What's next, more alts?
The experiment they did can be done by anyone. Science that you don't like is still science.
You know what else was lost? The original plans to the Wright Flyer.
Because no one cares. If we go back to the moon we will do it on a much different spaceship. NASA is mostly gov pork. Funneling money to CONTRACTORS are what matters, not the specific plans.
Keep clutching at those pearls though. I'm sure they're a very important part of your mental illness.
"Prove it to this moron who is emotionally invested in going against the truth no matter how many sources conclusively demonstrate that I'm wrong"
You’re not posting here sincerely.
You think I got that knowledge from the US Gov?
You really are a smoothbrain.
Where's your Tumblr about flat earth? You gonna post that next?
"trust the science" is an oxymoron. No one trusts 'science'. We don't have to. The whole point is making predictions then testing those predictions until the confidence level of the results is acceptable. Then others do the same to verify.
We landed on the moon. Anyone who says otherwise is either a complete moron or alphabet soup goon.
https://www.luogocomune.net/american-moon-42-questions
1-4 don't understand that exposure is related to time. High doses are survivable for short periods. They are still more likely to have mutations. It's not 'safe'. But it's survivable for short times. https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2022/fesearchers-find-spaceflight-may-be-associated-with-dna-mutations-and-increased-risk-of-developing-heart-disease-and-cancer
5-9 don't understand that moon dust isn't the same as what we have on earth. It doesn't act the same.
10 there is a flame, it's just not in contiuous operation like in testing. We see the jet shoot out from under the module then ascend.
11-13 Mics don't pick up audio that's outside their frequency range. Why would the people on the ground want to hear the engine noises in comms?
14 0.9 of a second? These people have never communicated using radio. Try listening to HAM sometimes.
15-16 just made up nonesense. There's no wind on the moon. It doesn't need stabilization.
17-20 more dust misconceptions
21 why would flashes of light indicate a sound stage? Wouldn't they indicate an un-controlled environment, say, like the moon?
22 low gravity, momentum
23 momentum exists with or without air
24 ....I'm just going to stop there. this is obviously put together by CIA to convince morons who don't understand physics.
Glow harder. American Moon only looks at the photographic evidence. There is so much more than simply photos.
And American Moon gets the photo analysis wrong, see Glyn Williams answer here - https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-do-you-think-about-massimo-mazucco-s-document-am%C3%A9rican-Moon-and-the-experts-of-photography-inside-saying-Apollo-photos-were-really-too-clear-to-be-Taken-in-the-moon-see-my-answer
So no, that video is not convincing at all.
Mythbusters disproved this theory with simple prop building. They exactly replicated the 'non-parallel' shadows using terrain features and elevation. This picture doesn't prove what you think it proves.
Fake moon landing hoaxers glow just about as bright as the flat-earthers. No one with any critical thinking skills would even consider the moon landings fake.
Because what purpose did it serve? To make Americans feel good about themselves? How does that help the Jews/Lizards? What is the goal of this supposed propaganda? Why would the Soviet Union participate in this?
And that's not even getting into the physical evidence or the evidence from other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
In short, fake moon landing posts are a discrediting psyop to make 'normies' think these sites are untrustworthy.
Which is correct. The poles have shifted many times in the past and it's not a huge deal.
Interesting stuff either way.
If that's a pineal gland in their hand these dudes at like a foot tall at most.
GOP is worthless, long live the uniparty
The methodology of the study wasn't designed to test transmission methods. They needed a 100% transmission rate because the experiment was testing if a substance caused a disease. Can't test effect without limiting variables, transmission rate being a major factor to CONTROL, not TEST.
Whatever their CIA handlers tell them to believe. Flat-earthers don't exist in real life, it's just a discrediting psyop.
The fact that no one is suing the gov for bad weather manipulation despite them clearly affecting patterns is the real conspiracy.
....a 3ft high tsunami. That's just a wave.
Chemtrail believers can think what they want, problem is they don't.
we don't see images of these "of those are just contrails" from the 50/60s
Then you should try doing some basic research.
Don't get mad because I've provided a reasonable explanation for your misconceptions based on ignorance.
"Right next to each other" - well they're never really 'right next to each other' and winds at different heights are often doing different things. (Which is how hot air balloons navigate)
Flight separation in the flight levels (18,000 and above) Vertically with Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums 1,000 feet Vertically without Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums 1,000 feet at or below FL 290 2000 feet above FL 290 Laterally: 5 miles enroute
Clouds are not chemtrails. That would be weather manipulation if anything.
Aircraft are a terrible places to hide extra weight. And anything dispersed is going to weigh a lot if we assume the volume of contrails observed is purely 'chemtrails'. There simply isn't available lifting capacity to move cargo/people AND disperse an additional agent.
Look at the cloud seeding aircraft, the ones we know exist. The majority of the weight is taken up by the seeding agent. Commercial flights wouldn't work at all if they had to also carry chemtrail chemicals.
Further, why would they want the chemicals way up in the flight levels above 18000 feet? We can see the trails and they don't fall down like rain.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the chemical somewhere closer to the ground? Say in automotive fuel where we can interact with the exhaust much more easily and were few people will notice the extra weight?
Or why wouldn't they simply add it to our food supply?
BTW I'm over 40 and commercial jet airliners have **always ** produced contrails. So enough with that bullshit.
I'm not saying the gov wouldn't blast us all with something sketchy, far from it I'm sure they do in some manner.
"intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any mean, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight."
But weather manipulation is not the same as chemtrails. We know they do cloud seeding. That's not a conspiracy at all.
Notice how the cloud seeding aircraft have significant differences from a commercial airliner. Chemtrails just don't make sense as a delivery mechanism.
Epstein is still alive tho
You're confusing the internet with things on the internet or things that connect to the internet.
The protocols, the connections, those ARE the internet.
Sure websites change. Political powers change. But the internet is still the same.
Where?
Cars running on hydrogen is a thing. Generating enough hydrogen to run the car using an on-board generator is busted.