General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Seat68]

42 minutes ago, blandy said:

I've just been to the post office. It's mostly sunny here right now. Walking back, I took some photos of shadows cast by stuff in the way of the sun.

The first one, the shadows on the pavement next to the red car are quite slanted, but look further down the road, 30 yards and the ones opposite the tree are not as slanted - they're pointing in an apparent different direction.

Second picture same thing - my shadow is at more of an angle than the ones down the street and the last one, I stood next to the tree outside my house. Again shadows in a different direction, and I'm maybe 4 feet away from the tree

Well for a start picture 2 is clearly fake, the front wheel isn't on the road

[Paddywhack]

So…that’s debunked all the reasons the moon landing was faked, right?

[Rugeley Villa]

I find some conspiracies interesting. The 9/11 ones for example although I’m not saying it was. The moon landing one? Well I did watch a programme on discovery channel or some documentary channel that looked into it being faked but it’s never took my Interest. Find it more interesting the preparation that went into landing on the moon rather than trying to debunk it. 

[Xela]

12 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

So…that’s debunked all the reasons the moon landing was faked, right?

The moon landing wasn't faked... the moon itself is a fake!

[Rugeley Villa]

14 minutes ago, Xela said:

The moon landing wasn't faked... the moon itself is a fake!

Of course it is, we live in the matrix 

[Stevo985]

40 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

So…that’s debunked all the reasons the moon landing was faked, right?

There's plenty of other myths about it still to come, believe me.

Van Allen belt next I imagine

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

What does start to annoy me is when you, or others, are presented with the really simple evidence that debunks the conspiracy theory and refuse to believe it just because. That's not a mistake, that's deliberately believing in something that is demonstrably untrue

Well, yes and no - it's not consciously "deliberate". It is an established thing that it can be difficult to persuade someone of a particular "thing", but once that "thing" has been accepted as true and valid in their mind, even if it is not actually true, it is almost impossible for the human mind to accept it has been fooled, even when presented with absolutely irrefutable evidence -  It's just the way our brains work - our brain learns something and then stores it away as an experienced truth, and it's a hell of a job to kind of overwrite that brain data store. It's why these conspiracy theories can be so dangerous. Like 5G mobile phone masts causing Covid and then people go out and destroy masts.

Moon landing stuff is harmless, other than it sets people up for disbelieving other things in a way that could actually be harmful to them or to others.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Well, yes and no - it's not consciously "deliberate". It is an established thing that it can be difficult to persuade someone of a particular "thing", but once that "thing" has been accepted as true and valid in their mind, even if it is not actually true, it is almost impossible for the human mind to accept it has been fooled, even when presented with absolutely irrefutable evidence -  It's just the way our brains work - our brain learns something and then stores it away as an experienced truth, and it's a hell of a job to kind of overwrite that brain data store. It's why these conspiracy theories can be so dangerous. Like 5G mobile phone masts causing Covid and then people go out and destroy masts.

Moon landing stuff is harmless, other than it sets people up for disbelieving other things in a way that could actually be harmful to them or to others.

I think things like the footprint discussion in this thread is an example of deliberately not believing something.

I'm ok with still doubting the validity of the moon landing. But on that point in particular, it's irrefutable. 

[Xann]

[fruitvilla]

6 hours ago, Seal said:

I avoid beliefs

I believe I also avoid beliefs. I believe I could give reasons for why I avoid beliefs.

[Rugeley Villa]

1 minute ago, Xann said:

Why and how has it effected how we hear music? 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

11 minutes ago, Xann said:

Err.........no. 

This article addresses the matter and traces the origin of the myth. 

It's written by named industry experts and scientists. 

The picture above was made by an unknown person, at an unknown time with an unknown level of expertise. 

Which one do you think we should believe?  

 

Quote

False. Meme includes unfounded claims and historical inaccuracies about frequencies 432Hz and 440Hz, according to experts contacted by Reuters.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-musical-pitches-idUSL1N2P915O

Edited September 20, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Added details

[Mandy Lifeboats]

The people who post on here in defense of conspiracy theories must feel completely outnumbered.  That's because they are.  Both on this forum and in real life. 

