Skepticism of Neil deGrasse Tyson Documentary NOVAscience NOW Mission to Mars and Futurism in General-Musings about Outer Space and Cosmic Space Travel and Moon Landings and Science in General

I saw the documentary NOVAScience NOW Mission to Mars presented and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I am amazed by the presentation of the documentary, but I am extremely skeptical of it, because it’s all a bunch of futurist razzle-dazzle nonsense. It is rather nebulous in its presentation of the information, offering ideas about what a space suit might look like.

For example, the female space suit that looks more like the costume Britney Spears or Lady Gaga would wear in one of their videos, rather than a practical form of a space suit. It looks more like a highly transparent see-through dress, which isn’t technically appropriate professional wear for a NASA astronaut.  Well, NASA is NOT in the business of selling sex appeal, you know.  A space suit shouldn’t look like a costume from a Britney Spears video.  It should be entirely appropriate for the work environment and not be something that inspires sexual fetishes like that does.
Documentaries like these tend to be filled with too much of the futurist nonsense that in many cases does not take into account human nature doing things that the orator does not speak of.

DeGrasse Tyson speaks of explorers overcoming dangers, hostile natives, and all kinds of harsh problems to explore the galaxy, in true Star Trek fashion of course.  That sentence at the end of the documentary sounds like something someone in Star Trek might say.

DeGrasse Tyson tends to mislead a little when he talks of the POSSIBILITY of a manned mission to Mars, but does not present the nuts and bolts of the whole operation and instead gives us the same old razzle-dazzle futurist nonsense,  documentaries like 2057 tend to present. The documentary is great at selling science to the public and making good for starters and presenting the facts, but going off into Star Trek-esque tangents about explorers and facing the problems that lay ahead. That’s great, but how are you going to overcome them? The documentary doesn’t even begin to state what would happen in order to create the materials necessary to travel long long distances across the distant galaxy. Too much Star Trek type science ficition. Of course, sell it to the Star Trek futurist crowd. I am tired of being wowed with ideas that may or may not work or may be shelved because the cost is too high to put someone on Mars?

If you put them on Mars, what will happen?  I think shows like Futurama do a nice job of making fun of the futurist type nonsense on documentaries like this one.  Futurists in these documentaries tend to be too optimistic, presenting the public with misleading info about future projects that tend to awe people rather than present the multitude of possibilities and other variables that could happen that would affect the product in space, like it spoils. There is food poisoning. Does the material prevent food poisoning? Would food poisoning be an issue?

I do NOT hate the documentary, I think it’s great, but more needs to be done.

I AM A big fan of Star Trek, don’t get me wrong. But replicators. How do they work? What would happen to materialize the particles into an edible food dish? What exactly goes into making replicators make food into a product? How does it appear?

Star Trek does not take into account hillbilly-type people making their own replicators from one of their relatives who is a major at the Kentucky or Tennessee universities making a replicator out of homemade materials, replicating moonshine. What about laws being passed on the usage of replicators? What about replicators for fast food restaurants? Star Trek does not have a money system, it just relies on the explorers having a deep love of space travel and not being paid for it during the galactic travels in the show, but the actors/actresses being paid AFTERWARD in real life for their work.

Star Trek is all about the mainstream being correct and dissenting opinions being muzzled against Starfleet and the idea that Starfleet is all supreme and banning religions.  Star Trek’s idea of space is not realistic because it hinders religious freedom and believes partly based on evidence, that have substance and credibility and being to a point correct, but ONLY in certain conditions being muzzled by Starfleet because they are not what the mainstream at Starfleet believes. What about hillbillies in Kentucky making moonshine with replicators? What about counterfeit replicators made by cranks that do not work? Replicator fraud.

Since there’s no money in Star Trek, fraud is unlikely, BUT IN REALITY WHERE THERE IS MONEY, FRAUD WOULD ACTUALLY happen where people are ripped off by dishonest dealers from Nigeria selling fake replicators that do not work and promising them millions of dollars if they ONLY give their credit card information and steal their bank accounts.  Replicators being used for counterfeiting and fraud and other scams, illegally made products. Making cocaine with replicators or other illegal drugs. Using replicators to make fradulent products that are fraudulent spin-offs and poorly and shittily-made Chinese BS knockoffs of mainstream Nike shoes for example.

Back to the topic. The documentary sounds too much like Star Trek, but that’s probably WHAT the majority of people watching the documentary want to have when they watch it, to better appeal to their audience.

