Seal

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

They didn't travel in the Space shuttle. The Apollo missions were in, er, Appollos. They were cramped for room.

 

It absolutely is plausible. Obviously in today's world we have huge irrefutable evidence that "stuff" can be remotely controlled with extreme accuracy - whether you're talking about hobby drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft/UAVs, deep water search vehicles looking for shipwrecks, or examples like Mars Rover. So then the only question is what does it actually entail, and could they do that back then?

So here's (simplified a little) what it entails. There needs to be a camera. The camera needs a motor to drive it's angle (and another for focus, too maybe, or it could be set to a particular focal length suitable for the distance it would need top be positioned in). The camera would need a RF (radio) link to receive commands - today the commands would be digital, back then they would be analogue [increase the voltage go up, decrease the voltage go down, or positive DC go up, negative go down, or frequency modulated - higher frequency go up, lower frequency go down...etc.]. The Camera output would need to be also sent via RF. Again, these days it's digital, back then it was analogue - like terrestrial TV. Absolutely the technology was available to do send and receive camera images. There was TV back then, as we know. There were remote controlled planes (for hobbyists) back then. So the only thing left is the distance. RF signals have something called free space path loss which is a function of distance traveled [squared] - The signal doesn't really disappear, or be attenuated, but it spreads out - imagine the spray from a hose pipe nozzle - if you are close to the hose, you're gonna get drenched. As you move further away you are hit by a smaller slice of the jet from the hose. Unlike water, RF radiation doesn't fall to the ground after a few feet, it keeps on going, just getting thinned out. The solution to the thinning out, is either to start with more transmitter power, or to have a more sensitive receiver, or to have an antenna which captures more of the spread out RF energy - this is why the dishes at Jodrell Bank and other radio telescopes are effing massive. Google a picture of NASA antennas at Houston to see what I mean. So large antennas on the ground can capture tiny signals from space. Going the other direction, it's not practical to have huge antennas, or high transmitter power to send back to earth, but luckily earth can send very large signals from very high gain antennas, meaning enough signal gets to the moon for even a small antenna to pick it up.

That's the basic theory and it's all old. Modern stuff uses digital techniques to get more data onto an RF signal, which means more data in less time, but to control a motor to move a camera needs very little data - it's like the difference between 1960s black and white TV, and modern UHD digital TV - whether terrestrial or Satellite -  A small dish on your roof can pick up signals from Satellite's up in space , or a small antenna on your roof can pick up a signal from the transmitter miles away.

By shuttle I was referring to the Apollos. They were cramped for room. 

I doubt that the radio link would be able to have an effect to the moon. At least to that kind of accuracy to enable a rocket taking off to be followed. Whilst I agree it is remotely plausible I think a more logical explanation is that they faked the takeoff. Then people pointed out something, then they made an explanation to explain it, particularly when combined with the other glaring oddities in what is frankly a ridiculous video. The insane level of accuracy needed to control that camera manoeuvre is beyond what I think is realistically possible bearing in mind scabbly signals, and the time it takes radio waves to travel plus other factors. 

I note that the video also shows some zooming out. Which sure is possible. But again, I think it adds to the overall complexity.

5 minutes ago, limpid said:

Ah, you mean that the moon has an orbital velocity of 2000mph. You said "The moon rotates at 2000 mph" which is utterly wrong.

The Earth rotates at exactly the same "speed" at all latitudes; once per day. Your concept of how rotation is measured is utterly wrong.

This isn't even GCSE level science.

Luckily science is based upon the reality of things not on the words used to describe them then. That isn't even kindergarten levels of philosophy . Yes I meant the "velocity" it moves around the earth. And yes I have just been reading about rotational speed. It is interesting thanks. I don't see that it invalidates my actual point though. But if we use a different word for something does that effect the outcome? 

13 minutes ago, limpid said:

Rotation isn't measured as a speed.

The earth rotates once per day. It's the same value however close to the poles you get. It can't rotate at different speeds based on latitude, that would be insane.

As it is tidally locked. the moon rotates once per its orbit which is around 28 days, that's about 12 degrees per day. I've no idea where you've got 2000mph from.

