Ah okay. Well you're talking to a scientist who took lots of physics courses and even some history of science courses (that covered how we got many things wrong). Frankly I don't blame you, given what politics and money have done to science in recent years. Not to mention the rise in Scientism - the unquestioning belief in The Science (TM) even if The Science changes every five minutes. In any given moment, The Science is truth, no matter how contradictory to evidence.
That said... I mean, you can try to make a flat earth model work. No one's ever done it. It takes some wild and wonky physics; my friends and I tried it in college, and again actually about 8 years ago at my old job we ran it with another group of scientists. Things like the annual path of the sun, sticks at different latitudes casting different sized shadows at the same time... and yea, gravity is real. It's funny in that video they show water spinning off a tennis ball as some sort of proof that water can't stick to a spinning ball, but try it yourself. If you spin the ball REALLY fast, you may get it dry, but odds are it will still be damp because of the adhesive forces between the water and the surface. Also gravity doesn't just work on large objects, but it only works appreciably on large objects. But you can run the Cavendish experiment yourself.
And I mean... without gravity, what holds us to the flat earth anyway? Are we constantly accelerating up? I guess that'd have to be the case huh. But why doesn't anything get any closer? Is it all accelerating up too?
Kinda funny, thoughts like that sort of do get into how gravity works in a 4D universe, but I mean... you don't really seem to believe in 3D, so I'll skip that. Good luck.
If it's any consolation man, I could only make it through half of American Moon... which, talk about not posting sincerely - the documentary isn't sincere with the evidence it presents to back its arguments. Much left out of context... anyway all it did was strengthen my resolve that men walked on the moon. If nothing else, the documentary affirms that we've at least sent probes to the moon that have returned, and we've left experimental stuff there... but for some reason we didn't do a manned mission like all of the evidence suggests.
But yea all that shit about dust not behaving the same and "no engine flame" - which is explained by this video where you see the engine fire (with flame) initially to launch, then they let momentum carry them away, then you see the engine fire again when they do a full burn to accelerate away and rendezvous with the lunar orbiter.
and think satellites are just hanging from high tech weather balloons
What? I mean the fact that you somehow extracted that from my comment tells me you're not a serious person. The orbital mechanics required to keep a satellite in orbit (or launch out of orbit and into the orbit of another heavenly body) have been understood since Newton... who had no dreams of "high tech weather balloons." What the hell does that even mean?
American Moon basically just tells me good reasons why we haven't gone back (aside from "cause fake"), while regurgitating all the talking points.
• Too expensive
• Too challenging
• People died (these top three are the weakest, which is odd that the movie would lead with them. They also aren't really arguments, so I'm not bothering with refuting them).
• Russians were really our friends the whole time? (that's a new one on me)
• Distributed manufacturing means no one had to know it was faked ...except that any one of those people/companies could have said "oh yea, our product never worked." Everything had to work to accomplish the mission, and no one has come out saying any part didn't. Not only did it have to work, but it had to integrate with other parts, and nobody's saying that didn't happen either. They said it's like 20k companies right? So that's leadership at 20k companies that have to stay quiet... let's say the big 5 (lead engineers, CEO, CFO)... that's 100k people that have to say their shit worked and integrated with the others. Possible, not likely. Also stagehands and set operators would've watched the footage and said "hey, that's exactly what we filmed!" No one's said that, and those who could are dying off pretty quickly. Nothing to lose, but we still haven't heard from them.
• The retroreflectors bit is hilarious. Yes, we know you can bounce a laser off the moon and detect it; regolith is reflective (which is why we can see the moon at all). But you have to use SOOPER sensitive equipment to see it because you're getting a small fraction of the reflection. Like headlights on a tree vs. headlights on a road sign or road reflector - the image is much brighter when it's coming off a dedicated reflector, and that's what we see when we hit the ones left on the moon. That's why in a laser lab (not that you've ever been to one, but just know this is true), they bounce lasers off expensive highly polished mirrors instead of, idk, very white plates. Because when you're taking a precise measurement, you want the strongest signal possible and not just some noise that "oh look, we can kinda see the laser." But the next part is where it gets really funny: "And even if reflectors are there, they could've been dropped there by an unmanned probe like the Soviets did."... So in 45 short minutes we've gone from "it's impossible to get to the moon" to "well, it's impossible to get men to the moon." So now the only challenge is getting back... Alright, I'm captivated.