What about organic space food that does not like replicators? What about organic space food? Would NASA’s new food wrap make it possible for organic fruits and vegetables and organic products to be used? Would organic dairy products be possible? Would alcohol be possible? Would Russian astronauts having a bottle of Stoli be possible?

Oh the possibilities are endless.

I know NASA is into GMO type stuff that causes or potentially causes cancers in humans and animals and the Europeans have linked it to cancers that are not good for people, but whole food is better for you, at least psychologically, because you do not have the pesticides and other crap in it. But that’s neither here nor there.

Organic space food? Is that even possible? This new food wrap of NASA’s. I can put Spam in a wrapping product. the NASA wrap in NOVA Sciencenow makes it possible for doomsday preppers to store food longer, in case the next Mayan apocalypse takes place. Would it be possible for the Russians to copy that NASA product? The Russians would probably come with an equivalent product to make for food storage for years. Food stored in a vacuum would not appeal to some people. What if the food gets punctured or goes bad? How do you dispose of food in space?

He also talks about people dealing with loneliness in space. What if it becomes too much for some people and an astronaut commits suicide by taking off his space suit and going out into space without a suit, which will kill him and end his life after making the horrible decision to commit suicide? Suicide could become a problem. What about people with mental issues being sent into space?

Ethical issues about people with disabilities into space. There are no handicap-accessible provisions in a spacecraft.  They couldn’t do it. It’s about Survival of the fittest in space. It’s sometimes NOT how fit you are, but IF you have the WILL to survive. You can be physically fit, but NOT have the mental toughness to survive. Darwin’s evolution DOES NOT take that into account in space, or if we were monkeys long ago, how come we don’t look like them now?

I am gonna explore the dark side (no pun intended for all you Star Wars fans out there.) of space.  At least Star Wars was honest about the human nature element of space.

Explore some pretty dark subjects here. What if an astronaut commits suicide? What if something happens? What if an alien planet commits inter-planetary genocide against another planet?  Pretty dark subjects here. Ethnic cleansing against alien species would be a major concern. and what about political-correctness being applied to explorers FAR from earth?

What if they do things that they would not normally do on earth? Sex in space? That WOULD be possible. Sexuality between space crews lonely out in space for a long time.

In typical Russian fatalism, Putin said that it is inevitable that the world is gonna end in several billion years, and I am not afraid of it.  There you go, in typical Russian fatalism.

It speaks of a maneuverable space suit that enables people to move around in and be more flexible. If that is the case, then does that make it possible for Joe Schmoe people to be able to get into space suits? Does that make it possible for people like clergy or missionaries,( who may not necessarily agree with the evolution beliefs of the NASA folks, but that’s neither here nor there, and I do not wish to call religious people stupid or ridicule them and wrongly misuse science to prove or disprove God, because THAT IS NOT what science was made for, to insult religious people. Jeez, lay off people. You’ll just keep going on with your idiotic creation/evolution pissing contest.) to wear space suits?

If space programs can be made cheaper does that make it possible for countries like Iran to send out people into space to “convert” people to Islam?

Will it be possible for the Pope to blasted off into space?

Michio Kaku presents in 2057 a fantasy world that is not indicative of a real world. For example, he speaks of an ancient computer virus causing an infrastructure collapse and causing mayhem and chaos, despite the fact the virus would have been eliminated a long time before that happened. Too much futurist crap on TV that isn’t realistic. For example, a B-1R bomber being used as a missile carrier to carry missiles and be a dogfighter in Dogfights.  It wouldn’t even fight worth a damn because it would not be able to maneuver when getting in close to enemy fighters, it would down a few of them, but would be swarmed rather fast with enemy fighters real quick. It just wouldn’t work. The futurist

Science needs less of this optimistic futurist nonsense and MORE concrete hard facts. It just presents what it MIGHT look like in the future, such as the NASA food storage wrapping that preserves food for 8 days or more, but WHAT IF you land on the planet itself? Does the food ever go back? Things could happen in the wrapping. Chemicals leeching into the food for example. It’s airtight and bacteria-tight, but that does not prevent chemicals from leaking in.  What if all the food is eaten and they have none left? What then? Rationing space would be a problem for astronaut spacecraft in such conditions.  What if the food spoils? What if the astronaut is allergic to certain foods? What if the astronaut is allergic to the materials in the food?  NASA inventing a food storage item for prolonged space travel. Imagine it being used for a camping trip out in the woods! Imagine me camping in my tent here on earth,

The food tastes funny in NASA’s kitchen, deGrasse Tyson claims. Well, what do you expect after 8 year old chicken?