 

Like I said, I took 2,000mph from my head. I can't  remember where from. I have just googled, it says 2,288mph. 

https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/176--How-fast-does-the-Moon-travel-around-Earth-#:~:text=The Moon orbits Earth at,(3%2C683 kilometers per hour).

In my post, I said, "admittedly much slower as you head to the poles' so yes I had taken into account. Even allowing for it being at a guess 200 mph in the UK, then I contend it would not work. 

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I fail to see the difference. You suggested that the footprints don't match the boots. I've explained why that isn't the case. It's not a possible explanation, it is THE explanation. That's the very definition of a debunking.

Of course it's possible. But that doesn't make it true. It's possible that 9/11 was an inside job, but it doesn't make it so.

I used one example to show an example of why there were no tyre tracks. If there are "plenty of photos" then share them and let us debunk them. Won't be hard if there are so many

 

Image 6 isn't a photo. It's an image created using data from a satellite. Image 4 is another composite photo. Even so, 124km could easily account for the small difference in size on those photos.
You've acknowledged the explanation is scientifically accurate. To dispute it is a bit strange

We can photo the whole earth. Nobody says we can't. What we can't do is photograph it to a very high resolution from a distance far enough away to capture the entire earth. That's why composites are used. They allow you to take higher resolution photos closer up and stitch them together.

Cloud formations appear multiple times because if they're using composites then that formation could have travelled from over one part of the earth to another but the two photos used on the same composite.
There are hundreds of thousands of cloud formations over the earth at any one time. If one of them spells out a word it's coincidence. Just like some of them sometimes look like elephants or people.

Your personal incredulity does not mean it isn't true. It's true, it happened, the technology and the event are well documented and explained.

Again, your misunderstanding of what something might look like doesn't mean what we actually saw is fake. it's near zero gravity. It needs far less thrust than a rocket does to leave earth. 
Flames or sparks (of that kind) would require oxygen to ignite, of which there is none on the moon.

Because of the lack of atmosphere any dust generated was propelled horizontally rather than vertically (because there's no air for the dust to be suspended in). Plus the module was quite far off the ground when it launched, meaning not much dust was thrown up anyway.

Honestly I don't know if it could have been picked up. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No it wouldn't. I explained this. it would appear to be a straight line because you are on the orbiting plane. And even if you could see the curve I think at that scale it would be imperceptible. You have to take into account the vast size of these objects

I don't see how you can say it is THE explanation. Rather than one of a number. I think it is quite a lacking explanation personally. To debunk you would need to show how it is THE explanation.

With regards to the images. Even if it is a composite, you would expect the continents to be the same size if it is based on actual images. Plus the 124km difference couldn't explain it inline with your previous graphic because the images show the opposite  i.e the closer image appears significantly smaller than the further one.

But surely it would be impressive just to see that one photo? Rather than being served a constant illusion as to what the earth looks like from space?

Sure my personal incredulity doesn't make anything true. But not does it make things false. What I think is plausible or isn't, like many people, does though have an impact on what I think. Same as for most people. 

Sure about the clouds and yes coincidences happen. But it is quite intellectually dishonest to notice a lot of 'coincidences' and to disregard them. I think. 

If I understood your explanation, you were saying that as we are level It would appear to be in a straight line in that it is horizontal.  This explanation was lacking for me. I think you would expect to see it get larger and smaller as it transits the horizontal. You would also expect to see features at a different angle as the it moves across your perspective. 

40 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

I think it was @Mandy Lifeboats that mentioned the reflector on the moon - I think there are multiple reflective panels on the moons, used to calculate and constantly measure changes in distance. Are you suggesting the scientists around the world using their lasers and providing data from numerous sources, are making up their findings too? 

If they're not, and you agree the panels are on the moon, who put them up there?

The same results from the lunar refractor experiment were obtainable before we had been to the moon. So to get them, a lunar refractor is not necessarily required.  It had been going on since the early 1960's.

