General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

 

So I guess to answer your question. I would like the evidence to come from a source that isn't the person making the claim. It would need to be stronger to my reason and intuition than the ample holes and inconsistencies in the current body of evidence.

Here you go. Fill your boots. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Quote

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about the Moon landings that does not come from either NASA or the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence provides independent confirmation of NASA's account of the six Apollo program Moon missions flown between 1969 and 1972.

 

[Paddywhack]

"The moon landing was faked!"'

"Why would they bother doing that?"

"...don't know...but it was faked!!"

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

for evidence that we went to the moon that doesn't rely on the word of an authority?

When I was an apprentice in the air force one of the astronauts came and gave a talk to us all about it. When I was in Switzerland I saw on of the Apollo capsules that they used to return to earth. It was in a science museum in Bern, loaned I think from an American museum.  Both the Astronaut and the space capsule were convincing and credible to me.

[mjmooney]

4 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Now I need to who Roman Szwaba is and their username on VT!

He's my best mate, and he's definitely not on VT (he supports WBA). That's why I was amused by the coincidence. 

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Seal said:

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think that have a diagram of how something can happen is proof that it has happened. 

Nobody is saying it's proof that it happened. But it's an explanation of HOW it happens. 

You say shadows should be parallel, we show you photos and diagrams that show you how shadows aren't parallel.

You say they can't distinguish the laser photons from other photons, we show you how they do do that.

You say the footprints don't match the boots, we show you how they do match the boots.

 

None of that is proof that the moon landings happened. But it IS proof that the reasons you are saying they DIDN'T happen are not true.
We're not providing proof, we are showing that your proof for the opposite is not true.

You haven't provided any evidence for the moon landings not happening that hasn't been easily debunked. Literally none

 

2 hours ago, Seal said:

You pointed out the effect of perspective on the size of the continents. What you said was correct. However it didn't correlate to the images I showed you.

Yes. They did.

2 hours ago, Seal said:

The main question I feel you haven't answered - although I appreciate that you have clearly been comprehensive in your replies, I did not mean to indicate otherwise - is for evidence that we went to the moon that doesn't rely on the word of an authority?

As @LondonLax has shown above, there is a lot of independent evidence that corroborates the moon landings.

Here, a picture taken by the Indian lunar orbiter of the Apollo 11 landing site

There's plenty more on the link

 

What evidence have you provided that proves they didn't happen that hasn't been debunked?

Nothing.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Stevo985

[Genie]

1 hour ago, Paddywhack said:

"The moon landing was faked!"'

"Why would they bother doing that?"

"...don't know...but it was faked!!"

It was the same as Covid.

”They all got together to orchestrate it to control the population”

Why would they do that?

”I don’t know, but they definitely did”

[Xann]

.  Queen Elizabeth II

   Charles @ Klosters

   Heinrich Himmler

[luckyeddie]

36 minutes ago, Xann said:

.  Queen Elizabeth II

   Charles @ Klosters

   Heinrich Himmler

That last one looks more like Edward VIII

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

 

 

I don't believe the Americans left a big sign in yellow letters with an arrow up there, so this photo has to be fake,

[Follyfoot]

On 21/09/2023 at 10:27, 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.

My accountant is in Tredegar

[Follyfoot]

6 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

"The moon landing was faked!"'

"Why would they bother doing that?"

"...don't know...but it was faked!!"

For the same reason NASA claim there there is no ice wall and dispute the Sun is only 3,000 miles away 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

My accountant is in Tredegar

Well I’ve been to Tredegar and I didn’t see any accountants, so I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

[Seal]

9 hours ago, tomav84 said:

surely the 'why' is a big factor in whether you believe a theory though? like if there was any real belief that it was faked, that russia would be shouting it from the rooftops that they did not in fact lose the space race

they didn't though, they conceded defeat, because they did indeed lose

I don't believe a theory. I have no belief. I prefer the term suspicions. I do agree the why would be very helpful. I just don't have it. I could give possibilities but none I would get off the fence for. 

Other people argue the Soviets did win much of the space race. Personally I don't buy into there being a space race as presented.

[Seal]

9 hours ago, tomav84 said:

but there have been various scientists etc that haven't made the claim, that are not employed by NASA and are not in any way affected by whether we went there or not. there's an entire page on the royal museums greenwich that debunks the theories. why would they care if the moon landings were faked or not? they don't...they're not the ones claiming we landed on the moon...they're just providing the information to debunk the theories

But they are not voices of authority on the subject. They are scientists who ultimately are not privvy to the actual events, like you and I perhaps with different levels of comprehension of certain things. But ultimately they are also at the whim of presentation of events to them. 

