0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +1 / -1

Are fake moon landing hoaxers missing brain cells and an understanding of physics?

  • Yes, yes they are.

There are so many better conspiracies out there, why cling to the one that is so easily disproved?

1
MCMoneyPants 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Organic - you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +2 / -2

Negative, I am a meat popsicle.

From YOUR replies, I DO think you are a liar that doesn't have any sources.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +1 / -1

There are literally entire police stations which converted their whole fleet.

Where?

Cars running on hydrogen is a thing. Generating enough hydrogen to run the car using an on-board generator is busted.

NOTE: The amount of electrical energy required to make the gas is more than the energy you can obtain from it. This is NOT an energy generator so much as it is an energy converter.

1
MCMoneyPants 1 point ago +4 / -3

What's next, more alts?

The experiment they did can be done by anyone. Science that you don't like is still science.

-2
MCMoneyPants -2 points ago +1 / -3

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.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +2 / -2

"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.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +3 / -3

You think I got that knowledge from the US Gov?

You really are a smoothbrain.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +3 / -3

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.

1
MCMoneyPants 1 point ago +3 / -2

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.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +5 / -5

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.

-1
MCMoneyPants -1 points ago +7 / -8

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.

1
MCMoneyPants 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is correct. The poles have shifted many times in the past and it's not a huge deal.

1
MCMoneyPants 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting stuff either way.

8
MCMoneyPants 8 points ago +8 / -0

If that's a pineal gland in their hand these dudes at like a foot tall at most.

1
MCMoneyPants 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

3
MCMoneyPants 3 points ago +3 / -0

Whatever their CIA handlers tell them to believe. Flat-earthers don't exist in real life, it's just a discrediting psyop.

5
MCMoneyPants 5 points ago +5 / -0

The fact that no one is suing the gov for bad weather manipulation despite them clearly affecting patterns is the real conspiracy.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +1 / -1

Chemtrail believers can think what they want, problem is they don't.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +1 / -1

we don't see images of these "of those are just contrails" from the 50/60s

Then you should try doing some basic research.

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/item/162845083-1960s-plane-creates-contrail-sky-jet-flies-over-heavily-popu

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +1 / -1

Don't get mad because I've provided a reasonable explanation for your misconceptions based on ignorance.

0
MCMoneyPants 0 points ago +1 / -1

"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.

view more: Next ›