• Well awesome... "The lunar rocks could've been brought back by unmanned probes like the Soviets did." Okay, so we can get probes back... but we definitely couldn't do it with people as a payload instead of not people. Shit so now the only logistical problems are food, oxygen, and waste management. Oh and extra fuel for weight, but that's negligible. Like I said, the moon rocks were one of my doubts, but this documentary seems to assert that the Soviets definitely brought some back, so I'm not sure how much worse it'd be (if at all) for men to bring them back instead of a robot. Lol "WHY DOES NASA NEED TO PROVE IT?" Fuck, that was already covered - the "moon hoax" theory blew up, particularly with the advent of the internet, so NASA responded. Shit they even show NASA's web page that was only created after the moon hoax conspiracy became more widespread.
• So now "we were really good at making movies look like real life, so NASA just made a good movie." Fair enough. Hell, birds might not even be real. Plato's Allegory of the Cave comes to mind. The follow up examples are retarded though and again run counter to the point - we have physical evidence that King Kong didn't climb the Empire State Building or that NYC wasn't washed away (and a complete lack of evidence of Oz), and we also have some evidence of men leaving stuff on the moon. We also have the authors of those works themselves saying that they were all works of fiction, while the only people saying the moon landing was fake are seemingly everyone who did nothing but watch and give conjecture as to how it could have been faked. The "authors of the work," so to speak, to the person, say it was real. So again, not really the "gotcha" the doc tries to make it. Up to this point in the movie (~52 minutes), I mean, even if men didn't go to the moon, but we were able to send unmanned probes and return samples and leave shit there, AND film movies that make it look like men did it and not robots... Idk, still pretty damn impressive.
• Next argument is basically the same as the previous. "NASA made a really good simulator, so they didn't have to actually go." Hilarious again is the fact that the doc concedes that we sent probes there to land and orbit the moon. So again, we can get to the moon, we can return from the moon, but we didn't send men there because we're really good at simulations or something. K yea, maybe. I didn't personally go, so I can't say for sure that we've put men on the moon. But the evidence is pretty compelling, and even if the final "men were there" part is a lie, all of the engineering feats surrounding it are still pretty amazing.
• Van Allen belts - flew through the thinner parts (i.e. not at the equator) at very high speed. NASA calculated the exposure as something like 12 rads/hour, which is well below the lethal dose (as the doc mentions). Radiation like that is hard on electronics too - SEUs are bad. But we run satellites through there all the time, and again, the doc even posits that the Soviets and Americans had been sending unmanned probes to the moon and back, so somehow the Van Allen belts had been largely mitigated in those missions. Which is to say, a bit of radiation protection and limiting exposure is all it really takes. Not nearly as big a concern as it's always made out to be; I'm a little surprised the doc even references it as evidence against. As to why that Orion video makes dramatic mention of the Van Allen belts as "a problem we need to solve"... I mean, that's true. It's dramatic effect to keep people interested - the problem has been solved. We have probes that basically live in the things; if radiation hardening weren't a thing, they would've gone incommunicado long ago. And I mean, if you're into SHTF type shit, you can go buy some rad hard microelectronics if you're afraid of nukes dropping (though if one drops that close it'll take more than that to survive). So yea, just like you wouldn't want to stand in an X-ray for hours on end, it would be bad to live in the Van Allen belts. But running through them at 25Mm/hour behind a few layers of metal walls... not as bad. The doc takes a bunch of statements out of context ("Van Allen himself said they were deadly!" Yea man, so are X-rays.) as arguments against, which is always a bad sign when trying to make a compelling case (and the doc is increasingly doing while contradicting itself).
