Something is "off" about the Artemis Astronauts

NY Times: Artemis II Crew Reunites With Families and Fellow NASA Astronauts

The four astronauts made an emotional return to Houston a day after splashing down in the Pacific Ocean at the end of their 10-day lunar journey.

Analysis by

The April Fool's Day mission of Artemis II ended with a "splash" in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of San Diego. Allegedly, the 20,000 pound capsule -- upon re-entering Earth's atmosphere at 25,000 mph reaching temperatures of 5000 °F -- gradually, over the course of about 12 minutes, was slowed down to 350 mph by atmospheric pressure before deploying its initial parachutes. A sophisticated "melt away" heat shield and strong Kevlar cables protected the 4-person crew. Color me skeptical (to put it mildly)!

The post-mission speaking engagements add more fuel to the suspicions. Their platitudinous observations and strange body language stink of amateurish script-writing and cheesy acting. Some examples:

"From up here you also look like one thing ... No matter where you're from or what you look like — we're all one people." - Jeremy Hansen

“In all of this emptiness — this whole bunch of nothing we call the universe — you have this oasis of earth, this beautiful place that we get to exist in together." - Victor Glover

"No matter how long we look at this, our brains are not processing this image in front of us. It is absolutely spectacular, surreal. I know there’s no adjectives. I’m going to need to invent some new ones to describe what we are looking at out this window." - Reed Wiseman

"Earth was just this lifeboat hanging understandingly in the universe. I may have not learned, I know I haven't learned, everything that this." - Christina Koch

It all just seems so weird -- especially when combined with the one question that should be conspicuous, but continues to be overlooked: Why, after allegedly and routinely landing safely and walking on the moon six times between 1969-1972, did NASA only do a "drive-by" this time? Has our technology gone backwards after a half-century?

ASTRO-NOTS? 1 & 2. From start to finish, the whole affair seemed "Fake & Gay." // 3. Christina Koch -- a name for which there is an IMBD acting profile -- stuggled to deliver her overly dramatic speech .

If this all seems like a scene from a movie, well, it may be because there was another movie - from just two years ago --about a mission named Artemis which involved the staging of a fake moon landing. The Wiki description:

""Fly Me to the Moon' is a 2024 American historical romantic comedy drama film ..... The film stars Scarlett Johansson as Kelly Jones, a marketing specialist, and Channing Tatum as Cole Davis, a NASA launch director. Set against the backdrop of the Apollo 11 mission, the story follows Jones and Davis as she is tasked with creating a false moon landing in case his actual mission fails -- to be aired if the real mission fails, a project codenamed "Artemis"

Coincidence? Or was the 2024 film a "comm" (rated Q). Remember now, Q has its hooks into Hollywood now as well. Might this all have been designed to reintroduce the conversation about lunar fakery into the public domain. Of course, though many more people are now at least being exposed to the idea, it's going to take a whole lot more than this Artemis stunt to blow the whole mythology wide open.

In closing, we note that there was an occasion in which Q, as part of Post # 2225 from 2018, was asked about the alleged moon landing by an Anon. Though many interpreted Q's answer as an affirmation of the 1969-1972 missions, a closer reading shows that Q's answer was deliberately ambiguous. Here's the exchange:

2225

Anonymous 

Did NASA fake the moon landings? Have we been to the moon since then? Are there secret space programs? Is this why the Space Force was created?

To which Q responds:

False, moon landings are real.

Programs exist that are outside of public domain.

Q

Why did Q answer "False" to what was a "Yes or No" question? What does "false" actually mean here? Are the "conspiracy theories" false, or was he saying that the 1969-1972 landings were false? There's really no way to tell from the language. And as far as "moon landings" being "real" and "outside of public domain" -- does that mean manned missions, or unmanned? If manned missions "outside of public domain," does that mean the 1969-1972 clown shows were staged, but other, more recent landing missions have been going on? Why did Q say landings "are real" instead of "were real."

As previously stated, the language is NOT at all clear. Why did Q deliberately highlight this question in the first place, if he wasn't going to provide a definitive answer? . Weird!

Scenes from "Fly Me to the Moon" (2024)-- which featured a fake moon landing scenario, code-named "Artemis." Who was behind this film and was someone trying to tell us something?

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today about the emotional return to Houston of the Artemis astronauts..

Boobus Americanus 2: What a great story amidst all the gloom and doom in this world. Their remarks were very poignant.

Sugar: Yeah. As if written for them.

Editor: I really hope the White Hats follow up with this. Otherwise, if they are waiting for normies to catch on by themselves, it won't ever happen.