“Every major technological accomplishment in history is always repeated over and over”
Every accomplishment you listed has direct economic or personal benefits, hence why others followed suit. Coming to the Americas provided land, natural resources, and religious liberty. Transatlantic flight provided travel and business opportunities. Satellites provide communication, navigation, and military intelligence. Going to the Moon had some benefits, such as increased scientific understanding of our solar system, but not as many personal benefits as the other accomplishments you listed.
Americans have physically landed on the Moon 6 times, with 30 total missions to the moon ( the other 24 missions orbited the Moon). Russia/USSR has had 23 missions to the Moon, all of theirs being orbital. China landed a rover on the Moon in 2007, and India has orbited the Moon twice in 2008 and 2019. Your assertion that no one has been to the Moon after the first moon landing is false.
If MSM was as powerful as you say it is then you yourself wouldn’t know about the 24% or Russians stat that you cite. Every MSM narrative that has been fielded in the past 2 years has been debunked in weeks if not days or hours. Covid origins, Covid jabs, election fraud, the truth about Ukraine; it has all been debunked by ordinary people doing their own research, often without any funding. The MSM is not nearly as good at censoring the truth as you think it is.
Also, whether 24% of Russians believe the Moon landing is fake is irrelevant. Belief doesn’t matter, what matters is whether you have evidence and sound reasoning. And when it comes to Moon landing denial (and also flat earthers), they have neither. All their arguments ultimately boil down to: “I don’t like NASA, therefore everything they say is a lie. Also I don’t have to provide any evidence, and if you contradict me then you’re and idiot or a NASA shill”.
When Q talked about the truth sending people to the hospital, it’s more reasonable to suspect he’s talking about everyone in government/entertainment being Satan-worshipping pedophiles who orchestrated 9/11. There’s far more evidence for that than for the Moon landing being fake or the earth being flat.
So this is the deal. I believe we have gone to the moon. We did not use the equipment to get there they say we did.
There are two truths, that the moon landing we say is fake and done as a disinformation campaign to hide the true technology needed to get there.
If MSM was as powerful as you say it is then you yourself wouldn’t know about the 24% or Russians stat that you cite.
There is a reason why Q picked 4chan's /pol/ board to start.
"Based on my decoding there are many “Sciences” that are outright lies, and so let’s discuss how that’s even possible.
It’s the scientific community that lends credibility to what is true & false and the MSM is the one that spreads it. It is the rich that decide who gets the science dollars. Therefore it has to be asked, what if objectivity is not the goal?
What if those with money specifically want to give credibility to a lie? Do scientists stand up to this? And if they did, how would we even know? Would MSM take it seriously? Would tech allow it to trend? Are they that noble? Or would they more likely fall under the same marching orders as the fake science funding?
The foundation of the scientific world, the money that keeps it alive, is suspect. To untangle it all we have to have comms awareness and then dig into history.
Doing that I’ve proposed that some entire fields of sciences are just comms vehicles. In one case it is for sensitive information control and moving. https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/74/ Implications are astounding.
However that one is an exception, most of the big lies as best I can tell are only partial scams, like, for example, astronomy news. How can that be a hoax when everyone can buy a telescope to verify?
Did you know that many thousands of “discoveries” are not from telescopes, but data output by a single U.S. government device? http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/soho-4000-comet-08546.html Situations like this mean that all it takes is one specific operation to be a con to operate an impossible to dispove comms operation. The data provided by them can be broadcast all over the world and send messages. The world in view, yet 100% out of sight.
The official primary function of the news is to convey what is going on. As most of us know, this usually amounts to propaganda for the uninitiated. But for those with comms comprehension? All that brainwash hides comms. It’s where clowns without access to classified data, get updates on classified data.
Anyone without comms awareness is made to trust what amounts to gibberish everywhere. It’s designed that way. Designed to keep the world of the shepherds separated from the world of the sheep."
You and I have vastly different philosophies then. I’m more of an objectivist; I believe that reality is distinct from human perception and not dependent on it.
While I would agree that hostile, Satan-worshiping organizations have infiltrated government and academia for centuries, this doesn’t mean that everything they say is a lie. If everything was a lie, including space, it would be a lot easier for ordinary people to debunk and expose the lies. From a purely strategic perspective it’s better for the cabal to mostly tell the truth (or at least something close enough to it) and save the big lies for stuff that’s harder to disprove (or more important to their agenda). The more lies you tell, the harder you have to work to keep your lies straight and not contradict yourself. With regards to space, it’s relatively easy to prove that the Earth is a sphere, that it orbits the Sun, and that other objects in the solar system are millions/billions of miles away. It would not be wise for the cabal to lie about something that anyone with a telescope and math can disprove.
Furthermore, if you’re going to postulate an alternative theory for how space or the universe works, then that’s great, so long as you have evidence and sound reasoning for it. If you want to say that the moon is a space station or made out of cheese, but don’t have any evidence for it, then your theory isn’t any more helpful than whatever the mainstream theory is.
With regards to the Earth/Moon ratio, it’s not quite as anomalous as you think. Pluto/Charon is even more extreme, Pluto just isn’t classified as a planet anymore so it makes Earth look more anomalous compared to other planets. And other more plausible theories exist, with the most defensible in my opinion being direct creation.
“The only absolute is consciousness itself”
If reality is a hologram, how do you know that consciousness is absolute? How do you know that you’re experiencing legitimate consciousness? How do you even define consciousness since words and their meanings are part of the simulation? In my opinion once you deny the existence of objective, independent reality you start rapidly descending into absurdity. Once you start questioning the validity of logic, words, and definitions then you take away the very tools with which to defend your position.
