I think buzzmobile was trying to provide a working demonstration of the word rather then just copying and pasting the dictionary definition.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Things Falling Apart: BAD SIGNS
- Thread starter CosmicGiggle
- Start date
On a different front, the legalization I was reporting on that might be coming to my state via a ballot initiative, doesn't offer quite as much promise as I had hoped. It's talking about limiting legal possession to 1.5 ounces of cannabis or equivalent amounts including no more then 2 Cannabis plants. I don't know how much understanding the people behind this initiative have of cannabis but from my experience just one plant would violate these limits. Well see though since nothing is official until the vote passes in favor and someone actually writes out what the rules and regulations will be. Hopefully should that happen someone will inform lawmakers that a properly grown marijuana plant can easily reach several times the legal limit they are proposing.
St. Phatty
Active member
I always avoided questions regarding the veracity of the Moon Landing, because I thought it would be time consuming to resolve. And who wants to spend time on THAT ?! Knowing that the US government possibly lied to us ONE MORE TIME.
Turns out, it's really simple, and it only takes a few minutes.
You just have to obtain a picture of the night sky, taken in the Himalayas on a cloudless night.
Or a picture of the night sky, taken from the International Space Station.
Then you compare that to the Official NASA photos of the moon landing.
It will all be over in 5 minutes.
Turns out, it's really simple, and it only takes a few minutes.
You just have to obtain a picture of the night sky, taken in the Himalayas on a cloudless night.
Or a picture of the night sky, taken from the International Space Station.
Then you compare that to the Official NASA photos of the moon landing.
It will all be over in 5 minutes.
Why not just post the pictures?
Three Berries
Active member
I admit. It was a cut and paste. In my defense. I thought that was what stickies were for.I think buzzmobile was trying to provide a working demonstration of the word rather then just copying and pasting the dictionary definition.
Therefore you are correct, sir. I learned that in an Old Elementary School.I think buzzmobile was trying to provide a working demonstration of the word rather then just copying and pasting the dictionary definition.
Perspective
Water in Space: How Does Water Behave in Outer Space? | U.S. Geological Survey
Does water still feel wet in outer space? Does it float or does it fall? With a little help from our friends at NASA we will help you understand exactly how water behaves in outer space. Continue reading to learn more.
4.1 Water in Zero Gravity - an Introduction to Intermolecular Forces
If you go far enough out in space, for instance, onto the International Space Station, gravity becomes negligible, and the laws of physics act differently than here on Earth. Just how might water act …
chem.libretexts.org
St. Phatty
Active member
There are 600 Million Trillion stars in the Known Universe.
That's part of what you see in the other thread I posted, with photos of the night sky taken from the Himalayas & the International Space Station.
The American Moon Landing is a Hoax. The trick is not spending a lot of time figuring it out.
High Res Photo Test, pictures of the Night Sky, from the Himalayas, the ISS, and 1 other place.
First 2 pictures are the Night Sky, taken from the International Space Station. First picture is 20 MB, obviously too big to upload, so I gave it the link and this is what it loaded. Original is 4928 x 3280, reduced that to 1232 x 820. Saving it in medium JPG quality reduced file size to 134...
www.icmag.com
But NASA didn't just double or triple down on their Moon Landing Lies.
"Between 1969 and 1972, 12 astronauts from six Apollo missions landed on and explored the nearside (Earth-facing side) of the moon. The six landing sites were chosen to explore different geologic terrains."
https://www.nasa.gov/stem-ed-resources/apollo-landing.html
6 ?
That's the favorite number of a particular ethnic group - known for their penchant for Lying.
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
There's that UN logo again. Wonder why they chose that for a logo... 
There is a very simple explanation as to why you don't see the stars in the pictures the astronauts took on the moon. In it's simplest form it boils down to the fact with the world wide attention to the moon missions. When they were on the moon taking pictures they never imagined later on a small percentage of the public would believe it all to be a hoax simply because there were no stars visible in the picture. It's a trick your mind is playing on you. You look at those pictures and you see how dark the sky (well space actually there is no sky on the moon) is and you think it's like the darkest part of night on earth and therefore you should be able to see all the stars in their full glory just like they appear in that picture in the Himalayas. Now you correctly noted that they landed on the earth facing side of the moon. What you're neglecting to consider is that side is also the sun facing side. The light side is always facing the earth and sun there is never a period where that side goes completely dark other then the rare occasions when the earth is exactly between the sun and the moon and even then since the sun is bigger then the moon the earth doesn't block all the light but since none of the moon missions happened during one of those rare eclipses the changes to the light on the bright side of the moon are irrelevant. Even though it doesn't look like it because of how dark the sky (space) is when those pictures were taken the surface of the moon where they were was just as bright as high noon, you just don't notice it because there is no atmosphere refracting the light to give the sky that daytime glow. You go up into the Himalayas and stand at that same spot where that picture was taken on a clear day at high noon and tell me how many stars are visible to the naked eye then. As it turns out there are lots of stars visible from the surface of the moon but when you're on the bright side of the moon they're very faint because their light is coming from so far away and the bright side is so awash in full sunlight. If they had wanted to they could have adjusted the camera settings differently to enable the camera to capture the faint starlight in the middle of all that bright sunlight but had they done so then the things they were trying to take pictures of (them doing stuff on the moon) would have been crap. So since they didn't account for some scientifically challenged people doubting them they adjusted the cameras to get the best picture of them on the moon and that meant the shutter wasn't open long enough to capture the faint light of the stars. The reason why the earth is so much more visible is because one it's much, much, closer relatively speaking and because it is lit up from the sunlight reflecting off the moon. Kind of like how you can light up the subject of a photograph with a lamp placed behind the camera and cameraman but facing towards the subject. If the surface of the moon wasn't as reflective as it is you probably wouldn't have been able to see the earth any better then the stars in those lunar pictures.
I mean come on, we all know how good Hollywood is at making the unbelievable seem believable so why doesn't anyone ask, if they went to all this trouble to make an elaborate hoax of the moon landing why on earth would they leave out the stars? The other thing that gets me is where is the critical thinking on the reason for the hoax? The best I've heard is that it was all some scam to divert taxpayer money to other nefarious uses. I can see where that is believable to many given how much greed and corruption we can find in politics but compared to what we spend on the military the total amount we budgeted for NASA was a few drops in the bucket. Most know that the US is the most powerful military because we out spend all the other developed countries combined with what they spend on their military. We could reduce that by 10% and still outspend everyone and at the same time free up way more money then we spent on NASA and the moon missions. Even though the price tags for all those rockets and landers and rovers seem so expensive.
Also you need to keep in mind the main reason we went to the moon, as petty as it may seem we were just trying to beat Russia. Once we successfully landed on the moon a few times Russia just gave up. They couldn't afford to keep up and given how much we accomplished they felt better served by dominating us on nuclear proliferation. Keep in mind Russia was first in space and they were trying to get to the moon too. If we had faked it they would have been able to tell and they would have kept going so they could get to the moon and prove we faked it. They didn't though because they knew it was real.
Last edited:
No not at all. Had a recent experience with the MAID program and my MIL, 94 year old woman 7TH go at cancer they basically told her FU enjoy the ride. Tough woman but in a good way was a child in London in the blitz married a coal miner emigrated to Canada and later cancer and medicine kept taking pieces off her like a lung and such. Left me a little salty on how that government is implementing the MAID program intake.
Do you know what to do?
Did this really just go flat earth?!
