC 1701D?

I would like that.

It would be a much simpler and happier world to return to.

Because instead of living in the idealistic, happy future of ST:TNG, we currently live in the abysmal, dystopian ST:Picard and it kind of sucks!

Drop me a comment below if you'd like to see Jovan educate me again on this topic and maybe we can make it happen!

And I'll leave you all with this for more information....I sure do miss Rob Skiba, he was truly one of the good guys.

I respect Jovan 1000%, but here is the counter-argument from another guy I also highly respected and a person we lost far too soon:

What do you think?

If you want to dig into this even deeper, here are a few prior articles I've written -- although perhaps Jovan will eventually convince me 100% that we did, in fact, go to the Moon.  We will see!

MOON MAN: Bart Sibrel EXPOSES The Moon Landings

Joe Rogan: Why Can’t Billionaires Replicate The Moon Landing?

Have You Heard About The $30 Million Google Lunar X Prize?

Wait, So We Never Landed On The Moon?

SHARE!

What’s your take?


, , ,

 

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.