CoolStoryBro

@PaulaRosvold @latestincosmos Imagine if Paula realized her hippie hippie monistic psychism garbage is pure solipsist crap?

@latestincosmos Imagine if humanity realizes the only foundational law of the universe is that everything in it is conscious.

Do you believe consciousness can exist without a physical body? ✍️

@KatherindTid CaRbOn BaSeD bIoLoGIcaL Fairy tale.

So far it looks like consciousness requires a carbon-based biological system. With carbon as the building block of living systems, the geometry of tryptophan lattices (required to act as an experience, transceiver) is possible. These lattices use subradiant states to integrate signals and superradiant states to actively transmit them back into the biological system. Silicon, on the other hand, is a simple element and cannot form these sorts of complex vibrating structures. So, to be 'awake' we need the specific physics of the living cell.

@LensScientific Semantics. And it's not "human consciousness" . There is no "human consciousness'. That's an invented term.

Where do you think human consciousness is located?

@anotherbigmike @Aoxdos So yeah, how it looks matters way more than a tarp on a car.

@Bleachlilith @Aoxdos So what you’re saying is something can’t be more than it appears. That you demand your assumption to be correct. Lets follow your logic- this object in blue is moving towards you at 40mph. You let it hit you since it’s just a plastic tarp right? Or do you have “b-buts” to say?

@anotherbigmike @Aoxdos Also, you’re comparing completely different environments. A tarp-covered 🚗 in a driveway is operating under normal 🌍 conditions. The 🌚 is a vacuum w/ huge temperature swings & no atmosphere. Materials & design aren’t opt aesthetics there, they're critical to survival/function.

@anotherbigmike @Aoxdos That comparison doesn’t hold up. A tarp on a car is just a cover, it’s not part of the car’s function. The lunar module isn’t ‘covered’ by something, it is the structure. What you see is what’s supposed to survive vacuum, radiation, extreme ताप swings, and actually function.

@anotherbigmike @Aoxdos That’s exactly what I’m asking: which part of the video are you claiming I was lied to about? Point out the errors, let’s see what you got. Give me at least two or three, that shouldn't take long.

@Bleachlilith @Aoxdos So what you’re admitting is you never did any looking beyond what that video presented. You never double checked if any of the clams were themselves lies. Do I have that right? Or are you admitting you never understood the material so couldn’t realize you were lied to?

@anotherbigmike @Aoxdos I’m not interested in joining circlejerks, or sitting through an hour of “b-buts.” It’s either true or it isn’t. It’s the same thing here on X, once you point out how ridiculous the lunar module is, it turns into a flood of “b-but do you know how it was built, bro?", lol.

@Bleachlilith @Aoxdos As I said before I plan on doing a livestream covering it. It’s rehashing the same material that’s been recycled for decades. If you want you can join me when I livestream it. I invite anyone to join But a multi hour video is best not handled in X posts youtu.be/Us3ZnKje6EQ?si…

@VWolf83864177 @mk2armag @kevconrad2 The image is low-res, so the AI likely misread details as rocks and got confused. He probably wasn’t even reading the replies and answers. I think the point was if there’s a raised object casting a shadow to the left, something might be off, but it still wouldn’t prove anything.

@mk2armag @kevconrad2 @Aoxdos FFS, if pointing out basic lighting facts qualifies me as a smartass, then guilty as charged. Let's hear your best argument regarding the six Apollo landings.

It’s undeniably fake. The ‘denial’ part I’ll leave to you. ‘It would’ve been more believable if they tried harder’? Lol. This tinky-winky scrap of a heap was enough to fool Americans in the ’60s, and it was probably even easier to film on a set. Look at you, you still believe it.

@anotherbigmike @Aoxdos Hm. What part of the video you think it's wrong or that you can debunk? Let's see what you got. Write some.

@Aoxdos Coming back to this reply- Yes I’ve seen that video. Mostly packed with rehashed material from other videos and clips so nothing new. I plan on going through it on livestream one weekend. Not that skeptics will watch it but still, I can then say I debunked the whole video 🤷‍♂️

@anotherbigmike To actually verify the origin, you’d need consistent tracking over time, Doppler shift data matching the trajectory, and independent observations lining up across multiple locations.

@Bleachlilith @mk2armag @AstronoLive @Aoxdos @ZooKeeper611 @McTipss @JeremyBobo1 @JOKAQARMY1 During Apollo the transmissions were captured by directional antennas, as was the case during Artemis as well so that does prove the origin. Especially when people like @AstronoLive tracked Artemis 2 to and from the moon.

Why could no one capture Artemis 2

@anotherbigmike @mk2armag @AstronoLive @Aoxdos @ZooKeeper611 @McTipss @JeremyBobo1 @JOKAQARMY1 Anyone can receive a radio signal, that doesn’t by itself confirm where it originated from. For it to count as real independent verification, you’d need things like directional tracking, Doppler data, and documented records from multiple independent observers.

@mk2armag @AstronoLive @Aoxdos @ZooKeeper611 @McTipss @JeremyBobo1 @JOKAQARMY1 I do admit I missed that aspect, it’s something I should’ve included. It was my first video as you can likely tell- so I was still improving. If/when I make a follow up, I will include the times people tapped into Apollo and Artemis transmissions. 3rd party verifications.

@Aquataris @Aoxdos @MelonThor @Crypto_JayK @astro_reid @NASAWatch @Astro_Christina Lol. No evidence of "landers" there, even if retroreflectors have been put there by, let's say, unmanned missions. Which I highly doubt. We could bounce lasers off there and get results since the 50s. Anything else is story.

@Aoxdos @MelonThor @Crypto_JayK @astro_reid @NASAWatch @Astro_Christina Which lander is that one? Do you know? Did landers land on the moon? Yes. How do we know? Retroreflectors that function to this day are on the moon and can be interacted with from Earth.

Only one chance in this lifetime… Like watching sunset at the beach from the most foreign seat in the cosmos, I couldn’t resist a cell phone video of Earthset. You can hear the shutter on the Nikon as @Astro_Christina is hammering away on 3-shot brackets and capturing those exceptional Earthset photos through the 400mm lens. @AstroVicGlover was in window 3 watching with @Astro_Jeremy next to him. I could barely see the Moon through the docking hatch window but the iPhone was the perfect size to catch the view…this is uncropped, uncut with 8x zoom which is quite comparable to the view of the human eye. Enjoy.

@TotalDesolation @Aoxdos @GuntherEagleman Not that this would be required as it takes about 30 secs of not being stupid to realize this thunderbird shit never happened. But this one is for those who still use this pic to save face. But yeah it suddenly shifts to "it's complex bro". Go ahead, explain the shadow. Lol.

@Aoxdos @GuntherEagleman That's exactly how you would expect it to look if you understand the complex phenomenon of shadows💀

Did we really land on the moon in 1969?

@Aelthemplaer LEDs could still exist but don't need to be the main character.

Several studies found a sharp increase in mental illness when LEDs went mainstream.

The German actor Gustaf Gründgens as Hamlet, Schauspielhaus, Berlin, 1936

I am once again calling for the complete and total shutdown of big light

@michaelwigley55 @MajorGowen_ I'd rather be "miserable" there.

@MajorGowen_ Everyone still looks miserable

When London looked like London should. Just months prior to Tony Blair's third world invasion.