The food would taste funny to some people. What sort of unit would be needed to refrigerate the materials? What sort of stuff can be stored in it? Can non-food items be stored? Would electronics still function if stored in it? Would CDs or DVDs play at all after long storage? Would MP3 players still function? I know there’s no sound in space, which makes Neil Armstrong’s speech not likely, but happened BECAUSE OF THE special material in the suit. How did he communicate anyway? How was he able to say anything without any sound in space? Simple! He had one wired in his suit.

Please do not lump in people that have skeptical questions about something that are legitimate to ask in with the idiots that deny the moon landings SO THAT THEY can better understand it! I do not promote such bullshit theories and I NEVER WILL! I will not welcome such idiots on here!

I am NOT one of those moon-landing denying idiots, I just have a skeptical question about it and wonder how was it done and I am just skeptical, but Wikipedia paints you as an idiot if you say anything. I just have a question about it and am concerned about it and express questions trying to further understand the moon landings and how they did everything that they did on the moon and please do not lump my skeptical questions about how they did everything in with the moon landing denial idiots! Please do not do that! Thank you! I do not wish to lumped in with them! I just asked a simple question. Or is that “denial?” It is NOT, it is merely having a question and wondering about it, but not cynically proclaiming “It’s fake” based on your personal feelings that have some skeptical thought out thoughts, but lack any real substance, like the idiots that deny the moon landings.

I just have some skeptical questions about Neil’s documentary. That does not make me anti-science, just legitimate science asking legitimate questions

I would like to further comprehend the moon landings. I just have a skeptical question to ask about it and I do not question if they happened, because they did, I am not gonna deny that, I just wish to further my comprehension and understanding of the moon landings by asking a legitimate question of how Neil Armstrong was able to communicate to earth in with his space suit.  He had a microphone. There, I do not believe that they were faked! I do not believe in that (it’s not anti-science, it’s “anti-NASA” and highly misinformed bullshit that HAS no legitimate basis in fact, it’s only anti-science because it is against NASA, of course it IS! SARCASM MOMENT THERE!) moon landings were faked BS and I never will. Why should I? It’s wrong and everyone who is sane and rational knows that they happened and there’s evidence TONS OF EVIDENCE proving that the Moon landings were real, legitimate and did in fact, happen.

But let the misinformed idiots paint me as a nut or whatever because I say something to further my comprehension of the moon landings happening on July 20, 1969 by Do not use guilt trips to make me an idiot.  Please do not lump in the word skeptic with these idiots that are misinformed, cynical, have a very cynical questioning of the whole event, but sadly fail EPIC FAIL because there is evidence that refutes their BS and they happened. What more can I say? The events of July 20, 1969 were legitimate and did in fact, HAPPEN! They happened! I have legitimate questions about deGrasse Tyson’s documentary and that is that. I

I just wish to ask how he was able to communicate at all. I just wonder and your minds wanders off, deep down having a question how he was able to do that in the spacesuit and sending it back to earth, communicating through the blackness of space to NASA! How did he do it?  That type of thing, that is a legitimate question to ask, perfectly acceptable, just do not lump me in with the crazies, I FULLY admit the moon landings were real! I swear on behalf of God Himself that THEY HAPPENED! Those fools deny that they happened under the poorly-disguised “questioning” the moon landings narrative by NASA and poorly disguised arguments that just do not hold up to REAL scrutiny.   I have a legitimate question to ask about it and wish to further my understanding of this real event and NOT staged by NASA event.

Look, I am JUST making fun of the “moon landings are fake” crowd! I do not subscribe to their bullshit!

Please do not falsely accuse me of stuff based on distorting my words to make an illegitimate falsehood about me. I fully admit that the moon landings happened. They happened! There! End of story!

It’s perfectly acceptable to ask, just don’t believe in any of the poorly-disguised arguments of “questioning” the moon landings by the misinformed, mislead, cynical, argumentative types, angry, dumb, acting like a child, being stupid, but having a poorly-thought out argument  disguised as a question. The moon landings happened! They happened! They happened! They happened! There, does that satisfy you?

I do not like such idiots and never will!

Being skeptical is fine, just don’t lump me in with the pseudo-skeptic moon-landing denial idiots, they are pseudo-skeptics that in no way represent the field of being a real skeptic about stuff.
How WAS he able to communicate with earth?

