If #1 is true, the only thing I can say in his defense is he experienced more auditing, smears, negative propaganda, and political pressure than any modern human. It was like a Julius Ceasar level freak out against him.
Still don't want to be #2 to be true, smh.
There is a process known as "reverse transcription" in which RNA is converted to DNA. If so your affect cells would produce spike protein permanently, and even multiply. I've never found rock solid proof that reverse transcription was occurring, but no one mainstream wants to address that question. The silence is defining
Well... you definitely sound low iq enough to be a fed.
Why would a fed try to convince people the federal government and nasa have been scamming Americans out of billions of dollars for 60 years, and faking data and accomplishments? Your accusation is retarded.
I haven't been trying to argue FE on this post. I've been trying to show people everything we see from space is fake. This is why nasa still uses high altitude planes and balloons to take pictures of the earth, planets, and stars. They even have planes outfitted with the same equipment hubble allegedly has, hmmmm I wonder why? You don't have to believe FE to see how fake all the space program crap is.
SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy)
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/overview/index.html
Ya I've seen some celebrities with whom it makes no sense like Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel, both of them constantly call out evil stuff. I think the photographers knowingly or unknowingly get some to do these signs. However, I do believe many actors are doing it purposely
You could have just said, "good point, that proves that at least one of my pictures is fake." But I think you know they are fake... and gay.
I mean it's a pretty great trick if ya think about it. All the Goy think jews are oppressed when the opposite is true.
Man the J's are some good pranksters huh!? They have all kinds of funny tricks.
Bull shit!! You are lying lmao. You can see the poles of saturn and the equator due to the patterns on the atmosphere. In one depiction, the rings are slanted like 45 degrees off relative to the equator. Admit it you lying bitch, you can't explain that. ....Angles lol
Damn, I could see that. I was hoping at some point Michael would go public as a tranny, so I can say I told ya so to all those who scoffed at me about it.
I forgot to hyphenate "her" lol. Dang I'll have to look up Larry Nichols. We all know why Joan rivers died...
If you scroll down in this article it shows side by side pictures of the Obama girls real parents. Anita Blanchard and Martin Nesbit. Malia looks like Martin, and Sasha looks like Anita.
Can you find any pictures of her pregnant?
Been off twitter for a long time, but I remember following him just cause there would be so many people commenting on his tweets, making cannibal jokes. Good stuff
Alright let focus on one very simple fact. In pictures 1 and 2 Saturn's rings seem to be perfectly aligned with its equator; in picture 3 the rings are wildly offset from the equator... how can this be?
Well thanks for finally giving it a shot after a ridiculous amount of bs. Where to start? Saturn has a completely different color scheme in all 3 pictures. The rings to planet size ratio is different in all 3 pictures. The angle of the rings compared to the poles of saturn is different in all 3 photos. In the first picture saturn casts a shadow on its rings that looks retardely fake. All 3 pictures look like 90s quality graphics, from a highschool physics book. The saturn aurora on one of your pics is clearly a bullshit layered on graphic. All 3 pictures have almost no stars in the photos.
Let me ask you, does the saturn scene in star treck 2009 look more, or less real than the pictures of saturn you sent me? https://youtu.be/LjUQ4RtmLiU
I'm guessing whatever images were not a 500 mile away view of earth. They were zoomed in just like imaging from a spy plane or satellite balloon. Ocean waves can also be measured by buoys they planted everywhere around the world, you can see them on charts and chart programs.
Did you get to that last part of the video where he is questioning a Nasa mission operations manager on the position and data received from the Hubbell satellite? I don't see how you can watch that and not rethink what you know. He freaked out a 25 year employee because he could not confirm the position of the satellite, and had never received live data from Hubbell. And there are planes fitted with the same equipment as Hubbell.
I dont know how far you got in the video but I don't see what kind of data could 'only come from orbit'. We have enough technology available to make all sorts of observations within earth's atmosphere. We have countless satellite balloons released constantly floating through the sky, doppler radar, drones that can stay aloft for weeks recharged with solar, weather buoys throughout the ocean, spy planes etc. I'm not sure what kind of data you guys worked with, but if we are talking about weather, it is all done with a network of technology in earth's atmosphere, and like the video showed it would be simple to create a program to project the data on a spherical earth. So what data did you have that could only be acquired from orbit, and not some other technology?
The moonlandings are so fake I would bet every cent I had on it. The ISS footage is laughably fake as well if you bother to watch any breakdowns on it, so I know we've never put a man in space. When you compare the size of an average satellite to a commercial jet, and then consider they are hundreds or thousands of miles further away, how the fuck is it possible to see them? Jets are difficult to see when they are only 7 miles high. That "satellite" we see at night can be anything from a drone, project bluebeam, projection on the firmament, natural phenomenon, I have no idea but it not like I can see with my own eyes what it is. Every video I've ever seen of a rocket going to space it simply looks like they launch it into the Bermuda triangle where it either sinks or is recovered. It does not look like it's going to space.
Unless you have a better idea, it's going to be subjective no matter what. My promise is that I will not call it fake unless I can lay out material for comparison to show why I think it's fake. I can't think of any black and white standards to go by. You being so hesitant to show me a real pic just makes me think your either a pussy with no confidence, or a fed. If you next comment isn't a real pic of Saturn, i dgaf anymore.
Took me a while to find this video. It's a bit long but maybe you'll get a kick out of it even if it's bs. It's a good summary of how satellites, particularly their data, is replicated with land, air, and sea based technology. I'm not asking you to consider flat earth, just asking you to question Nasa and other space programs/companies.
Give it your best shot, damn what do ya have to lose. It's not like there is money on this.
Ya I get that, it was a great article, good point. I'll be sending it to the usual libtards I like to antagonize. I was just going on about reverse transcription because I want to know if the jabbed are officially GMOs. I assume this could only be said if the changes were permanent? I have a libtard friend I've been calling a GMO or a mutant.