General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Seal]

7 minutes ago, bielesibub said:

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) 

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.

dude you are still appealing to an authority that the rock is actually from the moon. Or any of the comparative rocks. It requires an appeal to an authority that moon rocks have a certain composition - and repeat. 

[Davkaus]

It's really hard to see what evidence would actually change your mind when you're so set on disbelieving it. 

[fruitvilla]

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter

 

Sealioning - Wikipedia

[Stevo985]

15 minutes ago, Seal said:

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. 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.

So the link to pages of pages of evidence from independent scientists, pace agencies, amateur scientists, colleges etc didn’t count?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's really hard to see what evidence would actually change your mind when you're so set on disbelieving it. 

That's the problem. 

If most of us were presented with 3 pieces of compelling evidence that the moon landings were faked- I think most of us would take those discrepancies on board. 

There is no evidence of the moon landings that would convince a conspiracy theory enthusiasts. 

The equipment pictured that is still on the moon was put there by robots.........moon rock can't be proven to have come from the moon even if its not from earth......etc.  

I am interested in this topic because conspiracies have existed throughout history and are undoubtedly still happening. 

But they are allowed to hide because some people are determined to prove ridiculous theories rather than look for actual conspiracies. 

I have found this thread hilarious and frustrating in equal measures.  

Some of those supporting conspiracy theories have made me far less inclined to believe anything they say.  

[Xela]

8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter

Prove it

I thought you wrote sea-gulling at first, which has completely different connotations according to Urban Dictionary. 

 

[fruitvilla]

2 minutes ago, Xela said:

Prove it

Oh, I am just suspicious and not convinced by the evidence.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

31 minutes ago, Seal said:

 

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.

Could you please give me an example of some evidence that would change your mind?  

No limits......blue sky thinking..... everything is possible except time travel. 

 

[ml1dch]

50 minutes ago, Seal said:

LAs 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.

World Economic Forum / Great Reset nuttiness arriving in 3, 2, 1...

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Could you please give me an example of some evidence that would change your mind?  

No limits......blue sky thinking..... everything is possible except time travel. 

 

I think if we took @Seal to the actual moon to see the landing site he’d still find a way to deny it was there

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, Seal said:

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. 

Oh, it wasn't meant to prove or confirm anything - it was just stuff I remembered, because we were talking about the moon n'that.

I've been trying to recall his name, I think it was either John Glenn, or somebody Shephard... It was maybe 40 years ago, he was "old" and bald and grey, but very interesting.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

@Seal

I am interested in this topic. I believe there is ample proof that man landed on the moon.  But there is also ample proof that NASA edits photographs and doesn't always tell the truth.  

But sadly I don't feel we can reasonably  discuss these points because (imho) you are not objective. 

There is an excellent and amusing channel on YouTube which reviews conspiracy theories.  They are very balanced.  It's called "The Why Files" and I recommend the video  "The moon  landings".  They give compelling evidence of various NASA misinformation throughout the years. 

It's well worth a watch. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think if we took @Seal to the actual moon to see the landing site he’d still find a way to deny it was there

1. The trip to the moon could have been faked. 

2. The moon could be a film set. 

3. The lower gravity/weightlessness be the result of the entire set being built in a centrifuge. 

4. The whole experience could be a hypnotically induced memory. 

[mjmooney]

I'm with David Mitchell on this one. 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

With regards to the satellite pictures...

Here's a thing. And it's a thing about your thinking that I don't really understand.

It goes like this. Once upon a time, we all lived in caves and, well, since those days, things have moved on a bit. We're now in a world where there's, as you mention satellite images. There's satellite TV, Satellite Communications, GPS/GNSS. All these space programme things - you don't seem to doubt these exist, nor the space Shuttle, nor the international space station.

So the thing I don't get is believing the conspiracy theories about there being no moon landings. You'll happily accept that a signal from earth can be directed at a relatively small object in space and then that satellite re-transmit the signal it receives down to earth. GPS satellites, for example are not geo-stationary - they are orbiting earth far more rapidly than the moon is, yet, you have a problem believing reflectors on the moon could be beamed at, because the moon is going so fast, in (your understanding).

