patrick.net

Just pity the hired help that must do that for her.

HeadSet says

Just pity the hired help that must do that for her.

She eats the once who don't do a good job

Patrick says

richwicks says

It's not about money, it's about power and control. For the servants, it's about money.

They are really the same thing. Money gives the power to make other people do things.

No, power is money, but money isn't power. Our central bank, the Federal Reserve, can create as much fucking money as they want, to buy anything they want. Politicians, farmland, wars, assassinations, anything. Anything at all. They aren't rich, they are infinitely rich. They can create 1 trillion dollars in seconds. That's power.

Patrick says

richwicks says

When Saddam was trying to flee US forces, he had semi-trailers loaded with $100 bills going with him. He converted his political power into money, just another form.

Hussein was a dumb underlying.

He had no real power. The Federal Reserve created the money necessary to murder him just as they created the money, to put him in power in the late 1970's because he was an enemy of the religious radicals that took over Iran, in 1979, as a result of the US overthrowing Iran's previous government in 1953 in Operation Ajax, which the Federal Reserve ALSO paid for.

The Federal Reserve are our true rulers. We can subvert them, just buy all the non perishable commodities on the planet. They sell them after all, they have to in order to retain any legitimacy.

https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1622760680372723714?ref_src=patrick.net

Patrick says

That bitch looks like she has a heart-shaped ass.

"Have you had a chick with a heart-shaped ass? Man, you haven't lived until you've had a chick with a heart-shaped ass." Mickey in 9 1/2 weeks.

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/boa/d/san-francisco-sailboat-possible-water/7587046407.html

cisTits says

Patrick says

Moon landings were in the 80s?

I think the point is that faking the moon landings would be pretty fucking hard with late 1960's technology.

The videos and the photographs have been around forever. On top of that, a lot of stuff was left behind, it's not like they returned the moon buggies for example, they are still there. So are human bags of shit, literally.

In order to have falsified the moon landing, it would have taken an ENORMOUS amount of cooperation between Europe, then Russia, and now China and India. The sites can be (relatively) trivially inspected at this point. Although Space 1999 seemed plausible at the time in terms of special effects (they just sped up the camera to depict low gravity), they don't today - just speed up the video to 2x and they are just walking around.

That was high tech in 1971.

We've not had a film yet that realistically depicts low gravity. The Martian was obviously just recorded in Earth gravity. Depicting 1/3rd gravity would have been difficult, and expensive. Weightlessness isn't so hard today, with modern CGI and digital removal of wires. To do the same in 1969 would have required a team of special effects people, and even then, it wouldn't have stood the test of time.

2001 was done by Kubrick, but even HE didn't try to film low earth gravity. The rotating space station would have only produced about 1/6th gravity in the station, the centrifuge in the discovery wouldn't be anywhere close to 1G, the moon base was done in normal earth gravity. Kubrick didn't even try, and he didn't go that good of a job of depicting 0 G either. It was an amazing film for it's time, and even stands up today but there's no real films that really try to get it right, even now.

richwicks says

human bags of shit

We have quite a few of those on earth too, like Fauci, Collins, Bourla, Bancel, and the whole Biden crime family.

Patrick says

richwicks says

human bags of shit

We have quite a few of those on earth too, like Fauci, Collins, Bourla, Bancel, and the whole Biden crime family.

Well, sure, but nothing remarkable about them. Human bags of shit on the moon is actually kind of interesting. Would be interesting to inspect what's left after 50+ years.

That's some shit one of my wee ones would have me do. While the other one yells, my turn! My Turn! Only to run away when I turn to him.

richwicks says

cisTits says

Patrick says

Moon landings were in the 80s?

I think the point is that faking the moon landings would be pretty fucking hard with late 1960's technology.

The videos and the photographs have been around forever. On top of that, a lot of stuff was left behind, it's not like they returned the moon buggies for example, they are still there. So are human bags of shit, literally.

In order to have falsified the moon landing, it would have taken an ENORMOUS amount of cooperation between Europe, then Russia, and now China and India. The sites can be (relatively) trivially inspected at this point. Although Space 1999 seemed plausible at the...

The moon is close enough - with a powerful enough telescope, you can see the abandoned machinery, etc. There's a reason the moon landings were on the earthside/nearside - that's so that continuous telemetry could be maintained.