• Holy shit the LEM thing. The construction arguments are silly so I'll skip them; just look at any module out in space today and you could make the same claims. But then "See? Here's what a probe landing looks like on Mars." So A) we can get a probe to land on Mars, and B) Mars has 2-3 times the gravity, which means much more thrust required, and it means an atmosphere to settle the dust much more quickly rather than launching it into oblivion due to lack of anything to stop the inertia. This is another self-contradictory part because they said they used the scale moon model to simulate orbiting and landing, but the scale model clearly didn't have any dust, which you can see the LEM's engine blowing away in the descent video. And as to why the dust didn't settle on the landing pads, that Russian dude in the interview is wrong - it's because the dust doesn't hang around because there's no atmosphere and very little gravity. The lack of atmosphere means there's no pressure differential after the engine shut off to pull dust/air back in to where the engine had been firing. I don't understand why you'd expect dust in the pads if the engine shut down before landing... the dust isn't hanging around 10 meters above the surface, and as noted there's no atmosphere and very little gravity to resettle the dust anywhere near where it had been blown away. The leaf blower analogy is pretty terrible not only because a leaf blower is an air pump using the atmosphere its in to create thrust (so wouldn't work at all on the moon, even if electric), but it's being used in an entirely different environment with entirely different physics. It's such a non-sequitur that it's just a disingenuous comparison... but I've been getting a lot of that in the past 1.5 hours of this doc. Also Armstrong's comment about the surface being "very fine grained" doesn't contradict the "no crater problem." Even if the layer is 6" deep, spreading that out in a what, 10m radius or more (however far out the thrust jet was redirected)... you wouldn't be able to perceive it. Underneath is luna firma, and even the Mars rover didn't blast a crater into, uh... martia firma? The "no crater problem" isn't a problem, and the evidence they show of the dust being blown away while landing contradicts the claim. "Oh but there are still small rocks there!" yes... yes some of the rocks wouldn't have been blown away. Just like the leaf blower left some larger particles behind; I often find that the leaves move, but the sticks stay around. So the overall argument here is: because my leaf blower has a thrust limit, the lunar landing isn't real. I'm saying it a lot... not very compelling. I'll give it 10-20 more minutes.
Oh wait look at this picture. So, previous pics had some dust around the underside of the footpads, but in this one you can actually see the thrust lines in the dust extending radially outward from the center of the craft. In an environment with no atmosphere, the only thing that could have caused that is thrust from the engine's exhaust gas (like "state of matter" gas, not "gasoline" gas). Or it's just a very convenient shot with the way the spread the dust on the set, idk. In any case, the documentary is shooting itself in the foot with this photo claiming it's evidence that the engine didn't even fire.
• As to the LEM take off, it looks like the engine fires enough to reach escape velocity with the initial burst and coasts from there. Idk how long the engines were supposed to have fired, but they clearly aren't accelerating after the initial push/burst, so that explains the lack of noise in the cabin. In fact this video shows the ENTIRE CONTEXT (recurring theme) which shows a flame on the initial burst, then when the LEM reaches altitude, it kicks the engines on full thrust which can be seen in the video and heard on the audio. Seems like very convenient footage for the doc to have left out. Patience thinning.
• Now the Grumman specs problem and the missing tapes - yea, this is where my doubts lie and aren't well mitigated by any evidence. I mean, then again, I've worked government, and that excuse is plausible. There's a record retention schedule for everything. Of course these tapes and data should've been exempted IMO, but again... I've worked in government. It's not implausible... even in the private sector. I helped design a diagnostic product that is still in use today, and I guarantee you the company doesn't still have my lab notebook or anything much beyond like... the specs of the current iteration of the product.
So yea, it does raise doubt, but on the whole the documentary to this point has pushed me more to believing than not. Bad faith arguments, poor analogies, misleading videos without context... I thought I would end at "okay we've been there, but maybe men haven't been there," but after the LEM part, particularly in the context of the claims with the rest of the video, I'm starting to think men went there.
Good exercise, thanks! Maybe I'll check the last half another time. Maybe they were saving the best for last.
• K fine one more - the audio delay thing. Where was the recording pulled from? If from the spacecraft, the receipt-to-acknowledgement delay would be minimal from Houston to the astronauts (which is all they show). However, if you're recording from Houston's side, there would be a significant delay. Simple as; there were tape recorders on both ends (this is well-documented). The delay would be dependent on which recording you listened to. Say it with me this time: The documentary seems to deliberately omit this very important context.
i dont like that they waited until the near the end of the movie to present the proofs about the lighting, which i think is the strongest of all the arguments
Maybe they thought so, too, and wanted you to stick around until the end.
I am still out on fake or not. OTOH - it would be very expensive to fake, very difficult to contain, and none of the evidence against is very strong except...
OTOH - the shit like NASA letting some intern recording over the OG footage, or the moon rocks getting lost, or passing fake moon rocks off as real, "forgetting" how to go back... those are the more damning arguments for me. The more incompetent NASA appears, the less I believe they were able to land on the moon.
