General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[choffer]

54 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I used to be in a rock covers band called Conspiracy Theory.

True Story.

Gott be honest, I'm sceptical about this claim. 

[chrisp65]

58 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I used to be in a rock covers band called Conspiracy Theory.

True Story.

Had to break up because you were bassless?

 

 

[choffer]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

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.

"Something something, cold, damp, dark, lifeless place.. and then there's the moon"

 

[sidcow]

21 hours ago, Seal said:

I disagree. I think there is very limited evidence outside or relying on the word of an authority. There is very little good evidence besides - yeah bro we went there. Got any evidence? Mostly just my word. I got this rock though. And you should see these photos!

I think the body of evidence whether meta or physical either fails to support the assertion. Or is suggestive that there is something very off with the narrative provided.

So I disagree that it goes beyond the critical into blind ignorance. But of course this depends on your perspective over the quality of the evidence. 

Why do you think they would fake this? 

Building these massive hugely expensive rockets, employing tens of thousands of people. Spending the equivalent of billions of dollars in today's money. Why? 

And even if there was a reason that made any kind of sense (which there isn't) you're telling me that not one single senior person has ever broken ranks and admitted it was a hoax? 

Not one person working for a sub contractor has admitted that the goods they produced probably wouldn't have got the job done so are suspicious about it.  

It's madness, there is zero chance they could cover up something so enormous, there would be evidence of fakery EVERYWHERE. 

I mean for **** sake, Bojo couldn't even hide a **** party.  It would be absolutely impossibility to keep this under wraps. 

[Stevo985]

27 minutes ago, Seal said:

The yellow arrows were clear and helpful. However I am not convinced it is a shadow from the flagpole. I appreciate there is a possibility the terrain could be obscuring it. However I think, and taking into account the other photos you have provide, it looks like it shouldn't. I think from the base to the end there would be more evidence.

The flag looks very still in the video you posted. It moves slightly, but it is curved round. The point is that one flag you can see it straight until the end. This can be confirmed at the top as it has a structure holding it up. In the second photo and the video it is curved in on itself. Nowhere in the video does it show the shape of the other photo.

I would also argue the shadow of the module is very different in both, and possibly, although I am not convinced that the relative positions of the astronaut and the flag don't really tally taking into account the perspectives of the photographer.

I can't help you anymore mate.

You're wrong, and the photos and video show you you're wrong. It's clear to everyone except you.

You don't want to accept it, and that's fine. but I'm not wasting any more energy trying to convince you.

 

Happy to keep discussing other points

[Xann]

Without knowing the benchmark credible sources, we're so deep in woo it requires a bathyscaphe.

Polite troll or delusion it is?

 

Back to the good gear.

Oh shit. Hang on, let me edit out the swears...

There we go

Edited September 21, 2023 by Xann

[Seal]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I never said that

No but it proves there's a reflector up there. And the apollo missions were very clear that they were putting one there. So Occam's razor again and all that

I've literally posted a detailed diagram and explanation showing you how the laser photons can be detected from the noise of the other photons. It's so visual and simple. How are you just dismissing it?

i disagree that it proves such a thing. Occams razor is like an indicator. A theory if you will, perhaps best usable as a rule of thumb. Not more than that. For me occams razor suggests the apollo missions never went to the moon. 

You have also not responded to a number of points I have made. I assume similarly to me, that this has just become a bit of a messy thread there have been a lot of questions/points/comments fired my way. I have missed it. Later I will go and find it and give a response.

[Chindie]

23 minutes ago, Xann said:

Without knowing the benchmark credible sources, we're so deep in woo it requires a bathyscaphe.

Polite troll or delusion it is?

 

Back to the good gear.

Oh shit. Hang on, let me edit out the swears...

There we go

This has (genuinely) become a thing in some wellness spheres. They call it grounding. Andrew Huberman promotes it.

Absolutely mental.

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, Seal said:

But similarly just because someone says something is true then it doesn't mean it is true. Just because you think something is possible does not mean it happens.

And like I have said, the issue is mainly that having a reflector up there is not proof the apollo missions went to the moon. Unmanned expeditions have also deposited things. And also I still fail to see how the relatively few photons that come back can be attributed to the reflector rather than the 'noise' or reflected from the moon itself.

Right, so here's a bit more information.

I'm pleased you have taken the view that there are reflectors on the moon. That vehicles from earth have traveled to the moon and put reflectors on the moon, even if you're very sceptical there were humans in the vehicles.

So on the laser reflectors, again, lets do an analogy. Imagine you've got a wall 20 feet in front of you, and you've got a dustbin with a lid and a stopwatch. You've also got a bunch of green tennis balls which you're going to throw at the wall and hope to land in the bin when they bounce back. So after a bit of practice and honing your throwing technique, you get reasonably good at throwing the balls at the wall. Good. Now to make the experiment harder.

