Search Results
7/9/2025, 5:32:25 PM
>>40688929
they have claimed "terriotial jurisdiction" on the moon
which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967
they have claimed "terriotial jurisdiction" on the moon
which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967
7/5/2025, 3:27:49 AM
maybe claiming territorial jurisdiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967, is nefarious?
6/28/2025, 1:32:29 AM
this is from the website of the freemasonic lodge tranquility 2000
they describe how they declared territorial jurisdiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1976, but the lack of legal repercussions only shows that it was merely symbolic because they never set foot on the moon
they describe how they declared territorial jurisdiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1976, but the lack of legal repercussions only shows that it was merely symbolic because they never set foot on the moon
6/20/2025, 12:00:09 AM
>>40560588
i like this one from the homepage of the freemason tranquility lodge 2000:
freemasons (the guys behind the moon landing) claimed territorial jurisdiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967, but there have been zero legal repercussions. it doesn't even get mentioned.
why? because it was merely symbolic, because they never set foot on the moon.
i like this one from the homepage of the freemason tranquility lodge 2000:
freemasons (the guys behind the moon landing) claimed territorial jurisdiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967, but there have been zero legal repercussions. it doesn't even get mentioned.
why? because it was merely symbolic, because they never set foot on the moon.
Page 1