You take an interest in space travel and stuff, and must be aware of the advances that have allowed astronauts to dock to the ISS and astronauts to space walk. So what is it that leads you to believe that "well, yes, we can dock a spacecraft to an orbiting space station, but we haven't managed to land one on the moon. And astronauts (obviously) have returned to earth from the space station.

I basically don't get how you are seemingly happy to accept the technology and capability exists and is used for all these things, but that it isn't (to you) credible that basically the same types of technology and travel are not credible  insofar as the moon is concerned.

People have provided all kinds of evidence and information regarding the moon landings, and surely critical thinking runs along the lines of "I know there are space station, Space shuttle Apollo rockets, astronauts, docking in space, space suits worn in outer space, the ability to hit a fast traveling tiny satellite with a RF beam from earth... that stuff is what 80, 90 % of the way to landing on the moon... There's independent evidence of moon landings....and then on the other hand there are a bunch of debunked theories and conspiracies, none written or proposed by anyone of any credible background or credentials...I know, I'll believe the non-credible ones over the weigth of evidence I know to be real, plus other evidence from the same "authority" that I know has put satellites up there and space shuttles and Apollos...

Still, each to their own

[fruitvilla]

Do we remember this? I thought it was well done at the time.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by fruitvilla

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, bielesibub said:

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) 

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.

I have assumed it’s a wind up from the start.

[tomav84]

2 hours ago, Seal said:

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. 

OK so genuine question, who would you honestly believe? becuase you don't believe NASA, the astronaughts themselves, the various scientists, independant historians, the greenwich museum, etc etc etc.

i think at this point it would be easier for you just to admit that you it's something that you believe so strongly is faked that the only way of changing your mind would be going back in time, accompanying them on the mission and witnessing it first hand (because as others have said, even if we took you to the moon today, i think you'll assume that any evidence from the apollo missions was put there by subsequent non-apollo missions)

and that's ok...look at the number of people with religious beliefs who have no question in their minds that god exists, despite there being zero proof.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I think if we took @Seal to the actual moon to see the landing site he’d still find a way to deny it was there

Well of course. There is no way you could prove you'd actually taken him 

Could be video screens instead of windows. Just shaking the vessel around 

Build magnets with negative polarity into the space boots to replicate weightlessness. 

No way to prove anything. 

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Here's a thing. And it's a thing about your thinking that I don't really understand.

It goes like this. Once upon a time, we all lived in caves and, well, since those days, things have moved on a bit. We're now in a world where there's, as you mention satellite images. There's satellite TV, Satellite Communications, GPS/GNSS. All these space programme things - you don't seem to doubt these exist, nor the space Shuttle, nor the international space station.

So the thing I don't get is believing the conspiracy theories about there being no moon landings. You'll happily accept that a signal from earth can be directed at a relatively small object in space and then that satellite re-transmit the signal it receives down to earth. GPS satellites, for example are not geo-stationary - they are orbiting earth far more rapidly than the moon is, yet, you have a problem believing reflectors on the moon could be beamed at, because the moon is going so fast, in (your understanding).

You take an interest in space travel and stuff, and must be aware of the advances that have allowed astronauts to dock to the ISS and astronauts to space walk. So what is it that leads you to believe that "well, yes, we can dock a spacecraft to an orbiting space station, but we haven't managed to land one on the moon. And astronauts (obviously) have returned to earth from the space station.

I basically don't get how you are seemingly happy to accept the technology and capability exists and is used for all these things, but that it isn't (to you) credible that basically the same types of technology and travel are not credible  insofar as the moon is concerned.

People have provided all kinds of evidence and information regarding the moon landings, and surely critical thinking runs along the lines of "I know there are space station, Space shuttle Apollo rockets, astronauts, docking in space, space suits worn in outer space, the ability to hit a fast traveling tiny satellite with a RF beam from earth... that stuff is what 80, 90 % of the way to landing on the moon... There's independent evidence of moon landings....and then on the other hand there are a bunch of debunked theories and conspiracies, none written or proposed by anyone of any credible background or credentials...I know, I'll believe the non-credible ones over the weigth of evidence I know to be real, plus other evidence from the same "authority" that I know has put satellites up there and space shuttles and Apollos...

Still, each to their own

You have nicely elaborated what I've been thinking. There is literally no reason to believe they couldn't do it.