So the next bit is that there are going to be other people with tennis balls stood at various angles and distances in front of you - some also,  like you, in front of the wall, but at different distances, some at the side of the wall. Some of these people are going to be throwing balls in the general direction of you and the bin, others will be throwing the balls at the wall from their positions. That's gonna lead to more balls in the bin - so how can you tell which ones are yours and which are not? Well for a start, people using yellow balls, or red ones, or white ones, or blue ones = you know they can be eliminated from your count of how many did I manage to get in the bin. That's the reason lasers use one particular frequency of photon - other frequency photons received can be ignored.

But still, there's more balls in the bin, and you're trying to get only your green balls in there.

You notice that every time you throw a ball at the wall and it comes back to the bin, that takes 2 seconds. So what you do next is you have the lid on the bin - the people all around you throwing the balls  - none of them are going in your bin, now. But neither are you getting any in. So what you do, is throw your ball, wait 1.9 seconds, lift the bin lid and then put it back on again after 2.1 seconds. The bin lid (gate) has prevented lots of spurious balls from getting in. But it was still open a little while, so some other balls still got in. Some of them were yellow and red and blue so they can be discounted, but still some of the others have green balls that they're throwing. Most don't go in your bin, but some do. Say there were 10 green ones in there after the hour. How many were yours? We don't know. We need to do something else to find out. We do know that because of lots of practice your level of accuracy  has remained much the same each time you throw.

The something else we can do is run the test again. multiple times, but this time. you don't throw any balls at all. Just lift the lid for 0,2 seconds every 2 seconds, as if you were throwing.

After each hour long test, count the number of green balls in the bin. If it's always around 10, then sadly it looks like on average none of your own balls in a test are actually getting back to the bin. So high levels of uncertainty, but it's hard to bounce the balls back accurately - sometimes the wind makes it even harder, sometimes it rains, sometimes there's so many other throwers the balls collide and the whole thing's a mess. So refine the test some more. Only do it on still, dry days when there's not so many other throwers around.

OK, so now we see that on those "good weather days" when you don't throw yourself you get an average of (say) 7 green balls in the bin, and when you do throw an average of 10 every hour. You next improve your technique and manage to get it up to 11 per hour. The average when you don't throw is 7. sometimes it is 9, sometimes 6, sometimes 5... On perfect days though it's generally 6 or 7 without you and 11 or 12 with you.

You can then conclude that "your green balls" are therefore 4 or 5 of the ones in the bin after each hour. The other 7 or so are "noise" in the exact same tennis ball colour as your own. All the blue and red balls are "noise" that is out of band for your balls. The level of 7 green ones is the "noise floor". If you plot a graph of multiple experiment results over time and have the number of balls of each colour, the exact time they arrived (when the lid was open) you can pick yours out with a high degree of tennis ball accuracy. Yours always take 2 seconds, an assistant with a stop watch counts the green ones coming in and stops the timer every time one does. Those coming in at 2 seconds are very very likely yours. When it happens over and over, it becomes a verifiable repeatable experiment and you can report that when you fire you laser balls at the moon wall, you don't get many laser balls back in the bin, but you can identify the ones caught in the bin from background noise. Because your mate with the stop watch knows when they arrived, and how fast you throw (20.02 feet per second) and how far away the wall looks (about 20 feet, we thought), he can then do sums and calculate the exact distance to the wall.

 

 

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, Seal said:

i disagree that it proves such a thing. Occams razor is like an indicator. A theory if you will, perhaps best usable as a rule of thumb. Not more than that. For me occams razor suggests the apollo missions never went to the moon. 

No. it doesn't. 

 

17 minutes ago, Seal said:

You have also not responded to a number of points I have made. I assume similarly to me, that this has just become a bit of a messy thread there have been a lot of questions/points/comments fired my way. I have missed it. Later I will go and find it and give a response.

I don't think i've missed nay of yours but happy to address them if I can

[Seat68]

I dream of the day when @blandy explains science to me. I am a straight male, happily married but I would chuck all that in for him. 

[luckyeddie]

After all that, I'm none the wiser.

Is the moon flat or not?

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, luckyeddie said:

After all that, I'm none the wiser.

Is the moon flat or not?

Sure, why not?

Can't prove it isn't can you?

[Chindie]

There is no moon.

[luckyeddie]

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Sure, why not?

Can't prove it isn't can you?

We're in a post truth world, proof is for suckers

[chrisp65]

[Xann]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

This has (genuinely) become a thing in some wellness spheres. They call it grounding. Andrew Huberman promotes it.

Absolutely mental.

Dubious AF.

The Spirit Guides would have instructed the Native Americans to ditch the moccasins, if this were true?

[Xann]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

I dream of the day when @blandy explains science to me. I am a straight male, happily married but I would chuck all that in for him. 

Careful with the stress and strain part.

'Wanting to check your elastic limit' translates as a fisting you never recover from.

[Seal]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Right, so here's a bit more information.

I'm pleased you have taken the view that there are reflectors on the moon. That vehicles from earth have traveled to the moon and put reflectors on the moon, even if you're very sceptical there were humans in the vehicles.