And personally I find lunar refracting from a small reflector to be quite hard to believe, although I don't disbelieve it. These numbers are from my head so sorry if they are a bit wrong, but I think they are materially right. But the earth spins at the equator by 1000mph, admittedly much slower as you head to the poles. The moon rotates at 2000 mph, and is 240,000 miles away. Light (I think is equivalent to laser speed?) takes about a second to get to the moon from earth. Two seconds needed to get ther and back. In one second the moon would have moved half a mile and the earth a quarter of a mile. I don't think that a laser position by hand decades ago would be able to maintain such an accuracy for decades, bearing in mind slight changes in orbit etc. I appreciate it could be possible engineering and laser accuracy is far more than I can imagine. But I am not convinced.

Also bearing in mind that Nasa state they have put objects on the moon in non-manned expeditions, then putting reflectors up there does not necessitate man walking on the moon.

Just now, Stevo985 said:

No they don't. I'm happy to debunk this if you give me specific examples.

I don't know how a footprint from the moon can be in a museum, so I assume this is referring to the boots of the astronauts not matching the footprints on the moon?
If so then this has been debunked many times. The astronauts wore lunar overshoes on the moon, those are what made the footprints, not the soles of their actual boots. This is well documented

Couple of reasons for this. Firstly the tyres of the rovers were made out of mesh and spread pressure a lot better than the boots of the astronauts. So they didn't actually make really deep tracks. 
Secondly, there's a shit load of dust up there. Often by the time the astronauts had got out of the rover, done whatever they were doing, and finally taken a picture, they'd kicked up so much dust that it had covered the tracks. 
You can see that in this picture

Tracks leading up to it, but none around the actual rover. The tracks are still there by the way. There are photographs of them

This one is such common sense that I don't know why it's such a widespread trope. 
The size of continents varies depending on how close to the earth you take the picture.

If you're 500,000 miles away from the earth and take a picture and then resize it to be the same size as a picture taken 5,000 miles away from the earth, you're going to see a lot more of the earth's surface in the picture taken from far away then you are from the one taken close up. Hence the continents appear smaller

There are several youtube videos out there that give a literal visual demonstration of how this happens, but this diagram summarises it nicely

Again I'd have to see a specific example, but I imagine the explanation is that NASA openly admit to using composite pictures to depict the earth. This isn't a secret. Taking photos of the earth is hard, so to get the perfect pictures we see they often take parts of different photos and stitch them together. The famous blue marble photos released in 2012 are composites. NASA doesn't hide this. They can't get far enough away to take the photos in a high enough resolution to get such good photos, so they stitch various ones together. They also tweak the colours. This could result in similar cloud formations appearign in 

That doesn't mean the photos are "fake". There are plenty of raw photos of the moon taken by various apollo missions

No they didn't have motion trackers. They were controlled from Houston.
It was EXTREMELY difficult to achieve this, given the time it takes to get an input from a human to the moon for a cameras to move. 

So difficult in fact that there's a reason that footage is from Apollo 17. Because they tried it on Apollo 15 and 16 and **** it up both times. Because it's really hard

Why would a lunar module taking off from the moon look anything like any rocket I or anyone else had seen taking off before? We see rockets taking off from earth where you need an insane amount of power to escape the atmosphere and gravity.
That's a video of the lunar module taking off in near zero gravity. It's very very different. 
It's like seeing footage of me swimming upwards in a swimming pool and saying it doesn't look like any footage you've seen of anyone jumping before

No. You couldn't make a phone call directly to the moon and back. Neither can you today.
What you can do is convert somebody talking on the phone into radiowaves and transmit those to the moon. And vice versa. That's how they spoke to Nixon on the moon (if that's what you were referring to)

Yes, it looks real.

If we're behind the orbit, why would it appear that it was circling?
If you were directly above someone throwing a ball a long distance, would it appear curved? No, it would look like a straight line to you because you're in line with the ball. The only thing that would tell you the ball was travelling in an arc would be that the ball would get closer to you as it reached the peak of the arc. Such a thing would be imperceptible on that video of the earth and moon because of the scale.



Genuinely hope that helps

Okay so on the footprints I am referring to the boots in a  museum vs the footprints. I appreciate that explanation. However, I consider it an explanation rather than a debunking. The reason being that it provides a possible explanation, rather than an objective solution. Not that I think an explanation isn't a useful response. When you tell a lie, you often find you have to add adornments as time passes. I appreciate lunar overshoes are a possible explanation, but when you consider other issues such as the severe lack of space in the shuttle (which to an extent anyway I find implausible) and the perhaps more logical idea of having minimal footwear options there are other possibilities also.

