NASA agents raid Denny's in undercover sting - after wo

>>18911611
>www.dailymail.co.uk

>>18911621
yeah, we can absolutley trust dailymail.co.uk.

>>18911621
what is the point you try to make? Are you telling me that this is fake news? Sorry, not this time nasa.

>>18911626
This tabloid rag is notorious for twisting stories.

>>18911611
>Armstrong giving something he never brought from trip he never did.

File: oy.jpg (9KB, 349x432px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 349x432px

>911611

>>18911633
what ever makes you feel better that nasa is ok.

>>18911633
sounds like nasa.

>>18911611
This happened in 2011 guys.

OLD NEWS

File: SAINT-GERMAIN-CHELA-PICTURE.jpg (10KB, 234x313px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 234x313px

>>18911611

>>18911611
Stop watching secureteam10, he is a NASA shill!

>>18912604
This. No one landed on the moon physically. >>18912600
E v e r y w h e r e

>>18911621
This fucking tabloid sucks. This "news" is as fake as Snopes (literally, owned by a lady with a cat). They are just liberal propaganda that is twisted in the favor of SJWs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

>>18911611
>>18911621

LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-woman-detained-moon-rock-20170413-story.html

That story's insane. They could have just told her from the start, that moon rock is property of the government, please turn it in. How much money did they waste setting a police sting? What was the point?

>>18912735
>moon rock
>property of gov

Never change, /x/.

>>18912746
I didn't say it, they did. Take it up with the government.

>>18912625
>owned by a lady with a cat
>therefor it his exclusively her personal blog
>nothing else
>Also,
>facts aren't real.

>>18912756
This explains who runs the site. They don't have any credentials to determine what the "truth" is.

http://www.truthwiki.org/snopes-snopes-com/

>>18912774
>http://www.truthwiki.org/snopes-snopes-com
Oh? And who runs truthwiki, and how do we know they are qualified? I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I've never seen anything that looks like propaganda on snopes, though. Also, I'm not sure one has to be highly lettered to do some research. Can you give me an example of an entry that's false? I don't really use snopes very much.

>>18912793
no I cannot I am literally repeating things I've heard in the echo chamber I live in.

>fragments of moon rock are illegal
That's just weird.

>>18912793
There is an extensive list of sources and biases in the link. I don't look at Snopes much either but, I don't like websites that try to tell people what to believe. It's the same as the fake news filter on Facebook. Snopes is trying to control the narrative and "debunks" anything that does not fit in with the liberal agenda.

>>18912804
When someone accuses another of living in an echo chamber, it is usually because they heard that accusation somewhere in their own echo chamber. The 'article' you linked me to calls Zika a hoax, links to other posts on the same website for many 'citations' conflates GMOs and pesticides.... I'm pretty sure I can't take them seriously.

>>18912817
So did you actually find entries in Snopes that seemed fishy to you, and so did some investigating? Or was this 'article' your introduction to the idea?