General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

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.

You get the same effect if you close your eyes whilst listening to Les Big Byrd.

Astral projection, for under twenty quid.

[Seal]

16 hours 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

I don't think this shows the same thing. The perspectives in these photos make sense. The perspective in the the initial photo makes no sense. The flagpole shadow goes entirely the opposite way. And whilst there is also an allusion to a shadow in the direction it should be going. It should be a lot longer than it is.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

6 minutes ago, Seal said:

I don't think this shows the same thing. The perspectives in these photos make sense. The perspective in the the initial photo makes no sense. The flagpole shadow goes entirely the opposite way. And whilst there is also an allusion to a shadow in the direction it should be going. It should be a lot longer than it is.

What qualifications do you hold on this area?  Are you an avid photographer with years of experience?   Could you outline your professional and academic experience with moon photography please? 

I am applying Occam's Razor. I am making presumptions based upon your academic qualifications,  specialisms and interests.  It will allow me to better assess your opinion if I can remove those assumptions from my Occam's Ravor assessment. 

Thanks. 

PS - I am happy to reciprocate if requested. 

 

 

[fightoffyour]

50 minutes ago, Seal said:

I don't think this shows the same thing. The perspectives in these photos make sense. The perspective in the the initial photo makes no sense. The flagpole shadow goes entirely the opposite way. And whilst there is also an allusion to a shadow in the direction it should be going. It should be a lot longer than it is.

The shadow you are talking about is quite obviously not from the flagpole at all but another object with a tripod-looking shape that is out of shot.

Edited September 21, 2023 by fightoffyour

[Seal]

16 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Quite the opposite. The overshoes needed to walk on the moon were big and bulky. They weighed a lot. Having them separate enabled Buzz and Neil to leave them on the moon to save weight and allow for the extra weight in the shape of moon rock samples that they brought back with them. Their overshoes are still on the moon now because they did just that.

NASA are only liars in your opinion because you believe conspiracy theories like this. They're not liars. 

And I don't understand how you are skeptical about that explanation. You can look up the photos that they took on the moon. Even if you think these photos are fake, you can clearly see in them that they are wearing the overshoes, and not treading on the moon with the boots you see in the space suit photo. Therefore it is absolutely provable that they did not walk on the moon, or the desert, or the film studio or whatever you believe it to be, in those smooth soled spacesuit boots. Whatever they walked on, they walked on it using the overshoes which have the correct tread for the footprints.

So even if you think it's all a conspiracy theory, even you have to acknowledge that the footprint thing is bollocks. 

Maybe there's some other evidence you have to show it's a conspiracy (spoiler: there isn't) but the footprint thing isn't it.

Here are some examples of NASA lying:

Giving petrified wood to museums in place of actual moon rocks.

Never acknowledging until recently that most of their satellite information came from high altitude balloons rather than satellites

This is a much repeated lie but... we will go back to the moon by xxxx year

We will visit mars by xxxx

No non cgi photos of the earth but they have previously claimed to have taken photos. Most images from space are thus a lie, or deceitful. 

Claiming they do not have the ablity to pass through the van allen belt.

I don't know for sure that this is a lie, but it is still ridiculous https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a22888068/iss-leak-astronaut-finger-tape/ I struggle to imagine how this kind of story can be taken seriously.

What about when Tim Peake got caught filming his ISS shots in front of a blue screen when they said he was on the ISS?

Saying that there is videos from the moon landing and then saying that filmtape can't pass through the van allen belt radiation. Note I am not saying whether it could or couldn't myself, just that Nasa must have lied about one.

Anything Don Petit says.

They use dwarf models of astronauts at the museum to give off the impression that they would be able to fit inside the module

When asked about how they took a photo of a black hole without light - two conflicting responses. On that it used radio waves converted into the light spectrum, and secondly that they actually took the picture with light. 

That is from the top of my head. There are plenty more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to the faking of the moon photos. It makes most sense to me that they were faked not just in a studio by buzz and Neil in space suits. But over time. This explains why unseen never seen before photos (lincluding the photos i PM'd you) were released in the 90's. I couldn't see the overshoes soles in the photo, so I am not sure it shows anything. Plus if it is on a set, you would assume that different people left footprints for show or possibly by accident depending on how they wished to set it up. 

