>muh Russia
Bro, UK really needs to cut out their meddling and messing with USA elections and elected government officials.
California has fireproof "california trees"
>>4016592
>10/17/2018 - The United States of America has informed the Universal Postal Union (UPU) of its decision to withdraw from the treaties of the uPU. In a letter received on 17 October, the USA will withdraw membership to the Union a year from now
>a year from now
>USPS will no longer payup the difference to ship stuff coming from China across the USA.
LOLOLOLOL
All the cheap Chinese garbage junk on Amazon or Ebay is going to go up at least $10 in cost now that the Chinese have to pay full cost of sending their crap over here to the USA.
>>4015014 (pb)
>Naw..they were true. It was the film that were fake since they could't bring back the real film. Film would go blank when they tried
Uhm, then what happened to the film capturing the real landings? The astronauts just left it on the moon? This doesn't make sense, surely they had radiation shielding for the camera films.
Gimme sec, are we all still operating under the thought paradigm that the Moon landings (if real) were broadcasted live, with some delay for the transmission time?
>its all gone to shit since the feds took infinitechan from Čœđəmœnkəy
FUR REEELZ BRUH?
No waii
>Remember this was in the 60's. The film looks so fake that I tend to believe it was fake but not why.
I've been operating with the assumption that the landings are real but the footage of the real landings was never released to the public. The astronauts did take part in the "recorded moon landing" that was staged here on Earth and broadcast "live" on TV in place of the real footage.
Now, I never thought about this before but was transmission technology back in the 60s sufficient enough to transmit a clear video signal from the moon to Earth without losing detail?
Now when the actual landings took place must be Top SEC CLAS information.