That is one photo. There are others that show different. It is entirely possible that some photos were mocked up with tyre tracks whereas in others it was neglected. There would still be evidence of disturbance. Plenty of photos do not show this.

Regarding the perspective and the continents. Refer to image 6 in the slide. This is taken from 700km away. It shows a small united states. Then take the blue marble image, slide 4. This was taken 824km away and shows a huge United States. Whilst the explanation is valid scientifically. It does not correlate to the photos, so I don't consider it to have debunked the issue. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/world/gallery/earth-photos/index.html

Like you say Nasa does claim to use composites rather than photos. We are able to photo the moon so it shouldn't be too hard to photo the earth. The issue with the composites is matters such as why the same cloud formations appear in multiple. Why are some clouds composited to read the word sex. 

I don't think it is plausible that the camera's could be controlled with that accuracy from houston. I doubt such a video was important enough to warrant such a technological innovation. 

If a lunar module taking off from the moon looked plausible, I would expect: not sparks that look like a few primary colours; Some kind of expulsion; be it a bit of fire or smoke; some dust from the lunar surface; and a more natural streamlined trajectory. Not the surreal rocket that does really give off vibes of being puppet stringed up. 

R.e the telephone call. If they were radiowaves, did no other radio's pick it up surely every amateur radio enthusiast would have been trying to do this (I don't know whether they did or not)? Furthermore I don't think the phone call shows a five or six second delay in the conversation. Sure it might have been edited.  

It would appear it is circling because that is the trajectory it takes. Taking into the account of the position of the earth in the shot, I think that could expect to be seen. Especially if you look at the surface and how the perspective never changes from the visible details.

Sorry, I do appreciate the spirit in which you have commented  and haven't taken them aggressively. I hope that you take mine in the same manner. I appreciate the offer of answering questions also.

6 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Must admit I found it a large number, but then I thought about the manufacturing, from conception, the planning, etc, I would expect a high number. 

I am surprised. I don't consider the source to be reputable. I don't necessarily find the arguments that a lot of people were involved therefore there would be lots of whistleblowers to be convincing. Firstly the process of compartmentalisation has been used plenty of times in secret projects so that the people involved have no idea what is going on holistically. Secondly, particularly with the moon landing if there were 400,000 involved, it may well be that 399,990 think that we have been to the moon. I think there was a channel 4 reality show once which basically showed how easy it was to trick people into thinking they went to the moon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series)

I know someone who works for nasa. He makes satellite technology to go in high altitude balloons. 

I do think it would take a sample of vastly more than 400,000 until you found someone whose name backwards was gnortsMr Alien to be selected to go to the moon ;). What are the chances eh?

11 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Expert view.  

See the section "Hoax Claims and Rebutals".  Read the entry AND the attached footnoted articles and source documents. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

 

Okay, I will do so. Although I may not buy the items that it links to books unless I can find free pdfs on the internet. Unless you can recommend any of the books as being particularly worth reading?

Give me some time to do so.

I have read the entry. I don't think it really says a lot. Plus about ten years ago I was South Africa's all time third highest goal scorer for a few years, according to wikipedia.

18 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Apollo.html

A lot of people keeping a secret

I mean my suspicions are based in questioning the integrity of nasa lying about going to the moon. I have no doubts that they also lie about their headcount if it supported an initial lie. I find 400,000 to be quite surprisingly large personally. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm

If they would lie about moon rocks, perhaps we shouldn't take their word at face value?

11 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

1. NASA needed to rent or buy a source soundstage, outfit it with the lunar landscape and various props.  Lights would have been installed.  Decorators would have painted the background.  Security guards would have protected the site.  Tha astronauts would have needed to rehearse their actions.  Someone would have edited the footage and slow it down to give the effect of gravity.  Someone would have to maintained the site of removed it.  Someone would have to edit and fake various video footage.  The astronauts and the entire group control crew would have needed to produce their footage. 

2. The Cold War?   Korean War?  Vietnam War?  Cuban missile crisis?  

3. NASA.  They are the experts. 

 

1) could have all been done very easily by not many. Secrets exist. D-day, the Manhattan Project. Compartmentalisation is a thing. 