So on the laser reflectors, again, lets do an analogy. Imagine you've got a wall 20 feet in front of you, and you've got a dustbin with a lid and a stopwatch. You've also got a bunch of green tennis balls which you're going to throw at the wall and hope to land in the bin when they bounce back. So after a bit of practice and honing your throwing technique, you get reasonably good at throwing the balls at the wall. Good. Now to make the experiment harder.

So the next bit is that there are going to be other people with tennis balls stood at various angles and distances in front of you - some also,  like you, in front of the wall, but at different distances, some at the side of the wall. Some of these people are going to be throwing balls in the general direction of you and the bin, others will be throwing the balls at the wall from their positions. That's gonna lead to more balls in the bin - so how can you tell which ones are yours and which are not? Well for a start, people using yellow balls, or red ones, or white ones, or blue ones = you know they can be eliminated from your count of how many did I manage to get in the bin. That's the reason lasers use one particular frequency of photon - other frequency photons received can be ignored.

But still, there's more balls in the bin, and you're trying to get only your green balls in there.

You notice that every time you throw a ball at the wall and it comes back to the bin, that takes 2 seconds. So what you do next is you have the lid on the bin - the people all around you throwing the balls  - none of them are going in your bin, now. But neither are you getting any in. So what you do, is throw your ball, wait 1.9 seconds, lift the bin lid and then put it back on again after 2.1 seconds. The bin lid (gate) has prevented lots of spurious balls from getting in. But it was still open a little while, so some other balls still got in. Some of them were yellow and red and blue so they can be discounted, but still some of the others have green balls that they're throwing. Most don't go in your bin, but some do. Say there were 10 green ones in there after the hour. How many were yours? We don't know. We need to do something else to find out. We do know that because of lots of practice your level of accuracy  has remained much the same each time you throw.

The something else we can do is run the test again. multiple times, but this time. you don't throw any balls at all. Just lift the lid for 0,2 seconds every 2 seconds, as if you were throwing.

After each hour long test, count the number of green balls in the bin. If it's always around 10, then sadly it looks like on average none of your own balls in a test are actually getting back to the bin. So high levels of uncertainty, but it's hard to bounce the balls back accurately - sometimes the wind makes it even harder, sometimes it rains, sometimes there's so many other throwers the balls collide and the whole thing's a mess. So refine the test some more. Only do it on still, dry days when there's not so many other throwers around.

OK, so now we see that on those "good weather days" when you don't throw yourself you get an average of (say) 7 green balls in the bin, and when you do throw an average of 10 every hour. You next improve your technique and manage to get it up to 11 per hour. The average when you don't throw is 7. sometimes it is 9, sometimes 6, sometimes 5... On perfect days though it's generally 6 or 7 without you and 11 or 12 with you.

You can then conclude that "your green balls" are therefore 4 or 5 of the ones in the bin after each hour. The other 7 or so are "noise" in the exact same tennis ball colour as your own. All the blue and red balls are "noise" that is out of band for your balls. The level of 7 green ones is the "noise floor". If you plot a graph of multiple experiment results over time and have the number of balls of each colour, the exact time they arrived (when the lid was open) you can pick yours out with a high degree of tennis ball accuracy. Yours always take 2 seconds, an assistant with a stop watch counts the green ones coming in and stops the timer every time one does. Those coming in at 2 seconds are very very likely yours. When it happens over and over, it becomes a verifiable repeatable experiment and you can report that when you fire you laser balls at the moon wall, you don't get many laser balls back in the bin, but you can identify the ones caught in the bin from background noise. Because your mate with the stop watch knows when they arrived, and how fast you throw (20.02 feet per second) and how far away the wall looks (about 20 feet, we thought), he can then do sums and calculate the exact distance to the wall.

 

 

I haven't taken the view that there are reflectors on the moon. I have taken the view that having reflectors on the moon doesn't prove that the apollo missions went to the moon.

I understand your analogy. The issue for me is if the moon is also reflecting light. And sunlight is of a similar frequency to the photons. How are these photons of a similar frequency disambiguated? At optimal output sunlight is of a similar frequency that the apollo laser experiment was juicing out. I appreciate that it could be that there is a difference. And how then could the same effect be achieved before there was a reflector. As such I think it is an incorrect analogy because relative to each other the earth and the moon will be moving at speeds that would make not only hitting the target far more difficult but getting any results back from the target. I could get on board, a little more, if the targets were still. I am assuming ambient green light has 532nm, and sunlight 500nm at optimum output. A bit of a difference, still within the same broad wavelength. So essentially the moon is aglow with similar photons to what you are sending out. MAybe it is possible, but I doubt it. I don't see how they could filter out one (or a small amount) or photons, from a far larger amount of the same wavelenght?

Furthermore, I would like to know where you have seen evidence of such an experiment since it can only be done by great expense and in certain places? If you haven't how can you be sure that the results are actually just results? Or just things that are published? 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Seal

[Xann]

On 19/09/2023 at 22:13, Seal said:

I learned from a great man that words are important. 

Is it the same person that taught you about the transfer of energy?

If so? Get off that bus, he's a rocket polisher.