But I mean satellites go up every day, ISS has been up there for 20 fuckin years, Hubble for 30+, Voyager has successfully left the internals of the solar system... so really the orbital mechanics part isn't that unbelievable. Just... for such a monumental event... you'd think they'd have valued the hard evidence a bit more. But maybe it's because it's such a monumental event that any and all evidence is brought under greater scrutiny.
So yea, I really don't know. But the video/pics argument and Van Allen belts and all that... not very compelling.
You're wrong. From the top of Section 4:
For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘definition of antisemitism’’ means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has •HR 6090 EH 25 been adopted by the Department of State; and 1 5 (2) includes the ‘‘[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism’’ identified in the IHRA definition
Since antisemitism is illegal under the Civil Rights Act, you'll now have to refer to the International Holocaust Rememberance Alliance (if that's not dystopian enough) definition on their website, which contains such hits as:
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group
So if you think circumcision is wrong, then you're accusing Jews, as a people, of real wrongdoing, because Jews, as a people, are pro-circumcision. It's right in their books.
How about this one:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations
So accusing BS of what he admits to publicly is now a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Keep an eye on the page for updates; I'm sure the international jews will expand the definition to "any criticism whatsoever" soon.
Really is more toxic to society than murder. It's well-documented that kids who were abused (tend to, with a very high probability) go on to abuse. So you get exponential decay of society with even a small number of child rapes, because each of those children will likely go on to do the same to several children themselves, and so on, and within a couple of generations you already have hundreds of child rapists from just the handful you began with.
There's no way around it - this is just evil. And completely tone deaf - the world is backpedaling hard on the trans issue, with states banning treatments, and even the UK packed up their "trans the kids" treatment saying that it did more harm than good. And lastly, super ironic: isn't the whole end of a "trans" person to "pass" as the opposite sex, i.e. not be visible?
But no, of course, the fucking psychopathic narcissists get off on making people believe an obvious lie. I'm sure it's a power trip to make others say things they know to be false.
Yea being in jail has reliably kept people safe. Like Jeff Epstein!
learn to fish or hunt.
Highly recommend bowhunting (at least a crossbow) in a true SHTF scenario. Hunting rifles have massive report - silencers help, but only most effective with subsonic ammo - and if you're taking game when people are starving, the last thing you need is someone stealing your kill (and your life) while you're dressing it out. Trad bows are simple tools with few moving parts that are easy to maintain and have reusable ammo. I'd skip the compound bow because they're usually even more complicated than a crossbow and require more maintenance. But I would take any bow for hunting larger game over a gun in a true SHTF scenario. Small game... okay, suppressed .22LR with subs is like a pellet gun (or just use a .22/.17 pellet gun). But otherwise save the gun for humans (and with that in mind, don't go hunting without at least a sidearm).
Not only that, but how old is VAERS? I remember searching back through like 10 years of data to compare pre/post covid. All of the other vaccine reporting stayed relatively the same, but covid reports went through the roof. Total reports increased something like 10-12 fold.
Assuming even similar amounts of "fake news" from other vaccine reports, a 10-12x increase is noteworthy to say the least.
That's bugged me since the beginning.
"Hey doc, I'm kinda small and wimpy for a dude, and no matter how much I work out, I just don't seem to get a more masculine physique. Can I get some juice to fill out my shoulders and make me look more masculine?"
"Absolutely not. Unethical."
vs.
"Hey doc, I feel like I look a little too masculine, and no matter how much makeup I put on, I just don't seem to look feminine enough. Can you turn my penis inside out, give me tons of drugs, and do massive facial/body reconstruction to make me appear more feminine?"
"Why weren't you here sooner!? Right this way - don't worry, we'll get the taxpayers to fund it."
Upside down.
They deserve a place of their own, which we can call Hell.
Bro wtf the Michiganders ever do to deserve that?
"You know, I've never really liked paying bills. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either."
That's true; I'm just not as optimistic. The covid propaganda has also been palpably less with each new booster. I think when the propaganda machine spins up again, all the "recently-smart" people who realized they were duped will excitedly be duped again, and they will shun people like us again as "conspiritards" and "anti-vaxxers."