They will wrongly accuse me of falsehoods and try to smear ME, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE MOON LANDINGS! You’d be stupid not to!

I am making fun of those idiots that believe this irrational nonsense.

I have sincere, honest, and legitimate questions about the moon lights and wish to further my understanding of them and wish to further understand it and NO I AM NOT trolling anyone! I am not trolling anyone!

All those generalized claims by idiots prove my point about how Wikipedia uses flimsy arguments to smear people who ask questions to better understand certain events, such as the very real and very throughly-understood moon landings and certified as quite real, IN WITH UFO NUTS and the flaky stupid dumb shits who deny the moon landings were faked. I do not wish to troll anyone here.  THIS IS not trolling. Since when is it trolling to ask legitimate questions? I DO NOT use them to form flimsy arguments that they were faked or whatever,

I HAVE always known that they were real. They are real! It is a proven fact that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and lumping in people who ask elementary and simple questions to further their understanding of this legitimate event, asking legitimate questions in with the fools that deny it ever happened and LUMPING THEM IN WITH THE idiots with poorly-disgused arguments and outlandish ideas in with these nutcases is just plain wrong because it hinders people’s legitimate questions that they ask that are basic and elementary so that they will be better-educated and informed and come away knowing MORE about the moon landings

If we didn’t ask questions to better understand things, how would we understand things or get them done? We wouldn’t! This is not denial of the moon landings, this is trying to further my understanding of it.  When someone raises their hand and asks a question in school, to further understanding of the moon landings, like “How did they communicate?” they do not ridicule them.

I do not want people believing that I am a fake or a nut! There is nothing wrong with asking personal questions about this event to legitimately further your own understanding of it. Please do not lump in people like that who are confused and just want to ask a question in with those “Moon Landing Hoaxer” idiots. They were NOT faked and I can prove it. Anyone can prove it.  You will never convince those idiots of anything! There is no hope for them! The most sensible option is to leave them alone and ignore them and laugh at them! People should just not think about them. People should just tell them “Go F yourself!” and that’s that! This is not a trolling argument. I am not trolling anyone!  I just have a sincere question about it. That is legitimate to ask, just as long you believe that the landings were real.

Please do not lump in people with sincere and legitimate questions in with the deniers because THATE DESTROYS THE LEARNING PROCESS OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE MOON LANDINGS AND DESTROYS SOMEONE’S ABILITY TO FURTHER UNDERSTAND THIS HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT SO THAT THIS PERSON CAN COME HOME FURTHER ENLIGHTENED AND KNOW SOMETHING TO REMEMBER IT IN WITH idiots that deny it. Such stuff is anti-intellectual and destroys the learning process by not allowing people to ask questions. I have no problem with people that ask questions about it. If we didn’t have people asking skeptical questions to further their own legitimate understanding of the moon landings, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KNOW THEM AND DISSEMINATE THE REAL INFORMATION TO the public

Why is it that people who ask real questions about things that they see are lumped in conspiracy theorists? Like the Mars Face crowd that see something that looks like a face and proclaim it to be a face, when it isn’t. Asking questions is fine, but ridiculous conspiracy theories ARE NOT! The conspiracy theorists always mislead people in this way and always catch them with the misleading arguments about “questioning” the moon landings to further their own ignorance and stupidity.

IT IS NOT stupid to ask legitimate questions to further your understanding of the moon landings, Wikipedia or anyone out there, to ask simple questions. If we didn’t have people asking sincere questions, how would we know anything about anything? We wouldn’t! We’d be ignorant and stupid idiots like the fools that deny the moon landings and BS about them being fake. AND NO I am NOT one of them disguised as a trolling argument or some bullshit like that!

Please do not lump people who admit the moon landings were real in with the idiots who use these questions to intentionally mislead gullible people into believing their stupid bullshit about “faked moon landings!” to make up irrational arguments

Do 25% of Russians admit they were fake, or do not THEY NOT believe that we did them and “deny” it in the sense of oh say “THE AMERICANS DID NOT DO THAT” in the sense of having that shock about them that you have when your heart sinks into your stomach and have that denial about you when you have shock inside you that your hated enemy did something that you WILL NEVER do and that you lost the race, but they admit they happened and know

Those people know that the moon landings happened, they just are just cynical and stupid people that believe absurdities like they were faked to troll people into believing such ridiculous lies and BS about faked moon landings or other such related conspiracy theories, but they just “deny” NASA’s historical achievement because they are misinformed and stupid people who cannot admit that they happened, when in fact they did,  but just have thought out stuff like you cannot communicate through space because there’s no sound, NEIL ARMSTRONG HAD a radio to communicate inside his suit.