“Every major technological accomplishment in history is always repeated over and over”
Every accomplishment you listed has direct economic or personal benefits, hence why others followed suit. Coming to the Americas provided land, natural resources, and religious liberty. Transatlantic flight provided travel and business opportunities. Satellites provide communication, navigation, and military intelligence. Going to the Moon had some benefits, such as increased scientific understanding of our solar system, but not as many personal benefits as the other accomplishments you listed.
Americans have physically landed on the Moon 6 times, with 30 total missions to the moon ( the other 24 missions orbited the Moon). Russia/USSR has had 23 missions to the Moon, all of theirs being orbital. China landed a rover on the Moon in 2007, and India has orbited the Moon twice in 2008 and 2019. Your assertion that no one has been to the Moon after the first moon landing is false.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/which-countries-moon
“You underestimate Mockingbird Media”
If MSM was as powerful as you say it is then you yourself wouldn’t know about the 24% or Russians stat that you cite. Every MSM narrative that has been fielded in the past 2 years has been debunked in weeks if not days or hours. Covid origins, Covid jabs, election fraud, the truth about Ukraine; it has all been debunked by ordinary people doing their own research, often without any funding. The MSM is not nearly as good at censoring the truth as you think it is.
Also, whether 24% of Russians believe the Moon landing is fake is irrelevant. Belief doesn’t matter, what matters is whether you have evidence and sound reasoning. And when it comes to Moon landing denial (and also flat earthers), they have neither. All their arguments ultimately boil down to: “I don’t like NASA, therefore everything they say is a lie. Also I don’t have to provide any evidence, and if you contradict me then you’re and idiot or a NASA shill”.
When Q talked about the truth sending people to the hospital, it’s more reasonable to suspect he’s talking about everyone in government/entertainment being Satan-worshipping pedophiles who orchestrated 9/11. There’s far more evidence for that than for the Moon landing being fake or the earth being flat.
So this is the deal. I believe we have gone to the moon. We did not use the equipment to get there they say we did. There are two truths, that the moon landing we say is fake and done as a disinformation campaign to hide the true technology needed to get there.
There is a reason why Q picked 4chan's /pol/ board to start.
"Based on my decoding there are many “Sciences” that are outright lies, and so let’s discuss how that’s even possible.
It’s the scientific community that lends credibility to what is true & false and the MSM is the one that spreads it. It is the rich that decide who gets the science dollars. Therefore it has to be asked, what if objectivity is not the goal?
What if those with money specifically want to give credibility to a lie? Do scientists stand up to this? And if they did, how would we even know? Would MSM take it seriously? Would tech allow it to trend? Are they that noble? Or would they more likely fall under the same marching orders as the fake science funding?
The foundation of the scientific world, the money that keeps it alive, is suspect. To untangle it all we have to have comms awareness and then dig into history.
Doing that I’ve proposed that some entire fields of sciences are just comms vehicles. In one case it is for sensitive information control and moving. https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/74/ Implications are astounding.
However that one is an exception, most of the big lies as best I can tell are only partial scams, like, for example, astronomy news. How can that be a hoax when everyone can buy a telescope to verify?
Did you know that many thousands of “discoveries” are not from telescopes, but data output by a single U.S. government device? http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/soho-4000-comet-08546.html Situations like this mean that all it takes is one specific operation to be a con to operate an impossible to dispove comms operation. The data provided by them can be broadcast all over the world and send messages. The world in view, yet 100% out of sight.
The official primary function of the news is to convey what is going on. As most of us know, this usually amounts to propaganda for the uninitiated. But for those with comms comprehension? All that brainwash hides comms. It’s where clowns without access to classified data, get updates on classified data.
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/08/14/asteroids-and-comets/ News about “Science” being the same. Thus what is defined as “real” is a lie that hides a truth.
And there is a heavy cost to this deception.
Anyone without comms awareness is made to trust what amounts to gibberish everywhere. It’s designed that way. Designed to keep the world of the shepherds separated from the world of the sheep."
You and I have vastly different philosophies then. I’m more of an objectivist; I believe that reality is distinct from human perception and not dependent on it.
While I would agree that hostile, Satan-worshiping organizations have infiltrated government and academia for centuries, this doesn’t mean that everything they say is a lie. If everything was a lie, including space, it would be a lot easier for ordinary people to debunk and expose the lies. From a purely strategic perspective it’s better for the cabal to mostly tell the truth (or at least something close enough to it) and save the big lies for stuff that’s harder to disprove (or more important to their agenda). The more lies you tell, the harder you have to work to keep your lies straight and not contradict yourself. With regards to space, it’s relatively easy to prove that the Earth is a sphere, that it orbits the Sun, and that other objects in the solar system are millions/billions of miles away. It would not be wise for the cabal to lie about something that anyone with a telescope and math can disprove.
Furthermore, if you’re going to postulate an alternative theory for how space or the universe works, then that’s great, so long as you have evidence and sound reasoning for it. If you want to say that the moon is a space station or made out of cheese, but don’t have any evidence for it, then your theory isn’t any more helpful than whatever the mainstream theory is.
With regards to the Earth/Moon ratio, it’s not quite as anomalous as you think. Pluto/Charon is even more extreme, Pluto just isn’t classified as a planet anymore so it makes Earth look more anomalous compared to other planets. And other more plausible theories exist, with the most defensible in my opinion being direct creation.
“The only absolute is consciousness itself”
If reality is a hologram, how do you know that consciousness is absolute? How do you know that you’re experiencing legitimate consciousness? How do you even define consciousness since words and their meanings are part of the simulation? In my opinion once you deny the existence of objective, independent reality you start rapidly descending into absurdity. Once you start questioning the validity of logic, words, and definitions then you take away the very tools with which to defend your position.