In my opinion it's because we (humans) enjoy spending time with people who value our views and opinions.  Therefore we stick together with our belief group and receive a distorted view of what the average man thinks and does. 

99% of conspiracy theories are utter rubbish.  Anyone who genuinely believes the moon landings were faked despite the large amount of scientific evidence to the contrary is not capable of taking a balanced view. 

But isn't religion a perfect example where people believe in something despite there being no evidence of its existence and numerous pieces of evidence to discredit it.  

Millions still believe that a god created the world in 7 days based upon an old book.  

The bible clearly says that the earth was created before stars and light.   Science tells us that this is wrong.  But people still believe a religion that is flawed and disproven from the very beginning onwards. 

We really are a stupid species.   

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Added details

[Xann]

16 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Which one do you think we should believe?

 Maybe you should wash your ears out?

Piss is surprisingly versatile.

[blandy]

21 hours ago, Seal said:

bearing in mind that nasa claim to have taken things to the moon on unmanned expeditions. If there are reflectors up there, is it proof that man went to the moon?

Not on its own, no. Russia has put reflectors on the moon, using an unmanned craft. Actually, speaking of Russia, a big part of the race for space and putting a man on the moon and so on was the cold war rivalry between the USA and Russia. When the U.S. won the race, there wasn't (to my knowledge) any kind of stuff from Russia that said "no, the capitalist dogs have faked it, and here's how". And that's because Russia had its space programme and had put people into space (first) and knew what was involved and so on, they just didn't get there as quickly.

Quote

The toughness in completing the experiment is not just limited to hitting the [reflector]. But also in being able to isolate the photon that comes back and being able to replicate the experiment. 

I am also very sceptical about things that cannot be demonstrated by anyone outside of an authority. Reading about a the Apollo project (apache point observatory lunar laser range operation project, it suggests that you need a laser than can shoot enough photons up that you get some back. He - someone involved in that - states this is 10¹⁷ green 532 nm photons per pulse (be aware I am just digging into it this repeating the words of others. So I am taking a layman understanding from this), and at this level, you can only expect to get about 1 photon back. And this is the best that can be expected using a 3.5m telescope, and this can only be done somewhere with absolutely minimal background light and no distortion. So basically it appears to be far too complicated for regular joe's to achieve https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/apparatus.html you wild need a laser as well 532nm green with a gigawatt of peak power that can output pulses of 120 picosecond duration at 20hz. Customized detection hardware and it seems special computer hardware and software to statistically 'interpret the "data". In short it seems there are only 8 places equipped to do this. 

Reading about how the lasers work, it reads like you need to give it a gate - in order to filter out "local noise" like reflections from clouds. So basically you need to input the earth - moon distance, in order to find out the earth - moon distance. Seems weird, although I may have misread that.

Also I don't see how at the Earth anyone would be able to distinguish between the photons from the laser. And the photons given off by the reflection from the moon - which is a broadly similar portion of the spectrum. Presumably  this explains why the result of the experiment worked before we even "had lasers on the moon". If the theoretical return of a photon is statistically likely to be just 1 photon, then how is this distinguished from the other photons of identical wavelength?

I imagine it would be like detecting an ants fart in a hurricane. 

It think it requires faith, as it seemingly cannot be verified by the regular dude. Basically to my mind it requires a massive assumption that the return is actually the reflection. 

This part of your post is kind of glitchy.

First line - good. it's difficult to achieve.

Next bit, about you "being sceptical about things that cannot be demonstrated by anyone outside of an authority" - well OK, some distrust of "authority" is merited. However scepticism and refusal to believe just because the source of information is an "authority" is massively illogical. You talk about people aren't able to repeat this laser stuff at home, having previously stated (rightly) that it's all extremely complex. No people can't do it at home. People can't generate nuclear power at home either. Some large scale technological activities require huge resources, the collective expertise of large numbers of scientists and engineers and medics and long term programmes. None of that is available to the likes of us at home. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that electricity is generated from nuclear reactions and powers our satellite TVs.