There! Mystery solved! The conspiracy theorists are the ones who troll people about it and have that narrow mind about them and wrongly misuse the legitimate questioning “How did it happen and I wish to sincerely ask questions to further my understanding of it” type stuff in with their stupid irrational BS.

Please do not destroying the legitimate learning process of questioning and furthering your own educational ability and making sure THAT YOU REALLY KNOW the moon landings in with this stupid jackasses! I just want to further my real understanding of it! I do not deny the moon landings! They happened! END OF STORY!

THANK YOU FOR READING! Please do not destroy the legitimate learning process of furthering one’s own understanding of that event by using flimsy and  people that have fake arguments to further conspiracy theories, but are well thought out, in sort of saying in an undeclared cynical fashion that they could not do that, because of this and this and these people do not understand science at all. Why should people who do not understand science and are confused about stuff like how the sun reflects off the lunar space craft and Neil Armstrong’s communication devices be lumped in with those conspiracy theorist cooks that deny the moon landings were faked and people with narrow prejudices and narrow brained idiots who are stupid? People who have sincere questions are accused of being anti-science, but IN MY CASE FULLY LOVE AND RESPECT THIS field that helps our understanding of scientific things that are used every day to help us learn more about ourselves be lumped in with those disguise their stupid arguments with poorly-thought out BS about faked moon landings who are anti-science, but misuse it badly to further their own ignorance. IT IS NOT ignorant to ask questions and have LEGITIMATE REASONED questions about the moon landings  to further your own understanding or make misguided or what would seem irrational comments about the shadows or whatever, that you are confused about and would like to further clarify to better understand how this moon landing happened, where you are confused and wish to clear up the confusion by asking questions about it, to further understand, because you are sincerely confused and wish to clear it all up in your head and sort it all out and better understand that historical and great monumental achievement.

Why does Wikipedia lump in people that ask sincere questions because they are confused and do not understand it and FULLY ADMIT THAT THE moon landings were quite quite real in with the “moon landings were faked” crowd? Why? It is not “anti-science” to further your understanding of it. That is like saying that people who are confused about portions of The Bible to further their own understanding about The Book there and fully believe in it and are Christians and accusing them of being “anti-Christian” That just makes no real sense at all. That is basically what I am saying about legitimate every day people that have legitimate questions who are confused about it and want to learn about their confusion and clear it up and try to understand it better and come out being smarter than they were before AND NOT conspiracy theorist idiots who make illegitimate arguments about that said event and false and inaccurate claims poorly disguised as “questioning” the moon landings and deliberately confusing and misleading the public with bullshit like that.  Please do not lump in people who are sincere and asking sincere and well thought out questions and fully admit that the landings were real in with the nutty conspiracy theorist flaky idiots that deny them to further their own ignorance!

Thank you very much for reading!

I hope that you will feel further understood by what I’ve said and be sure to clear things up so that you will not be confused or mislead by Wikipedia and it’s loaded statements that tend to confuse people about having real questions about it,  in with the idiots who bullshit people with their false and stupid claims.

Pseudohistory about denying it? No question! The term should NOT be used to abuse people that have arguments outside the mainstream BUT ARE A LEGITIMATE INTERPRETATION OF THAT EVENT AS SEEN FROM a different angle, like the Civil War was a war of Northern Aggression for example, based on their understanding of having an alternate and legitimate other prespective based in reality and their opinion on it, and believing that Northern Aggression idea for example, and believing that the North was wrong and this contentious and hotly-contested opinion that is based on a truth from a different angle or opinion on that very event in WITH THE UFO nuts and moon-landing deniers who are ignorant, stupid, confused, and misinformed and moronic idiots that deny the moon landings!

This lumping-in is reminiscent of Stalinist-era tactics that were highly draconian and used term to make it either black or white, to lump people in a pseudohistory category because they have an opinion TO TRY TO PUT THEM down and silence them and make their voices seem bigger like a larger “mainstream” when only a few people share an opinion about that  and have highly contentious ones about Wikipedia abusing the term for illegitimate purposes to further their own personal agenda of “silencing” people and always being wrong because the self-appointed pseudo-experts at Wikipedia said that you were, like the Northern Aggression crowd in the South for example or the Falklands War was British aggression against Argentine soil, a false argument, but nonetheless a different view of the war from the Argentine point of view, or the Muslims and Croats committing crimes against Serbs type arguments THAT ARE REAL and based on facts and can prove it, based on eyewitnesses, evidence, film footage, etc, and are different from the mainstream and have evidence, insulted, mocked, and laughed at as being not mainstream, even though they are historical arguments that people made at the time to further their own causes and IF WE do not understand them to better understand the historical events, HOW WILL we understand how the other side things? Argentina still believes this propaganda and is mainstream over there, when Britain and the USA do not believe it at all.