2) Yes, I would include all those in the cold war. I suspect the cold was was not as presented. Nor is any war, I feel. 

3) I disagree. We are talking about experts so expert that they lost the technology to go to the moon, and most of the footage also. 

Hi so I might have made a mistake.  I am not mega new to this site, although not entirely fresh. I thought this thread was perhaps a place to discuss views about conspiracy theories, as they are known. 

I am of course happy to discuss those kind of things but it gets a bit tiring if the responses are a little passive aggressiv,e its a bit exasperating for me. I also get the impression I am exasperating people, and have perhaps got the wrong point of this thread (it ain't my sandpit) its cool I'll drop it. I have zero desire to exasperate people.

Apologies.

But if anyone does wanna chat about this view of mine or others, thats cool too. I enjoy a good discussion about interesting stuff particularly with people of differing views. 

peace

4 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Wait? You’re not one of those sheeple who believes the moon is real are you!?

I have never been there, I don't know what it is. Whatever it is I can see so I guess it is real to that extent, although ultimately all my senses including sight are prepared by my brain so I can never trust them 100%

7 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

@Seal is this the only conspiracy theory you hold dear or do you have others, 9/11 etc I know that people who believe this nonsense tend to be susceptible to others. 

It is a good question. I would say that I suspect fundamentally this reality is deceptive. From history, through to many things presented in the media (I would include 9/11 in that but am only mentioning this because you have). 

How do you know it is all nonsense? Sure it may be, but that is a pretty big claim to make?

10 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Sorry, I cannot be more specific without picking up warning points for post on poster.   

I will assume you meant a conspiracy scientist

18 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

'The Moon Landings were fake' has been debunked so many times I'm amazed anyone still has the slightest bit of doubt.

many of the debunkings have been debunked as well

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

OK......let's break this down a little.  

If the moon landings were fake NASA would have faked 9 missions (I think). None of the thousands of people involved in that fakery mentioned it at the time.  The USSR who were the biggest rivals never denounced the landings as fake and actually acknowledge it happened. The moon landing sites can be seen and have been reported by many countries.  There is a reflector on the moon that allows scientists from any country to measure the distantance between us an the moon by bouncing a laser off it.  

What's led to all the discrepancies you mention? 

1. NASA does re-touch photographs for publicity issue.  

2. Original photographs are copied, reprinted, re-copied and faked by the press.  Many of the photographs you claim to have seen aren't the originals.  They are a bad copy of a bad copy. 

3. You pose question that I am not qualified to answer.  But I guess neither are you or the people who made the video.  You ask me if the rocket taking off looks right.  I have only ever seen 1 launch.  (The space shuttle in the 2000's.)  The experts say there are no discrepancies.  Neither of us are qualified to doubt that. 

4.  Even if I accept that all the photographs and videos are distorted due to editing, copying and fakery - its sill no proof that the moon landings were faked.  Its proof that publicity of the moon landings was faked.  

Were there thousands of people involved? Take for instance the control room. They didn't actually see anyone go to the moon, they just heard a blip on a screen. They may well have believed they did go to the moon. Thousands of people being involved is only necessary if there was actually a space programme. If there wasn't then there would have been less than thousands. Try watching the press conference after the apollo missions. It looks very much like people who know that they are lying and are very depressed about having to do so. 

I disagree that the USSR and USA were rivals. But I imagine that our conceptions of what reality is differ greatly. Broadly speaking, I suspect nations states are middle management. I suspect you suspect that nations compete within a nation state system under rules of international politics. Both views are cool imo and would make an interesting discussion, except I am also happy to accept your views as entirely reasonable on this and think its best to just accept we have a differing view on 'international politics'. I do suspect all wars are rackets, like smedley butlers book, and that the cold war was no different. 

Nasa does retouch stuff yes, it refers to its images as images rather than photos because that is what they are. One of my favourite retouches is how they have 'retouched' their image of pluto to show pluto the dog on its face.

 Sure original photos are copied and reprinted. However all photos I am referring to can be found on Nasa's official website and are official photos. 