[Seal]

9 hours ago, sidcow said:

That's bollocks mate. You're spouting on about critical thinking. Motivation to do something hugely elaborate that costs billions and billions has to form part of your questioning. 

Costs billions of tax payers money. I am not saying there is no motivation. I am sure there would be. I am just saying that to have a suspicion it is false it is not a prerequisite to know what the motive is.

[Seal]

8 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Here you go. Fill your boots. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

Thanks. I would consider of space exploration agencies also authorities. As I have alluded to before I don't necessarily perceive world affairs in the same perspective - I suspect nation states are kind of like middle management. That's another story. My point is that I see space agencies as being different spokes of the same bike.

With regards of the tracking of missions by independent parties. This just implies crafts went to the moon. Not that they were depositing people on the moon. What does this evidence tell us about the nature of the missions? Not a lot. 

With regards to the moon rocks - Nasa have been caught out and admitted that some provided to a Dutch museum were petrified wood, not a moon rock. I would be interested to know how one proves a rock is from the moon rather than from the ground. The article says they have been aged, but this is a very very very unreliable method. The moon rocks are also an appeal to authority. 

Retroreflecters have been discussed extensively. Lets just leave it that they don't actually provide evidence that people have been put on the moon - also require an appeal to authority. 

Again - artifacts of things on the moon are not proof that humans walked on the moon. 

With regards to the satellite pictures, I think this also falls under the 'dubious' evidence list? It is an appeal to authority also.

As such they are either not proof apollo astronauts walked to the moon. In my mind anyway. 

I appreciate in yours in may well be different. And that is a beautiful thing.

[Seal]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

When I was an apprentice in the air force one of the astronauts came and gave a talk to us all about it. When I was in Switzerland I saw on of the Apollo capsules that they used to return to earth. It was in a science museum in Bern, loaned I think from an American museum.  Both the Astronaut and the space capsule were convincing and credible to me.

I do appreciate this is valuable information, and don't wish to say it doesn't quite sate the request. I went to moscow and hung out with russian cosmonauts once, they signed some photos for me, and like you they seemed convincing as did their equipment. Out of interest do you recall the astronauts name? Not to do like backgroung checking or testing, I am just quite interested. It might surprise you to know but I am a bit of a space head. My dads best mate has the largest private observatory in the country and I love going there and there ain't nothing cooler to look at up there than the moon. 

[fruitvilla]

8 minutes ago, Seal said:

Again - artifacts of things on the moon are not proof that humans walked on the moon. 

No, but those artifacts are evidence.

[bielesibub]

8 minutes ago, Seal said:

I would be interested to know how one proves a rock is from the moon rather than from the ground

How about you do a bit of searching, I asked chat-gpt "how would you prove a rock is from the moon?", I got this reply: (but I'm sure this won't be sufficient for you) 

Quote

Proving that a rock is from the Moon involves a combination of scientific analysis, documentation, and authentication processes. Here are the key steps and methods used to establish the lunar origin of a rock:

1. **Documentation**: Establish a chain of custody and documentation to track the rock's history from the Moon to Earth. This involves recording the precise location of the lunar sample's collection during the Apollo missions, the astronaut who collected it, the mission it was part of, and its unique identification number.

2. **Visual Inspection**: Examine the rock's physical characteristics and compare them to known lunar samples. Lunar rocks often have distinctive features like glassy or vesicular textures, high reflectivity, and the presence of small glass beads known as "agglutinates." Visual inspection can provide initial clues.

3. **Isotopic Analysis**: Perform isotopic analysis, particularly of oxygen and noble gases, as the isotopic ratios in lunar rocks differ from those found on Earth. This involves measuring the abundances of specific isotopes in the rock.

4. **Chemical Composition**: Analyze the chemical composition of the rock, including the abundance of specific elements and minerals. The composition of lunar rocks is distinct from terrestrial rocks.

5. **Radiometric Dating**: Conduct radiometric dating, such as radiocarbon dating or uranium-lead dating, to determine the rock's age. Lunar rocks should show an age consistent with the Moon's formation.

