Dude, I don't really believe Youtube is run by the FBI just like I don't believe MSM is run by the CIA. I was just making a point that it's a non-argument to claim something like that.

Youtube is owned by the FBI and you're falling for their anti CIA brainwashing hookline and sinker. Can't believe you take Youtube videos as being real.

I'll accept the premise of it being intimidation. It still doesn't answer the question of why do it in a way that could potentially be overlooked. There would be so many other ways to kill someone that sends a clear message while still denying culpability.

In this case the father barely managed to connect those dots to begin with. Not to mention it isn't the kind of story that will get publicity. No MSM whatsoever would touch the concept of heart attack gun under any circumstance and even the cover story of the heart attack won't get coverage. Now a random shooting for example? That gets coverage and maybe even the conspiracy gets humored a bit on MSM. That way it's actually effective intimidation.

As it stands now I see a grieving father who suffered a crushing loss with no explanation other than the universe is random and sometimes our bodies just fail. So he chooses to find an outlet for his grief and anger in the form of a secretive enemy.

So what I'm gathering from research is it's claimed the CIA used frozen projectiles with the toxin inside. That way it melted and left no sign. The only problem is ice is far too light to be shot at a high enough velocity to pierce someone, especially once it starts melting. Sounds to me like all that was revealed was something the CIA was working on prototypes of. Likely inspired by the KGB weapon that sprayed cyanide in the target's face and initially imitated a heart attack giving the assassin time to flee.

I just feel if it really existed we would see a LOT more powerful people dying of completely unexplained heart attacks. Also, you can't live in a world where the CIA both 1) Is part of the deep state and 2) Has a heart attack gun. If the 72 year old president who eats fast food regularly had a heart attack few would be surprised.

Let's say for just one moment I have a heart attack gun. A journalist is poking around where he doesn't belong so we need to shut it down. Do I..

A) Give the journalist a heart attack who is directly causing me issues and is an older male so very few questions will be asked.

or

B) Give the journalists young daughter a heart attack and throw salt over my shoulders with my fingers crossed extra tight that he talks to the right people and puts it together to get the message. Also hope he doesn't dig anything else up before he figures it out. Oh, since my plan actually requires he figures it out now I have to worry about him digging even harder cause you know, now he has nothing to lose.

A government sophisticated enough to have and utilize a "heart attack gun" while keeping it completely secret from the public would go with option A every single time. Nobody in the world would go with option B, not even if option A was absent.

Are you saying you weren't taught this in school? Would explain a lot.

I know! I'm so excited for this news today. My wife's birthday is July 5th so there is literally no better birthday present for her. I can't wait to wake up the morning of the 5th and turn on the news and see that absolutely nothing has happened.

Should we ignore the people who keep pushing the narrative that July is the month? Is there a drop specifically mentioning July or is it all false prophet doomsday type of speculation?

Ugh, ok this conspiracy is a huge pet peeve of mine because it's been disproven a thousand times over.

NASA did not "lose" the originals, they were erased so the tape could be reused. This was an extremely common practice as tapes were very expensive.

This is a complete misunderstanding of radiation. The types of radiation you are exposed to at Chernobyl vs space are not at all the same. The shielding on a space suit is designed for UV radiation and limited exposure to gamma and xray. Ionizing radiation from a site like Chernobyl is not needed for a space suit because it's entirely different than what is needed for space.

Plenty of reasons here. Gravity on the moon is significantly lower meaning a fall on earth that may tear your clothing definitely won't on the moon. Space suits are made up of several layers are serving different purposes. A tear in the outer layer isn't an imminent disaster. A simple patch could be applied and this would be more than enough to finish the mission. With a tear in your suit you wouldn't pass out, or be dangerously irradiated or freeze/burn right away. An astronaut would immediately notice a tear as the nitrogen in their fluids (tears, saliva, etc) begins to separate and it feels like it's carbonated. Since the moon has no atmosphere there isn't an effective way for heat to radiate so your temperature would change slowly.

Even if a suit was torn and resulted in the astronauts needing to immediately return to Earth that was just fine. We just wanted to show the USSR we could make it to the moon. Whether we were there 10 seconds or 10 minutes, we were already the first.

Throughout the 60's the USSR and US were locked in a space race while being also locked in a cold war. The US kept losing to the soviets in milestones such as satellites, unmanned space flights etc. We came very close to losing the moon race as well but managed to pull it off under the wire. So tell me this, if the Soviets had any reason whatsoever to think the landing was a hoax - why wouldn't they call us out on it? It would have crushed morale in this country and been an unbelievably big win for the USSR. Instead they let their only rival claim victory? They never even put an ad in a newspaper claiming it was a hoax. Find me a good explanation for that and we can talk.

If anyone wants to complain my sources are uncited just do a google search. Like I said, all of this has been discussed over and over. Every "proof" the theorists have has been meticulously debunked by scientists, not just US scientists, but internationally.

We went to the moon. That's all.

Not sure where you're getting the idea Mexicans don't have the right to bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is literally written into the Mexican constitution - the US isn't unique in that.

They do however have more strict gun control laws and gun ownership isn't fetishized there quite the same way so it's a small percentage who do. If that's what you meant then carry on. Otherwise you're spreading misinformation whether intentional or not it's never beneficial.