Also: have a peruse of this site for  how the landscape photo trickery might have worked:

http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/ 

I don't think the footprint thing is bollocks i suspect just lies upon lies. I also think that the photo you sent of the moon overshoes is from apollo 17, and thus is not evidence at all of was worn by Neal / Buzz. But at the same time I am not saying Nasa didn't claim they wore overshoes also. It just is that the photos you show aren't evidence of the other.

 

[Chindie]

We're at the point that the only evidence of going to the moon that will be accepted is actually transporting the dissenter to the moon and showing them everything in person.

Which is absolutely mental.

[Seal]

15 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

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. 

I disagree. You posted moon overshoes from Apollo 17 and then said it explained Apollo 11 footprints. Also you are assuming that the situation is that all evidence is good evidence. I am open to the possibility (naturally taking the sceptical position) that evidence (in this instance in the form of photos) shouldn't be questioned. 

Like what I am saying is - Nasa lied, got caught out, came up with another lie to justify - is a legitimate possibility.  

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We're at the point that the only evidence of going to the moon that will be accepted is actually transporting the dissenter to the moon and showing them everything in person.

Which is absolutely mental.

But how would he know he was actually on the moon if we actually took him there?

It could be drug induced.

It could be Tredegar.

How does he even know he’s actually real? We might have faked him and he hasn’t realised yet. Some crazy hybrid of VT, The Truman Show and Bladerunner.

[Seal]

40 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

What qualifications do you hold on this area?  Are you an avid photographer with years of experience?   Could you outline your professional and academic experience with moon photography please? 

I am applying Occam's Razor. I am making presumptions based upon your academic qualifications,  specialisms and interests.  It will allow me to better assess your opinion if I can remove those assumptions from my Occam's Ravor assessment. 

Thanks. 

PS - I am happy to reciprocate if requested. 

 

 

I am saying I don't think anyone has professional and academic experience with moon photography. At least from location.  My qualifications are that I have eyes and have observed shadows and light for 37 years. 

You could take this up with the photographic experts who have doubts about the moon landing photos though. There are a number. 

[mjmooney]

That's it, 'ignore' function activated.  (Only the third time in 20 years of VT, and the first time in Off Topic). 

Edited September 21, 2023 by mjmooney

[Mandy Lifeboats]

10 minutes ago, Seal said:

I am saying I don't think anyone has professional and academic experience with moon photography. At least from location.  My qualifications are that I have eyes and have observed shadows and light for 37 years. 

You could take this up with the photographic experts who have doubts about the moon landing photos though. There are a number. 

Thanks for the reply

 I have no relevant qualifications. But I have 53 years of using my eyes and observing shadows.  I also did some amateur photography including flash photography.  I have seen thousands of real life examples of the shadow discrepancies you mention. 

[Seal]

14 hours ago, blandy said:

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.

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,

 

 

You may not be surprised to think I have a slightly different view on international relations. I suspect that wars - most certainly including the cold war- are rackets. And I would apply this to Cold War too. I think in part this is because governments find fear a useful tool. Although not limited to this. I see the space race and the cold war as more artificial than perhaps historic narratives suggests. I appreciate this is probably a big discussion in its own right and don't wish to distract from this. Lets just say we perceive the nature of reality differently. 

I am not refusing to believe just because something is from an authority. I am refusing to believe on a principle that I think having a belief is bad for your mind. For reasons I have already alluded to. And because this particular authority has proven itself to be untrustworthy. 

With regards to your clarification of the lasers issues. Thanks it is interesting. However, I still find it hard to believe that it is happening. Lets say the photons are spread out over 4 miles, or 200 or 2 miles. I think I was the guy that mentioned four miles? That was just what I read on the wikipedia page. I found different samples. You may be sending up quadrillions of photos. But when they are spread out presumably 99.999999% of them will not hit the reflector. The odds of them getting back are so little anyway assuming they even hit the reflector. And then to be able to identify that that photon is the one you sent out, and distinguish from the huge amounts of photos that the moon would be reflecting anyway. Is a bit beyond what I think is possible.

However like I have said - even if it is there - it is not proof the apollo missions went to the moon. 

[Seal]

4 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Thanks for the reply

 I have no relevant qualifications. But I have 53 years of using my eyes and observing shadows.  I also did some amateur photography including flash photography.  I have seen thousands of real life examples of the shadow discrepancies you mention. 

Nice!