They might be falling off the booster wagon, but they're doing so silently. No one is apologizing or eating crow over it.
I know some people refuse to see it but I can't imagine as many people would go along this time
Did you miss the covid positive battlecry of the vax? "Thank goodness I'm vaccinated; it would have been so much worse!"
"Get with the Joegram" is on par with "Pokemon GO to the polls!"
Oh I've got one! "Pokemon JOE to the polls!" Where's my fuckin check?
Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.
This kind of editorializing has no place in a research publication - definitely not in the abstract if anywhere at all. Save it for the "Open letter to x" publication. This paper reads like half research pub., half op-ed, which is a bad look. Research papers are just the facts, ma'am, with a nod to shortcomings and future studies. That would carry much more weight here.
I'm not saying their data are wrong or bad, but you can't just lay your biases out there like that if you want to be taken seriously. I mean unless you're publishing a gender studies paper or whatever.
I see it all-too-often in "research papers" these days, which kinda gets to the heart of the issue. Science is no longer about discovery and advancement of human understanding of the world. It has become a cudgel to be wielded by the political bodies; facts and good research are a distant second if they're considered at all.
Well it's not the strength of the fuselage apparently.
[NYC]'s population in 2020 was 30.9% White (non-Hispanic), 28.7% Hispanic or Latino, 20.2% Black or African American (non-Hispanic), 15.6% Asian, and 0.2% Native American (non-Hispanic). A total of 3.4% of the non-Hispanic population identified with more than one race.
31% in 2020, before shit got really crazy like the driving tax. NYC is already minority White for sure (I would wager a good chunk of those "Whites" are jews), so y'know... concentrate the problem in a major city where a nuke is more likely to hit.
And y'know, pray for the nuke.
I always get some from the local shop(s) or grow from seeds I harvested the previous year. My garden is weird - 2 years ago I was overflowing with huge Charleston Grays, but last year it was the Sugar Babies that dominated and persisted. Sugar Babies are small and probably have the same amount of seeds as a big melon (so proportionally more seeds), but they're super sweet as the name implies, and that gives them an extremely forgiving harvest range. I.e. if you get them a little early or if it frosts before they're fully ripe, they'll still have a good flavor.
Anyway just research whatever variety you're buying. I find all seeds are pretty cheap for the yield (like $1.29 for some 50 seeds which yield at least as many melons if you have the room). Holy shit I just checked Amazon and it's like $7/100 seeds... you're overpaying for sure. Still I mean, a small investment for how easy melons are to grow.
I was still harvesting Sugar Babies up into the New Year. My daughter (and chickens) ate the last few from last year earlier this week. Little did I know I was doing God's work.
The Pentatauch predates Christianity by several hundred years. Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Yahweh-ists... call them what you will, but until Christ was born and died, Judaism or Hebrew or whatever you want to call it was the religion of the first apostles which, to me (and anyone with an opinion worth a shit on the matter), are the first Christians.
Jewish Christianity was definitely a thing for a good bit after Jesus walked the Earth; it still is to a very, very minor, perverted extent, but Jews trying to follow the Old Covenant in Moses and the New in Jesus were definitely a thing in the early AD.
Yes, Talmudic Judaism is different and perverse. But I'm talking about history that's pretty well documented.
All of the first Christians were Jews ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
There's nothing to learn except the video is deliberately deceptive through multiple lies of omission. To educate you must instill trust, and being caught in multiple lies and self-contradiction in the first half of the documentary isn't exactly the best way to accomplish that.
Idk, that's actually really an ironic thing to say, because I am the one who's done all the learning, and you're trying to teach me to be dumber and ignore things that are obviously true.
What... what exactly am I losing? You haven't offered anything of value. Even IF somehow flat earth physics worked or men didn't really go to the moon or birds aren't real (I added that last bit because why not be crazy?)... how does that butter my fucking bread? It doesn't change how math, logic, and the fundamental forces work. Though I suppose if you forsake gravity you have to come up with some fucking wild explanations for why matter behaves the way it does. Holy shit man the Ancient Greeks proved round Earth and Newton characterized gravity (nothing really to prove there - stuff attracts stuff. More stuff attracts harder than less stuff).
Damn dude you are the quintessential flat earther. Get over yourself. Or not, you clearly think you're the smartest person in every room lol. But leave me out of it; I've already been down this road and it's a dead end.