Contentious views like those and Wikipedia wants to parade itself as the “mainstream!” Something doesn’t smell right here and pretend that it is the legitimate historical opinion. Ah, but you are a crank if you think that. If we didn’t have free thought, and not Stalinistic lumping into categories of people who have legitimate other opinions, e.g. Northern Aggression folks IN WITH THE UFO nuts of the Ancient Aliens people because SOMEONE NEEDS TO HAVE A CATEGORY TO IGNORANTLY LUMP IN PEOPLE whose opinions that they do not like to make themselves feel good or further their own ILLEGITIMATE purposes to make themselves sound smart and are going on an idiotic fascistic power trip to silence other opinions on contentious subjects SUCH AS THESE and ignorantly lump them into a category to smear and insult them to invent a fake category like that one.

I created this blog to make fun of such people on Wikipedia! To make fun of the irrational “rationalist skeptic” types that are assholes like Michael Shermer that sit on their high-horse ridiculing and mocking people like those ignorant little bullies that like to label, mock, insult, and ignorant deride those that they do not like that have legitimate other historical opinions about Civil War being war of “Northern Aggression” in with THE UFO nuts and other fraudulent historical beliefs that do not pass scrutiny, that are pseudohistory, but let’s just lump in all people with the flimsy “sensational claims” argument and use it to mock, deride, and insult people that we do not like that have these legitimate opinions in with the UFO nuts to form a fraudulent and Stalinistic, Maoist, type “accepted” mainstream opinion that sounds like something from the Soviet Union in a draconian 1984 type fashion, TO PRETEND that they are the mainstream, when in fact they aren’t and mainstream historians do not accept Wikipedia, so how’s THAT for pseudohistory, Wikipedia? Be careful though about such categories and narrow-minded labeling and keep an open mind, and pseudohistory is a legitimate term for those UFO nuts and those who have no evidence to prove their claims

Sensational claims can be made by anyone, such as the claim that Sherman was a terrorist because he terrorized Georgia during the Civil War, THAT IS a sensational claim based on evidence, but let’s just lump all sensational claims AS FAKE AND false, like the opinion about Sherman, in with those who claim that aliens helped build the pyramids, and wrongly and in a verbose, insulting pseudo-intellectual, and anti-intellectual, and verbose and crude manner, AND ANTI-REVISIONIST and destroying legitimate revisionism in with those who make sensational claims about SHERMAN or have sensational claims that have merit and evidence, IN WITH THOSE that do not have any merit, like Ancient Aliens! Isn’t Wikipedia very nice?

There’s never a gray area with Wikiepdia is there? Let’s just be ignorant morons who believe in a falsely-constructed “mainstream” invented by people who are self-appointed experts and pseudo-intellectuals that mostly do not have mainstream credibility and an encyclopedia looked at with contempt by many in the “mainstream” for example and live in a fantasy world of being mainstream all the time and silence everyone that we not disagree with loaded and derisive labeling THAT IS WRONG and MISINFORMED in true Soviet-like fashion in 1984 fashion, and seperate the partly-true other opinions, semi-true based in reality opinions, from the bullshit, irrational, stupid, ignorant, moronic ANCIENT ALIENS UFO nut type opinions, shall we AND NOT LUMP THEM INTO A single category, or at least BE VERY careful because it is a hateful, loaded, highly-opinionated, pejorative, insulting, moronic, highly-contentious, skating on thin ice, dangerous, not very nice, highly inflammatory, highly toxic, and danger

Wikipedia claims that those who disagree with it are outside of mainstream scientific and historical opinions, WHICH IS BULLSHIT, because Wikipedia LUMPS THEM IN WITH UFO cranks to further their own stupid propaganda bullshit about being the “mainstream” when in fact, they are self-appointed pseudo-intellectual fools who behave in Maoist Soviet 1984 type manner, not fitting of true intellectuals, but I suppose they must have it to rightfully label the moon landing deniers and other such idiots, but that is again, highly inflammatory and contentious to have that term or that category.