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 minutes ago, Seal said:

 I see the space race and the cold war as more artificial than perhaps historic narratives suggests.

I really don't see how you can say the Cold War was artificial  

It  almost ended in nuclear holocaust on at least 2 occasions.  

The Berlin Wall.....the Berlin blockade.......the division of Germany......the Cuban missile crisis.....the nuclear arms race.....several proxy wars.......the boycott of the Moscow Olympics......the boycott of the LA Olympics.....the Cambridge spy ring.....currency controls.....export bans.....the formation of NATO.....and many, many more. 

None of that was artificial.  

[Stevo985]

25 minutes ago, Seal said:

Here are some examples of NASA lying:

Giving petrified wood to museums in place of actual moon rocks.

Never acknowledging until recently that most of their satellite information came from high altitude balloons rather than satellites

This is a much repeated lie but... we will go back to the moon by xxxx year

We will visit mars by xxxx

 

I don't know naything about the satellite stuff. As far as I'm aware, NASA has always had balloon satellites and has never denied using them or the information from them.

We will go to the moon or mars by whatever date are targets. Things change, budgets change, priorities of leaders change. Their recent commitment was 2025 but that was because Trump flowed down the target. Most likely Biden or whoever comes next will reel that back in. These aren't lies, they're just the nature of governments and organisations.

 

26 minutes ago, Seal said:

No non cgi photos of the earth but they have previously claimed to have taken photos. Most images from space are thus a lie, or deceitful. 

This is just false, and proves you're not even reading my posts. There ARE non CGI photos of the earth. Loads and loads of them. I've shown you some. 

The difference is it's very difficult, if not impossible, to take really high resolution and clear photos of the whole of the earth from space. Therefore when they release these kinds of photos they've used composite photos.

This isn't deceitful. They have never hidden the fact that that is how they did them. Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean it was a lie.

29 minutes ago, Seal said:

Claiming they do not have the ablity to pass through the van allen belt.

Told you @Paddywhack

This is just false. They may have thought at one point that they couldn't go through the Van Allen belt, but once they launched the program to get to the moon they always knew they could get through it. In fact everything was geared towards getting through the van allen belt as quickly as possible to limit the exposure to radiation. 

The Van Allen belt is actually evidence that they DID go to the moon.

The rockets took 68 minutes to get through the belts which gave them an exposure of around 16 RADs. The lethal dose is around 300, so they were well below this.

Despite this, the majority of Apollo astronauts suffered from cataracts later in life which was a direct result of travelling through the Van Allen belt, hence it's evidence that they really did travel to the moon

34 minutes ago, Seal said:

I don't know for sure that this is a lie, but it is still ridiculous https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a22888068/iss-leak-astronaut-finger-tape/ I struggle to imagine how this kind of story can be taken seriously.

Once again, your personal incredulity does not mean something isn't true

36 minutes ago, Seal said:

What about when Tim Peake got caught filming his ISS shots in front of a blue screen when they said he was on the ISS?

Again a complete myth. He was using a screen used to conduct physics experiments. it's basically like graph paper. It's not a "blue screen" in that respect. This has been verified by independent fact checking resources

37 minutes ago, Seal said:

Saying that there is videos from the moon landing and then saying that filmtape can't pass through the van allen belt radiation. Note I am not saying whether it could or couldn't myself, just that Nasa must have lied about one.

See Van Allen belt answer above

 

37 minutes ago, Seal said:

They use dwarf models of astronauts at the museum to give off the impression that they would be able to fit inside the module

I'm unaware of this one so you'll have to give me details but it sounds like complete bollocks. I'll reserve judgement as I don't know the details

 

39 minutes ago, Seal said:

With regards to the faking of the moon photos. It makes most sense to me that they were faked not just in a studio by buzz and Neil in space suits. But over time. This explains why unseen never seen before photos (lincluding the photos i PM'd you) were released in the 90's. I couldn't see the overshoes soles in the photo, so I am not sure it shows anything. Plus if it is on a set, you would assume that different people left footprints for show or possibly by accident depending on how they wished to set it up. 

