Flat earthers don't explain anything. They only say what they're told to say by their handlers.
This shit is all a discrediting psyop.
Exactly on point. We landed on the moon, this is psyop garbage, we should worry about real problems the government creates.
Fake moon landing = gov psyop to discredit websites that allow free speech.
What's on the moon that we would need to go back? The only goal was to show that we could. We did that. End of mission.
What's the reason for faking the lading? Why wouldn't they put all those resources to something ... useful?
Oh I know, all moon landing hoaxers are ignorant losers that work for the CIA.
Once you think about it, it becomes obvious.
They'll commute the sentence or some other BS.
This is why the "people without monologues" is a bullshit psyop.
Thinking would require an inner voice. Otherwise they're just reacting.
I'm not convinced people 'with no inner voice' exist. Maybe actual retarded people. It's like the airplane taking off from a treadmill question, people are confused about what's being asked.
Do I hear 'other voices' no, can I think to myself without talking, of course. Everyone does.
"morals" don't exist. Santa Claus doesn't exist either, sorry to tell you.
Jews do exist and they use the banking system to enslaves idiots. Same kind of idiots who simplify complex relationships down to absolute platitudes. ^^^
debt is only morally acceptable
oy vey - off whacko.
Zero debt is a fools game in times of high interest. I specifically bought a house to hedge against the inflation.
That's not their debt though. At most a renter is only on the hook for the rent payments for whatever contract period they signed up for. And that's not debt, just a liability.
https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/115736/is-rent-considered-a-debt
"The heart is good" - lol theists always pushing that con.
The only thing that makes any moon landing seem real
You are either CIA or just a useful idiot. Sad really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (You have to debunk the findings, not wikipedia)
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?
"Organic - you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"
Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
From YOUR replies, I DO think you are a liar that doesn't have any sources.
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.
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.
Glow harder, dumbass.