Who says grammar isn't important?
Notice the deliberate wording of Q's response.
Moon landings are real.
What moon landings?
If Q was referring to those moon landings claimed by NASA, then he should have used the definite article, the - the moon landings - and the simple past form of the verb to be -
were real.
But Q said "Moon landings are real, which infers that moon landings that we are unaware of are real.
Certainly, within the context of info posted by Q, I have to agree that there is no answer as to whether those late 60s/early 70s moon landings claimed by NASA actually took place.
I am still undecided whether they were genuine, but augmented by studio footage or a total hoax.
I would think that there must have been some way to monitor the source of transmissions by external agents, such as the USSR..
I stand corrected, anon.
It should have read implies!
Fucking hilarious that I get called out on my grammar whilst analysing Q's grammar.
The use of the word false is somewhat confusing. If Q was refuting any of the questions, the correct response
would have been no.
That, then, leaves the question what is false?
The guy with the Paseur FB account was on earlier today and explained that he was transcribing this from Shortwave.
It was either the last bread or one before - around 7.15 GMT.
Has any clockfag checked yesterday's Q&A against Q's posts that ended in it being rescheduled?