Bruv, you could just say what you mean. It's obvious that the lander looks flimsy. Are the joints welded to some insane specification; is the chassis effectively immune to any sort of shocks? It's not hard to avoid stupid internet name-calling.
I mean... look, question things is great, but we're basically at the point that most of us realize that everything the government tells us is wrong. That doesn't lead to a spiritual awakening.
The awakening comes when, after realizing the lies we've been told, you realize why every (and I mean every) successful civilization was religious. The Enlightenment led us down two paths: (1) physics, which was fantastically successful; and (2) questioning things... which led to chicks getting the vote, and trannies telling you what you can/cannot say.
For those on the fence about the Duesberg hypothesis, notice that they say that there's no link between poppers and Kaposi's Sarcoma.
But: the orthodox story about HIV is that the 'virus' weakens your immune system so that an opportunistic disease can take advantage of your feeble state and thus kill you. So, right, the "opportunistic disease" was *Kaposi's Sarcoma", a disease that almost nobody gets. But it's sitting there, just waiting for your immune system to weaken. Of course, if your immune system weakens from stress or alcoholism or depression... no Sarcoma. Cool story, bro.
Doctors are proof that while high IQ means something, it doesn't mean what we think it means.
Ah, we know flat earth is just lunacy because they never explain why I can start in Rome and fly east or west and end up in Toronto. That should be the very first question that they answer. Without this, they have nothing. If a flat-earther wants to point me to a decent answer to this question (without being snarky), please do. I'll look into it.
However, for their 'zoom lens' proofs, where they show the complete skyline of Chicago (say) from 100 miles away using a telephoto lens. Well, I sympathize with them. The physics involved is pretty straightforward, but it gives a very convenient response.
... this isn't true. When I was sick as a kid, my mom and brother never got sick. When my girlfriends got sick I sometimes, but rarely got sick. I grew up in Canada, and I was constantly surrounded by sick coworkers... and didn't get sick.
Now: did what you're saying happen? Hey, maybe. I have a friend with 6 daughters and no sons. How is that possible!!!
Nah, look, you're falling into new-style thinking.
In the old days, men loved women, not their vaginas. Women are (for whatever reason) absolutely wonderful.
Men didn't love 'butts', but the subtly different way that women walked.
Now, though, with porn, we've fixated on body parts as the attraction. No, no, women are the attraction, and then they happen to have certain features, like boobs.
We love women because they're so... different. I can spend 12 hours talking about math with a guy. With chicks it's this refreshing absurdity about how her mom cooked nice brownies.
Without porn: no one other than massive degenerates would even care about genitals.
I don't even let chicks give me blowjobs.
For some context: only the gullible or those being paid by CERN really believe that physics is giving us truth. Electrons and protons (etc) are more or less believable because we can do engineering with them. For instance: we can turn on the lights. Most equations are considered phenomenological or emergent (which is basically the same thing).
The 'Higgs Field'. Well, whatever. We're awash in fiat currency, so we let some ne'er do wells pass their lives away.
But hey!!!! In 1960, we really (and this is actually, honestly true) thought that we were about to understand the mystery of the universe.
The Tao of Physics (a book by Fritzof Capra) was considered groundbreaking. It's actually still a great read.
But can you even guess what 'the thing' is? I mean -- there are a lot of things that seem linked to autism -- excessive TV, Jewtube, Jewgle, kinetic movies, kinetic music videos, insane levels of sexuality etc.
If any of those things were responsible, it would be dead easy to conduct a 'clinical trial' to get more insight into them. I suppose it's not surprising that (((they))) aren't doing them.
Yeah, he's wrong. Bell curve -- there are a few (very few) legit intelligent, in an IQ sense, Blacks. Also, if you read interviews with him, he's acutely aware of how 'democratic' policies are destroying the Black community. Sure: blacks have some traits that make them ill-suited for modern society -- but they're not as ill-suited as it seems these days. Welfare and child support destroy a society.
It's happening to whites, too. Just more slowly.
Ha! I mean... you're right. But hey, it took me a while to figure that out. It probably took you a while too. Minorities are imported to destroy social cohesion. Women are 'empowered' to destroy social cohesion. Faggots are promoted... to destroy social cohesion.
On the bright side, a bunch of jews are getting rich.
...interesting. I grew up in the 80's, and of the 1000 people that I knew casually, 3 were 'autistic'. But, I never realized that until much, much later. In fact, in normal life, they were pretty cool. But back in the 80's, we all had normal lives. These days, since school is our church, and children play less and less sports, the signs of autism become much more clear. I wonder if part of the rise in autism is simply that we, as humans, are dealing with a completely unnatural lifestyle?
Still, I've seen 'Vaxxed', and realize that at least at the fringes, the vaccines are extremely damaging. I'd say it's the worst pharma crime against humanity, except I'm aware of the Opium trade ( run by the (((jews))), if you're into that )