I mean you're really stretching now. You'd have more credibility if you just admitted the footprint thing is bollocks and move on. It literally makes no sense. Even if it WAS a conspiracy, the footprint thing doesn't make sense. It literally doesn't work logically. I'm not saying anything else on it because you're clearly just deliberately ignoring the simple evidence I've provided

40 minutes ago, Seal said:

http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/ 

 

Everything on this website has been debunked many times by many different people. Honestly mate, it is horseshit

41 minutes ago, Seal said:

 

I don't think the footprint thing is bollocks i suspect just lies upon lies. I also think that the photo you sent of the moon overshoes is from apollo 17, and thus is not evidence at all of was worn by Neal / Buzz. But at the same time I am not saying Nasa didn't claim they wore overshoes also. It just is that the photos you show aren't evidence of the other.

 

Yes they're from Apollo 17. Because they left the other ones on the moon. They're the same overshoes.

Again it doesn't even matter if they're not exactly the same. How do you not get this?

Even if you think the photos are faked, the moon photos show Neil and Buzz are wearing the overshoes. They are NOT wearing the smooth soled shoes in the spacesuit photo which is where the comparison came from. So the simple comparison of "the footprint doesn't match that boot" is complete nonsense, because THEY WEREN'T WEARING THOSE BOOTS!

If you show me a photo of an OVERSHOE with different soles than the footprints then fine, it's a valid argument. but you may as well be showing me a photo of a Nike Airmax 90 and telling me the sole doesn't match. it's irrelevant. They didn't wear those shoes on the moon (or film studio or desert or whatever you believe it was). it's a completely irrelevant comparison

[Seat68]

Don't want to have a pile on from the science nerds, but looking at this footage of archival footage of Apollo 13, you can clearly see that one of the space men is Kevin Bacon. Kevin Bacon was absolutely not part of the Apollo 13 crew. Not been able to ascertain if Tom Hanks was.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Seat68

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

I don't think this shows the same thing. The perspectives in these photos make sense. The perspective in the the initial photo makes no sense. The flagpole shadow goes entirely the opposite way. And whilst there is also an allusion to a shadow in the direction it should be going. It should be a lot longer than it is.

It's not the shadow of the flag. It's the shadow of something off frame to the left. We've covered this.

[Stevo985]

46 minutes ago, Seal said:

I disagree. You posted moon overshoes from Apollo 17 and then said it explained Apollo 11 footprints. Also you are assuming that the situation is that all evidence is good evidence. I am open to the possibility (naturally taking the sceptical position) that evidence (in this instance in the form of photos) shouldn't be questioned. 

Like what I am saying is - Nasa lied, got caught out, came up with another lie to justify - is a legitimate possibility.  

Explained above. The footprints make no sense. Even if it WAS a conspiracy and all filmed in a studio, it makes absolutely no sense. 

[Stevo985]

42 minutes ago, Seal said:

I am saying I don't think anyone has professional and academic experience with moon photography. At least from location.  My qualifications are that I have eyes and have observed shadows and light for 37 years. 

Yet you don't recognise simple perspective that occurs on earth literally everywhere you look. Examples already posted, yet you're ignoring them completely.

[Seal]

Just now, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I really don't see how you can say the Cold War was artificial  

It  almost ended in nuclear holocaust on at least 2 occasions.  

The Berlin Wall.....the Berlin blockade.......the division of Germany......the Cuban missile crisis.....the nuclear arms race.....several proxy wars.......the boycott of the Moscow Olympics......the boycott of the LA Olympics.....the Cambridge spy ring.....currency controls.....export bans.....the formation of NATO.....and many, many more. 

None of that was artificial.  

Okay. I think far more of history is artificial than is commonly effected. By artificial I don't mean entirely faked, although sometimes I think it is. But it could also be, real, except the reasons for it are fake. So the reasons for nato boycotting might be as simple as to present to the world that there is such an issue. Broadly speaking I think all wars have true reasons that are different to what is presented. I am not saying that the events are not real.

I would say that the nuclear issue is a good example of this. I think it is logical that nuclear weapons (I am not saying they don't exist) are very overstated. The reason being that most war games end in nuclear weapons not being used. Thus the purpose is not to use them, so much as to have them. The main impact they have is via fear, or as a deterrent. If this is the case, then I think that it is more logical that governments spend a bit of money maintaining the illusion that they have nuclear weapons. Rather than actually to spend significantly more money maintaining and building a nuclear arsenal, that would never really get used. Ergo I think the nuclear arms race was real.

Just to be clear, I am not stating this is the case, but that I think that this is more logical to myself, than the presented narrative.

What are your qualifications for talking about international relations by the way?