How we got to the moon...
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (49)
sorted by:
OP you're a Fag for not knowing balloon tanks and half-staging were not used on the Apollo missions. Try harder not look like a total conspiritard.
super fag
Yeah, humans can travel through the impenetrable firmament because science said so!
This is a fragment of information that you have provided no context for. Nor is anything in this video self evident.
maybe ur brain is a balloon? Some people cant handle thinking too hard or it might pop.
Yagh, yagh, yagh. I'm real dumb. You should explain it to me like I'm five.
with balloon tanks - dahhhh....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
But we didn’t get to the moon...
If you believe everything you see on tv, you may be beyond help :(
It is far dumber to trust the television, and to believe that the moon is a giant rock floating in the sky that never falls. The moon is not a rock, nor is it made of cheese. It can’t be landed upon.
If you want to understand why i say, and how i have concluded, these “stupid” things - please join us on flatearthresearch to discuss it!
You didn’t, you mentioned your belief in something that only ever happened on tv [screens].
I’m not a “flathead”, but i do like talking about facts and science! What i shared with you was a fact; we didn’t go to the moon. But i understand why you have difficulty recognizing that as true, and respect that (as a lone “fact”) you don’t currently see any reason to accept that fact.
But don’t you see that that is the whole problem i’m criticizing?! If you believe what you see on the screens - in pictures, in videos, even in books - you will end up believing all manner of fictional nonsense. That’s why you think we went to the moon!
I am a flat earth researcher, not a flat earther (the latter of which is primarily a psyop, and not a real group anyway). My position is not that the world is flat, or that there is a giant ice wall surrounding it, or even that it has an edge at all (it might not!). My position is that the world is not spherical the way we have been taught, and that that is not a scientifically sound suggestion for its shape (it would violate natural laws).
However, this is a little off topic to the current one. The moon doesn’t have any inherent relevance to the shape of the earth, and the fact that “going to the moon” was a tv special feature of a cold war psyop to distract from very real (and serially unaddressed) civil rights/iniquity in society also has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
In any case, i don’t want to convince (i.e. manipulate) you or anyone. I’m interested in the collaborative pursuit of truth (validated fact will suffice!) through earnest research and rational discourse. One reason i share my perspectives is to subject them to criticism in the hopes of refinement. If i am wrong, i should like to know it - and know how i can validate that knowledge! How about you?
This isn’t really about “smarts”. The smartest amongst us can be fooled. In any case, try to direct your responses to the content, and not engage in vapid ad-hominem.
Whenever you want! I’ve already shared plenty of facts - perhaps you would like to discuss the science that underpins them? The best way to understand and get specific answer, is to ask specific questions!
It is not my intent to be condescending or arrogant - quite the opposite. My apologies if i have come across that way to you. I also have lots of evidence to offer - just ask!
No one is advocating to “blatant disregard” anything but belief! The burden to thoroughly validate all claims (including “facts”, merely one type of claim) before accepting them always falls on the student. That’s all i’m saying.
One of the most wonderful things about science is that it requires no belief and is, in fact, hindered by it. So it is with all knowledge.
That would be dishonest, i agree. You are misunderstanding me.
I largely agree with you. Research takes many forms (including discussion with others, and watching/evaluating videos/media) - but my particular approach focuses on science and the history thereof. You have likely not encountered earnest flat earth researchers such as myself before. Your criticisms are for and of “flat earthers” of the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop.
If i say, “gee, that cloud looks like a bunny” and then point at the cloud - you are quite likely to see the bunny resemblance. If i merely point at the cloud and say “gee, that cloud really looks like something”, you are very unlikely to see the bunny.
Expectation has a profound impact on interpretation. In science, it is known as “bias” and it is a four letter word.
What we see in the sky are certainly circular. Spherical is an assumption - a bias introduced through astronomy.
In any case, even assuming they were all spherical (a pathetically common and encouraged assumption/bias) it would have no necessary relevance to the shape of the world. Looking in the sky (the literal opposite direction) for the shape of the earth is both unscientific and powerful stupid.
Of course they did, but this semantic non-sequitur is irrelevant anyway. Spheroid, ellipsoid - whatever you like. I say a grape is spherical; it’s not a perfect sphere either, don’t get bogged down in needless pedantry if you can help it!
The truth is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibility. I know full well, and understand, why the things i say seem so absurd to you. If you want to understand what i am saying, how i have concluded them, and why - you should ask questions! Otherwise, continue to believe the fictional state sanctioned narrative you currently do. I won’t stop you!
Lol. Why do you think this? Who do you think has seen such things from the earth?
Clearly you have misunderstood me. Could you cite/quote what i said that you interpreted as “crying”?
This is a silly and vain assumption on your part. However, it is understandable. How could someone that understands (and even likes!) physics ever say such things?!
If you want to know and understand the answer to that question, you will have to earnestly discuss it with me. It takes little more than some time and your earnest interest. Or you can keep being blinded by prejudice/bias and incredulity as a means to prevent and avoid civil rational discussion at all costs.... Up to you!
The pride and arrogance are yours, brother or sister. I am not better than you simply because i am more knowledgeable.
Or youtube, we are in complete agreement!
I should have clarified, “tv”’s are screens. If you believe everything you see on the screens, you may be beyond help.
I hope you agree!
Sure, but you disagree? Bitchute = bad but youtube = good? Surely you don’t believe that!?
Only idiots/fools argue. I only seek to discuss! You can’t win a discussion, but you can lose the point of it.
You are free to discuss back without fear of “losing”! Direct your responses at the content, not the speaker (ad hominem)!