6. **Cosmic Ray Exposure**: Measure the cosmic ray exposure history of the rock. Lunar rocks have been exposed to cosmic radiation for an extended period, leaving unique signatures in their minerals.

7. **Microscopic Examination**: Examine the rock under a microscope for features like microtektites, impact melt droplets, and shock-induced mineral alterations, which are common in lunar rocks.

8. **Comparison to Known Samples**: Compare the rock's characteristics and data to those of known lunar samples brought back by the Apollo missions or lunar meteorites. A match in characteristics strengthens the case for lunar origin.

9. **Authentication and Verification**: Subject the rock to rigorous authentication and verification processes. This may involve multiple rounds of analysis by different laboratories to ensure the results are consistent.

10. **Peer Review**: Submit the findings to the scientific community for peer review and scrutiny. Independent experts and scientists will assess the evidence and confirm or challenge the claim of lunar origin.

11. **Preservation and Custody**: Maintain the rock's integrity and ensure proper preservation. Lunar rocks are valuable scientific specimens and should be carefully stored and protected.

It's important to note that only a limited number of lunar rocks have been brought back to Earth, primarily by the Apollo missions. However, small fragments of the Moon's surface, known as lunar meteorites, have also been discovered on Earth and can be subjected to similar analyses to determine their lunar origin. These rigorous scientific methods and peer-reviewed processes provide the foundation for confirming the lunar origin of rocks and samples.

Anyone else feel that there is a wind up going on here? As entertaining as reading all this has been, it feel almost like the sane ones here are arguing against a really badly trained conspiracy-biased-LLM.

[Seal]

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Nobody is saying it's proof that it happened. But it's an explanation of HOW it happens. 

You say shadows should be parallel, we show you photos and diagrams that show you how shadows aren't parallel.

You say they can't distinguish the laser photons from other photons, we show you how they do do that.

You say the footprints don't match the boots, we show you how they do match the boots.

 

None of that is proof that the moon landings happened. But it IS proof that the reasons you are saying they DIDN'T happen are not true.
We're not providing proof, we are showing that your proof for the opposite is not true.

You haven't provided any evidence for the moon landings not happening that hasn't been easily debunked. Literally none

 

Yes. They did.

As @LondonLax has shown above, there is a lot of independent evidence that corroborates the moon landings.

Here, a picture taken by the Indian lunar orbiter of the Apollo 11 landing site

There's plenty more on the link

 

What evidence have you provided that proves they didn't happen that hasn't been debunked?

Nothing.

I didn't say the shadows should be parallel. I said they didn't look right. There were responses of shadows at angles. I stand by that. 

I think you missed some points with regards to the photons. That the experiment could be achieved before indicates that there similar photons. That post the laser reflector they results 'improved' could easily be attributable to statistical manipulation. You showed a theory that is logically consistent but that I don't think explains the real world. 

The footprints don't match the boots. You suggested that they match the over shoes. I am not convinced that this is not an after thought after they got caught with a lie. I questioned the point of overshoes. 

But I am not trying to say what is true. I am trying to say what I struggle to see as being true. In the absence of me not seeing enough evidence. 

I haven't tried to provide evidence although in some ways I guess I have. You just offered to help me understand why they are beyond doubt an event that occurred. I am just explaining why I doubt it. On this point I would like to add that I do sincerely appreciate your time on this. I think you have engaged with someone of a different view in a decent way. Safe.

I disagree that you have debunked a single thing. You have provided an explanation. Which may be enough for your mind. But your explanations don't provide the assurance other people might need. Not that anyone has better assurance levels than other to an extent we all shape our own realities. 

I have responded seperately to London Lax. That satellite photo pushes my you gotta be joking buttons. But I am sure it does not do that to you too. That is cool. 

I have noticed you have posted a long message a few pages ago that I haven't noticed. I am sorry for not noticing everything. I have been a bit busy with work/football/family/hobbies/and also sifting through a lot of comments on here that perhaps I didn't consider as polite and respectful as yours. I will try and respond. But also to try and slow down the rate of this thread will do so with greater intervals. 

My point for the minute is that - I fail to see any convincing evidence from a non-authority figure. This means that to believe it is so, I would require faith. I have no faith in nasa,. I think there is sufficient evidence to perhaps mistrust nasa. Even if it is not as far as to outright call them liars. For this reason I cannot believe the apollo missions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I feel that there should be more evidence of man kinds greatest achievement than there is. Better evidence also.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Seal
just to make it a little more honest