For all the fake moon landings fucks - there's an easy way to prove it - Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites. These fucks who will finance flat earthers to construct a craptastick "rocket" to prove the earth is flat won't spend $5K for a telescope that will shatter their delusions.

stereotomy says

Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites.

At its closest, the moon is over 225,000 miles away. At that distance it seems one could not discern a football stadium let alone a landing site. Is there a link to any website that displays pictures of landing sites taken by folks using 1000x scopes?

stereotomy says

The moon is close enough - with a powerful enough telescope, you can see the abandoned machinery, etc. There's a reason the moon landings were on the earthside/nearside - that's so that continuous telemetry could be maintained.

For all the fake moon landings fucks - there's an easy way to prove it - Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites. These fucks who will finance flat earthers to construct a craptastick "rocket" to prove the earth is flat won't spend $5K for a telescope that will shatter their delusions.

Due to optical diffraction limit (lambda / D; wavelength of light divided by lens diameter), even without taking into account the changing distortions due to atmosphere, a theoretically ideal telescope on earth would have to be 200 meters in lens diameter to differentiate two points on the moon 1 meter apart. i.e. if you want to see the lander at 1 inch per pixel resolution (to have an image of the lunar lander as about 60 pixels across in width), you'd have to have a telescope lens 7874 meters across, i.e. a lens nearly 5 miles in diameter!

All they have ever shown of the 'moon landing sites' are blurry UV spectrum photos, no inconvenient detail. They have had high resolution satellites examining the moon. There are examiners who have compared spliced moon photos where the alleged 'footprints' suddenly disappear between frames. It is clear they only want certain things revealed and, as usual, faked others.

That, when they have several high resolution satellites orbiting earth that can resolve people through the atmosphere.

Also stereotomy says

For all the fake moon landings fucks - there's an easy way to prove it - Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites. These fucks who will finance flat earthers to construct a craptastick "rocket" to prove the earth is flat won't spend $5K for a telescope that will shatter their delusions.

@stereotomy - yes, a typical telescope cannot image the moon landings. If you think about it, imagine how likely it is for a photon that hit say, a moonbuggy, hitting the Earth? @Reality is correct, it's something to do with arc length, as well as a bunch of other optical bullshit I don't understand.

There are some interesting ideas though. It's POSSIBLE to have a telescope that is distributed across a nation, where the separate inputs can be combined to make something like a telescope that is basically the size of the nation, just receives less photons, so longer exposure and this is made further complicated by atmospheric distortion.

We can't image the landing sites from Earth, but India can image it, Israel can image it, Russia can, China can, the EU can. It would be the biggest hoax in all of history, and I just can't believe that. If it was, it means EVERYTHING I think I understand is possible to be false. I'd be questioning if the world is a sphere probably if the moon landing was shown to be a fake. It's just too much to wrap my mind around. It would change my entire understanding of geopolitics. It would mean we have had a one world government since 1969 and before.

I can't directly know there was a moon landing, but if there wasn't, that would wipe out my entire life's understanding of many things. I seriously don't think I could accept it.

richwicks says

I'd be questioning if the world is a sphere probably if the moon landing was shown to be a fake.

It was just misdirection and slight of hand. Just because the moon landing was a propaganda campaign, doesn't change Science, it should reinforce your understanding of it.
If you can reconcile that we didn't land on the moon in a maned space craft, then took off from the moon and made a return trip. On technology less than a 0086 Computer, then you can understand why we're throwing padded goo balls, and parachute toys on a one way trip to Mars. Understand that the Moon landing was almost a whole decade before the Calculator was invented. But the space program did propel technology ahead by decades if not a Century. It was those efforts that gave us the Transistor, Main Frame Computers, and the Calculator.

richwicks says

. It would change my entire understanding of geopolitics. It would mean we have had a one world government since 1969 and before.

We've had a one world government ever since the Holy Alliance, NATO and the UN was just modernization of the Congress of Verona, formed in 1822.

Another good argument for testosterone inhibitors.

Those were rubber movie props. You can see the axe blades fluttering in the wind and from them being moved.

Tenpoundbass says

Those were rubber movie props. You can see the axe blades fluttering in the wind and from them being moved.

How dare you assassinate my plagiarized meme.

Girl got enthusiasm.

There was a wine bottle in that vid?

That is hilarious!