Wikipedia IS BS remember that and ALWAYS be skeptical about it and KEEP AN OPEN MIND ABOUT IT AND KEEP

Are they talking about me when no college would tolerate my opinions? THAT IS NOT true. Intellectuals are open-minded and look at all variables and possibilities in a certain situation to make within reason, logical, well-rounded, intelligent and well-thought out reasoned knowledge to help further understanding of ourselves and sadly Wikipedia does not do that and misinformed self-appointed pseudo-intellectual pseudo-historical, NOT mainstream, mostly uncertified writers, TEND TO EASILY mislead and misinform people purporting to be this way, using loaded terms such as this, BUT being “open-minded” (yeah right they are NOT) and at least revising something to make it right, or the sensationalistic about that Kristina girl I keep writing about.  I have wrongly given people the idea that I have a creepy obsession with this girl, when in fact I do not, I just do not want to see a pretty girl like her spend 40 years in the slammer and rot away into old age and die there, not lasting long and being born the day after I was, for example, and having the same sort of fatalistic open-minded and intelligent and valuable and tough and honest personality of being able to go through all the worst BS and come out the other side and feel fine and go on with you life and be okay, like Kristina can.

Pseudohistory is an inflammatory term that Wikipedia uses to insult in an infllammatory manner all opinions that the self-appointed “mainstream mob” of Wikipedia uses to insult other people with.

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT represent the mainstream at all and are pseudo-experts that are highly neurotic, go on power trips to prove that they are right, insult people

That is stupid and ignorant. The REAL anti-science is the idiots that deny it. That makes no sense to insult people that wish to further understand historical achievements in with those clowns! AND BEING LUMPED IN WITH IDIOTS THAT INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD AND CONFUSE PEOPLE TO FURTHER IGNORANT AND STUPID BELIEFS ABOUT THE MOON LANDINGS AND ARE IGNORANT PEOPLE  BUT HAVE THEM CORRECT and realize that you are WRONG and say “I DID NOT KNOW THAT” and then move on and believe the truth.

The term is a loaded and contentious one that people like to use to silence and insult the religious people that do not like evolution at all, but respect everything else science, and those idiots that hate science no matter what and are irrational, but in reality, only hate evolution and ignorantly proclaim that they hate science because of their “creationist beliefs” being “attacked” by them. I do not care about such people! I dislike such people! I do not care about them at all and I would rather ignore them!  ( I AM NOT ANTI-SCIENCE AND FULLY LOVE AND RESPECT IT)

YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A STUPID moron to be anti-science!

It is okay to question events in this fashion, but not to make irrational nonsense like those fools do. If we did not ask questions, to further our understanding of real events like the moon landing, we wouldn’t even be able to know about it at all and better understand it.

But do not question Wikipedia legitimately or you’re an idiot! Which I AM NOT and I can ask questions and intelligent and well-thought out thoughts in a sort of grayish area OUTSIDE of something WITHIN THE BOX OF SANITY AND REALITY ASKING DEEP AND PROBING AND INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS AND ORDERLY QUESTIONS AIMED AT FURTHERING MY UNDERSTANDING OF LEGITIMATE EVENTS to fully debunk the idiots that deny the moon landings, moon landing denial TO GET THE TRUTH TO BETTER OUR AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW EVERYTHING WORKS AND write them so that you realize that you need to be skeptical of Wikipedia and keep an open mind about you, and be flexible, but do not fall prey to conspiracy theorists who make up bullshit


It is not “anti-science” to ask legitimate questions to further your personal understanding of this great historical achievement, anymore than it is about organic foods being better for you, because you have that great feeling of not having pesticides in it. They are not flakes or ignorant of misinformed people, they are pro-science and use real science to convince people that this food is bad because it causes cancer and the factory farms are destroying the environment, as part of the corporate pseudoscience lobby that denies global warming, denies that GM foods cause cancer,  and more corporate pseudoscience that is furthered when Wikipedia talks about organic food and the government shilling for them.

I am not saying this to hide anything, to hide any sort of stupid belief that I DO NOT believe and never EVER will about them being fake! I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT!

Oh how people like to generalize and make false conclusions about things to slander them and make them stupid for asking a legitimate question.

Thank you everyone!


And Good Night!

Thank you for reading!