You then go on to talk about what you've read about the laser used, and frequencies and gates and photons and how the distance to the moon is needed. But it sounds like (apologies if I'm wrong) you don't understand (and it's something may wouldn't) what it's actually telling you. So here's another go at a simplification. It applies to Radar and to Lasers too:

Because (as we know) light and RF radiation travel at the speed of light, individual pulses from a radar, or from a laser (as we've also discussed) would get to the moon and back in 2.4 seconds. Now if you know (and we do) that radars and lasers (in this case) send a pulse and then nothing, then a pulse and then nothing...repeat ad infinitum - they do this like in the war films with surface ships hunting submarine with active sonar  - you get the ping from the surface vessel, then it pans to the sub and the crew hearing the ping hit their sub, then back to the ship and an operator saying "I've got a trace Captain" - so what that's doing is the ship send a short sound pulse in to the water and listens for an echo. When they get the echo, the time taken corresponds to distance to the sub.

That's what lasers and Radars do too. But the added factor is that light travels much much much faster than sound. And radars and lasers are sending incredible short pulses out at really high repetition rates. So how do you know (when you get reflected ones back) what they've been reflected from? = well if a laser reflection is from a cloud a mile up, it will be back before you can blink. But if it's from the moon, it'll be about 2.4 seconds till it comes back. SO if you're only wanting to see moon reflections, you need to have a little gate that's shut when you send the pulse, then opens after 2.4 (approx) seconds, then shuts again a tiny iota later. So you're not getting swamped with photons bouncing of everything. That's why you need to start off knowing (as best you can) how far away the moon is - it allows you to eliminate a lot of false returns and noise.

Next the reflectors v "just the moon" reflecting stuff back. We've talked about how the laser from the ground spreads out and its beam of photons hits and area (someone said 4 miles wide, but it doesn't really matter the precise size, just the principle). That's biggish area, and any photons reflected all the way back from it (if there are any) are going to be coming from slightly different distances, and take slightly different lengths of time to come back. ON the other hand, ones reflected back from a reflector, there's 2 things we know - they're all going to take exactly the same time, because they're all reflecting off a small specially made mirror (or prism). We also know reflectors (even when dirty) are better than rock at reflecting light, so more efficient at reflecting energy back to earth. Oh, and they reflect it directly back down the line it came, and don't scatter it. What that all means then is that at the receiving end on earth, the science says laser reflections from reflectors will take exactly x.xxxxx seconds, they will be of the frequency of the transmitted laser photons, rather than sunlight or starlight and if they appear before or after the anticipated time, we can ignore than, because they've bounced of a cloud  or a plane or dust in the atmosphere - so we shut the gate, so we don't see that stuff - which allows us to pick out from what we do see photons from the reflectors.

As we've also covered, there's an immensely powerful laser on the ground sending pulses of laser light at a super high rate, but over a vast distance and all kinds have stuff can get in the way, scatter them, spread them out...so only a very small number are going to make it back to the laser receiver on earth.

All that is just science and technology and logic and known techniques and tiny versions of it, or parts of it manage or are used in aircraft traffic control, CD players, Inertial navigation systems, Laser altimeters, stealthy communications, fibre broadband, missiles....And none of us could build that kind of stuff at home, but e make use of it (except the missiles) one way or another. We know it works, even if we don't understand how - a CD player uses a laser to detect tiny differences on a rapidly rotating disk and turns that into music, repeatedly, identically, over and over again? but look how fast the disk spins, look at the rate of change of data that it has to process...

Anyway, I need m'tea,

 

 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Xela said:

The moon landing wasn't faked... the moon itself is a fake!

There’s plenty of people who do actually believe this

[TheAuthority]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I've just been to the post office.

You obviously faked that trip to the post office.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

You obviously faked that trip to the post office.

I did wonder why Blackpool supporting postmaster,Tony, was singing a Man City song at me:

”we are not, we’re not really here”

[TheAuthority]

8 hours ago, Xann said:

 

8 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Why and how has it effected how we hear music? 

No-one here wants to read posts about tempered tuning and just tuning. Trust me.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

 

No-one here wants to read posts about tempered tuning and just tuning. Trust me.

I have heard if you have the tuning set at a certain level it can open a porthole to another galaxy . Not sure if true or not.