Which experts say there are no discrepancies? Are all people that call themselves experts actually experts? There are certainly plenty of people who call them selves experts who say that there are discrepancies. You are the most qualified person out there to use your eyes and think. It is pretty clear to the naked eye that that take off is very unlike regular take offs. 

With regards to your point 4. Yes you are correct. But it is not proof that it isn't and is evidence of manipulation however low level it may be. And when taken with other evidence of Nasa lying through the ages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm) and much much more, then it indicates to me that not trusting them is a reasonable position to make. I don't trust any publicity.

6 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Crikey, we've got one. 

lol. one what?

52 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

We live in a world where politicians lie, corporations have hidden agendas and secrets are kept.  I 100% agree.  

But I find it very difficult when people spot a small discrepancy and then blow it up to something it clearly isn't.  

For example -  There are no stars in the photographs taken on the moon. This shows it was faked in a studio. No.  It shows that a small 1970s camera strapped to an astronauts chest was incapable of taking pictures of stars because it would have needed a lengthy exposure time. 

I also find it difficult when people (let's use David Icke as an example) come up with these amazing theories with zero evidence and make millions from it.  David Icke creates content for financial gain. 

If you can come up with a specific topic I would be genuinely interested to debate it.  

But let me finish by saying that I am not picking out "conspiracy theories" as being anything unusual.  I don't believe in ghosts, contacting the dead, gods, fortune telling, witchcraft, Santa Claus or that people pay money to watch Birmingham FC. 

Isn't the trouble with the moon photographs a lot more than just there being no stars. It also includes images of celestial bodies that have been stuck on in photoshop, that can be identified by just changing the brightness levels. Photographs of the astronauts footprints being different to the actual footprints that exist in museums for the astronauts. Moon rovers in the middle of landscapes with no tyre tracks leading to them although with footprints around. What about the inconsistencies between the official photos of the earth from space from nasa, where the continent of africa varies in size spectacularly. Or the consistencies where the same cloud patterns can be seen in a number of different places on the earth. The evidence of fakery is huge, and not limited to the stars / lack of stars. 

It would make sense that the stars would need to be hidden, as if their patterns varied from what they should, then that would make them quite objectively fake. Although to be sure this is not proof either way. 

And also to be clear, because 1970's cameras don't suffer long enough exposure, doesn't mean that anyone went to the moon. Also - did 1970's cameras have a motion trackers that would have enable such as video as the below, without having to leave someone behind on the moon? Or was someone left behind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=226s (watch the take off here, and tell me that that is like any rocket taking off you have ever seen in your life. Plus the lansdcape looks exactly like a film set, rather than real life).

Did 1960's phone technology allow a phone call to and from the moon? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs - do you think the moons transit looks real in this official image? If so - why does it transit in a straight vector, rather than circling the earth?

On 09/09/2023 at 17:27, Stevo985 said:

He’s got liver disease I heard. 
 

My mate’s cat got stroked by Kalvin Phillips’ aunt last week

hmm there must be some kind of crime wave. The other week my mates dogs bum got sniffed by rishi sunaks dog.

2 hours ago, mjmooney said:

That is pretty amazing. 

What is also amazing is how peaceful and quiet life is without a mobile phone.

It is probably not everyone's cuppa tea. But. If you like your trance uplifting euphoric, a bass that ripples under skin. Synths that might as well be heroin. Play this loud. 

I do wonder whether this might be a possible reason for players never playing as well for England.

Foden was the one I was thinking of watching at the weekend. Never feel he is as good for England as at City.

But then you could go back through others, Lampard, Gerrard etc, John Barnes? I think there are loads.

5 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Here we go…

my daughter literally shouted - here we go! whilst watching an episode of bluey as I read that.

6 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I wish. AI would be impartial.

Unless they just went on Chat GPT and asked 'Please create an refereeing algorithm that makes it possible for Man U to be top 5'.

Without dodgy refs they'd finish 12th at best.

Maybe. I don't necessarily thing AI would be as impartial as believed. I don't think it is actually intelligence in the same way intelligence is intelligence and still is programmed by those who want to benefit from it. I also think that what AI is used in some places is a bit beyond what is seen in chat GPT. Not that I have used chat GPT personally. 

I do agree about Man Utd - same as liverpool in the 90's. Should be sitting in the relegation zone all decisions being proper.