Historyblogcritic and general Wikipedia skeptic, knowledgable and intelligent, SKEPTIC, intelligent person that can see through all the BS type stuff out there and be able to use deep and intellligent thoughtful thought in a very intelligent, multi-variable dimension type thinking space to further enlighten people to be cautious of Wikipedia and BE A LITTLE wiser when using it and to use this blog to have personal opinions, historical commentary, mixed into a couple of sentences, and whole posts, and insightful commentary CRITICIZING ALL THE BS OUT THERE TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE CHOICES ABOUT CERTAIN CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS LIKE PSEUDOHISTORY FOR EXAMPLE AND TO HAVE OPEN MINDS ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM AND WIKIPEDIA BEING LAMBASTED BY THE MAINSTREAM AS A WHOLE ABOUT IT AND BEING INSULTED BY IT, AND TO KEEP AN OPEN< SKEPTICAL, FREE HONEST, INFORMED, AND REASONABLE MIND OPEN AND NOT TO BUY INTO THE MAINSTREAM PROPAGANDA OF WIKIPEDIA AND TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND ABOUT YOU and always think of many flexible variables, to bring back insightful, open, and intelligent content on Wikipedia and to always keep your mind open about it and be very tough and have an open mind and always HAVE a gray area and stop Wikipedia from weaasling in personal opinions, that are close-minded, bigoted, ignorant, loaded full of crap, BS, promoting their own agenda, like the pseudohistory term to lump in certain historical opinions, like War or Northern Aggression stuff to further their own narrow prejudices about people they do not like to derisively insult people with this category and other people like it and the stabbed in back idea that wasn’t a myth, (misconception the term IS never used to seperate it from myth and misconception is an idea thought to be true, but isn’t a myth is a false whimsical not correct, incorrect, unwise, idea that was NEVER true to begin with, e.g. Greek Mythology, but a misconception is a WRONG idea that was once thought to be true, but isn’t and new evidence proves it AND THE ABUSE OF THE term “myth” to insult nations who deeply believe in their own history and great heroic heroes throughout history as myth-makers and liars and BSers and believing in irrational propaganda to further the far-left globalist idea of dismantling nation-states and heirarchies to further their own dreams os pseudo-equality and eliminating the barriers to forming a totalitarian global society that waht they want and national heroes and countries like Russia that deeply believe in their history for example ARE nations that they hate and target and destroy with a VENGEANCE and NO NWO is NOT involved here. Thank you very much, at least Russia was smart enough to ban NGOs because they were smart enough to realize that they were trying to subvert and destroy their country and course the NGO-shilling media cries out “censorship” and “Russian fascism” and “nationalistic chauvinism” and all that other bullshit to make their nation-state, patriotism-hating, nationalism-hating, deep love of country self-hating self-absorbed hateful asses feel good! MORONS) but a misconception based on the idea that Germany lost because it was stabbed in the back by the Kaiser, like that bitter feeling you get when you lose a game and they stabbed you in the back and that bitter feeling that you quit and failed and the Germans being a tough warrior spirit and that coupled with the Versailles Treaty and Adolf Hitler promising greatness for Germany, and the crippling economic poverty and despair or reparations bred the conditions that led Hitler to rise to power and commit genocide against non-Aryan racially-inferior, unfit to live people, deemed unfit to live by the Nazis as a means to create  a racially-pure Aryan Nazi  EUROPE ARYAN-TYPE paradise of blonde-haired blue-eyed RACE of idiots using very VERY crude pseudoscience to further their own narrow prejudices when Science proved THEM VERY WRONG!  The idea was wrong and flawed and the Nazis needed to be defeated and destroyed to bring sanity back to Europe and KILL EVERY NAZI ALIVE AND BURY GERMANY INTO THE GROUND so THAT ITS EVIL SPECTER COULD NEVER THREATEN EUROPE EVER EVER AGAIN and bring about a free and enlightened Europe for future generations. The hated and discredited idea


Good night everyone!


Thank you for reading!




About Justin Royek

I am a critic of Wikipedia that likes to remind people that there are other sources out there than Wikipedia and that knowledge isn't written by a bunch of anonymous nobodies on a blog dressed up as an encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. My name is Justin Royek and this is my personal blog/soapbox for different issues and many things relevant to my life. I am a polyglot that speaks about 10 languages. I am NOT Tim Doner or Benny Lewis or Christophe Clugston or any of those self-proclaimed "polyglots" on YouTube. I am my own blog. I am Justin Edward Royek. Patchman123 on Facebook and YouTube. I am Justin Royek. I AM A WRITER ON MANY ISSUES. I HAVE DECIDED TO CHANGE MY USERNAME ON THE BLOG.
This entry was posted in Personal. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s