1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

By January 7th, 2021 how many random people had access to it?

It's possible he got it, but I wouldn't say "probably".

7
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 7 points ago +8 / -1

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Those are line numbers. You have multiple lines squished into a single paragraph. Read without the numbers.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

I looked around a few other places, and was able to confirm that this is indeed generally the protocol that is followed. So thanks for this.

I will note that Biden, may he immediately drop dead, during 2017-2020, was referred to as Vice President Biden just about everywhere when having a conversation with him.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

After leaving the Vice Presidency, VPs revert to the title of the last highest office they legitimately held.

What is the source of this assertion?

4
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 4 points ago +4 / -0

These are questions to ask every election.

Regarding JFK/Nixon, was there a 3AM ballot drop? I heard they literally just had people voting multiple times all over the state. Vote early, vote often.

4
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 4 points ago +4 / -0

Crooked was also projected to win.

Projected to win doesn't mean anything. Focus more on what masses of people are doing.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

I saw the initial announcements and interviews where Pence and Trump say that Flynn lied to Pence. I never saw anything that Flynn admitted that he lied to Pence, and in more recent times, he's made it clear that it was actually Pence who lied to Trump. I never saw Pence say that he said he himself lied to Trump.

I don't see any evidence of a cover story. As far as I'm concerned, when Pence made an absolutely disgusting speech on Jan 6 saying that "We the people" does not refer to every American citizen, but rather specifically to congress, and congress has all the power, and the people nothing, he became dead to me.

12
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 12 points ago +12 / -0

Pence told Trump that Flynn lied to Pence about the situation, and this prompted Trump to fire Flynn. But it turns out that it was Pence who lied to Trump about what Flynn said.

0
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's a compression artifact. When you're viewing a video which was compressed multiple times from the original, you'll see weird distortions like that.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

What CGI glitches? Are you referring to compression artifacts?

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

The problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming there was any concrete at the point of impact. If the concrete and steel was removed prior to the plane's impact, it would fly right into the building.

We do see planes fly into the building. However the only part of the wall that was visible from the videos was the outermost aluminum layer. We don't know if the concrete and steel layers were still in place. Since the planes did fly into the building for the most part, it is safe to assume the concrete and steel layers were no longer there. That's certainly more likely than super advanced hologram technology instead of planes that fooled everyone who saw it in person and all the different kinds of video cameras that recorded them.

If you also study the videos closely at certain angles, you'll also see it looks like some internal explosion went off moments prior to both planes hitting. Perhaps that's when the concrete and steel layer of the wall was blown inward, and the plane impact covered it up. All that's required was preset charges ready to go at the right place at the right time, which they used on the entire building.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's also "known to be true" that Trump is a Russian asset and a racist.

Ask people for some evidence and instead of showing anything concrete, they get angry, and just expect you to know it like they do.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

You originally made the point that we did land on the moon, and there are no lizard people, as if it's obvious, and how dare people think otherwise. This is not the sane approach of critical thinking.

The sane approach is to always begin with the simpler default which does not require blind faith on the matter or trusting whoever you consider to be your authority. In this instance, the simpler default is that we did not go to the moon, and there are no lizard people till proven otherwise. Both of these require considerable proof to stray from the default.

If you are satisfied that we went to the moon or that there are lizard people given the proof you have seen, that is fine. However, the default should not be that the monumental task of going to the moon occurred or that super rare creatures exist if you cannot independently verify the information for yourself.

Given this, if your research on the topic has convinced you, you should not be faulting others for choosing the sane default who are unaware of the rare proof you have gathered. To put it differently, it should not be taken as obvious that we went to moon, or that lizard people exist.

Your original point that it makes more sense to assume there are no lizard people or that Joe Biden hasn't been replaced by a look alike are reasonable assumptions. However, it is not reasonable to just assume we went to the Moon because NASA says we did, and you should not be faulting people who want proof on the matter.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

The fantastic claim isn't how many times we went to the moon, but that humans went to the moon at all. So showing that we went there, it makes it a lot more plausible that it happened whether it was 1 time or 100 times.

If you had private photography from multiple independent sources showing signs of humans being on the moon, then it would be excellent proof for humans being on the moon.

Most people can easily go purchase a telescope and test it for themselves, so whether telescopes are a thing or not can be easily verified. This is not something typically that you're going to find people arguing about.

4
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 4 points ago +4 / -0

That appears to be the only notable difference I can see in these photos regarding the ears.

I would note that for some reason, that aspect of ear lobes typically isn't used in forensic ear print analysis.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

As my point was, you need to prove we landed on the moon, not that we didn't land on the moon. It's important not to reverse the burden of proof. If you're satisfied with all the proof you just described, great.

It's 6 landing sites, not 3.

You asked if I "believe in" telescopes. I don't "believe in" anything. I believe things when it can be demonstrated. Meaning I "believe that, because...". If telescopes can be demonstrated, then it can be believable. If telescopes cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to find it believable. "Believing in" things is asking one to turn their brain off and not think about why you believe it or if it's warranted to be believable.

As for your chain of logic here, you're making some unwarranted leaps. If your only proof that NASA went to the moon is from supposed photos provided by NASA and not a neutral third party, then that's a proof that wouldn't hold up in a court of law by itself. Being combative about minor side issues like satellites, telescopes, and lasers is not a clear way to think about this.

Finally, I never even shared what my position on the moon is. I'm only providing guidance on how to properly analyze fantastic claims, in a way that's grounded in reality. FYI, my grandfather worked for a NASA contractor and was one of the engineers who designed the Apollo Spacecraft, a fact we're very proud of in my family.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +3 / -1

Never allow yourself to be programmed.

Once people start realizing that most "conspiracy theories" are true, the government is going to muddy the waters by hiring people that say all the right things so they're "on our side", and then they start adding some new really wacky ideas to attract people to. The result being that our side starts getting filled with people believing a lot of off the wall things.

Every case needs to be judged on its own. It doesn't matter who first said it, or who currently believes it, or whether it appears they're "on our side" or not.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +2 / -1

Whether the earth is flat or round or a triangle can be proven by a variety of techniques. These are experiments that anyone can conduct on their own.

Regarding some people actually being lizards, that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Humans landing on the moon is also an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. To prove either of these, we need more than the claims of a few, or out of focus questionable "big foot" videos. Please don't reverse the requirements on either of these. Likewise, saying Biden is really someone else also requires proof, especially when the supposed proof shows a lot of points of comparison that haven't changed.

view more: Next ›