General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[A'Villan]

4 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

@A'Villan

Thanks for the reply.   Much appreciated.  

 I would love to discuss this with you.  But "conspiracy theories" cover a wide range of topics.  

Maybe you could outline one of the "conspiracy theories" that you feel has real merit and we could discuss specific details?

I would like to make it clear that I believe 99% conspiracy theories are utter rubbish. But I accept that 1% are well justified.  

Over to you.  What is a high profile conspiracy theory that you can debate? 

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is by itself designed to throw us off the track.

We use the word "theory" with connotations of it being unproven or unsubstantiated, and therefore that we should not bother with the idea of it being credible or merited, as a consequence.

Already we have a potential for "hidden in plain sight" or "catch me if you can" essence to the language we have appropriated for the use of describing, or brushing off, some of the most important and concerning matters.

Framing in psychology is a known tool. The use of two words put together is enough to deter the average person.

Unfortunately we live in a world where conspiracies happen daily. Every minute, every moment. However the word that follows undermines this, as said above the connotations that come with it are dismissive.

This has become the common tongue, and just about anybody, well versed on the matters or not, know this phrase, "conspiracy theory" and from my experience usually associates it with someone being fruit loopy nuts.

I'll revisit this when I have some time to. Thank you Mandy I appreciate this too.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

7 hours ago, Xann said:

 

I am no expert but isn't this one really obvious to anyone with GCSE physics???

The plane operates reaches Mach 3.2 in the atmosphere. It is subject to resistance from the air. 

The spacecraft reaches Mach 23 outside the atmosphere or on the very edges of the atmosphere. Air resistance is much lower. It also has specialist heat shield to combat hitting the atmosphere at very high speed. The plane does not need this heat shield.  

 

 

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

6 hours ago, A'Villan said:

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is by itself designed to throw us off the track.

We use the word "theory" with connotations of it being unproven or unsubstantiated, and therefore that we should not bother with the idea of it being credible or merited, as a consequence.

Already we have a potential for "hidden in plain sight" or "catch me if you can" essence to the language we have appropriated for the use of describing, or brushing off, some of the most important and concerning matters.

Framing in psychology is a known tool. The use of two words put together is enough to deter the average person.

Unfortunately we live in a world where conspiracies happen daily. Every minute, every moment. However the word that follows undermines this, as said above the connotations that come with it are dismissive.

This has become the common tongue, and just about anybody, well versed on the matters or not, know this phrase, "conspiracy theory" and from my experience usually associates it with someone being fruit loopy nuts.

I'll revisit this when I have some time to. Thank you Mandy I appreciate this too.

We live in a world where politicians lie, corporations have hidden agendas and secrets are kept.  I 100% agree.  

But I find it very difficult when people spot a small discrepancy and then blow it up to something it clearly isn't.  

For example -  There are no stars in the photographs taken on the moon. This shows it was faked in a studio. No.  It shows that a small 1970s camera strapped to an astronauts chest was incapable of taking pictures of stars because it would have needed a lengthy exposure time. 

I also find it difficult when people (let's use David Icke as an example) come up with these amazing theories with zero evidence and make millions from it.  David Icke creates content for financial gain. 

If you can come up with a specific topic I would be genuinely interested to debate it.  

But let me finish by saying that I am not picking out "conspiracy theories" as being anything unusual.  I don't believe in ghosts, contacting the dead, gods, fortune telling, witchcraft, Santa Claus or that people pay money to watch Birmingham FC. 

[Seat68]

9 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

But let me finish by saying that I am not picking out "conspiracy theories" as being anything unusual.  I don't believe in ghosts, contacting the dead, gods, fortune telling, witchcraft, Santa Claus or that people pay money to watch Birmingham FC. 

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

 

I am no expert but isn't this one really obvious to anyone with GCSE physics???

The plane operates reaches Mach 3.2 in the atmosphere. It is subject to resistance from the air. 

The spacecraft reaches Mach 23 outside the atmosphere or on the very edges of the atmosphere. Air resistance is much lower. It also has specialist heat shield to combat hitting the atmosphere at very high speed. The plane does not need this heat shield.  

 

 

 

I assume it was posted as a pisstake?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

10 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I assume it was posted as a pisstake?

I thought the same.  

But its as ridiculous as "the world is flat", "the SAS killed Diana", "your nan is sending a message from beyond the grave" or " vapour trails from planes are chemical treatments" or "Q-ANON".

So it might be sincere. 

 

[Seal]

52 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

We live in a world where politicians lie, corporations have hidden agendas and secrets are kept.  I 100% agree.  

But I find it very difficult when people spot a small discrepancy and then blow it up to something it clearly isn't.  

For example -  There are no stars in the photographs taken on the moon. This shows it was faked in a studio. No.  It shows that a small 1970s camera strapped to an astronauts chest was incapable of taking pictures of stars because it would have needed a lengthy exposure time. 

I also find it difficult when people (let's use David Icke as an example) come up with these amazing theories with zero evidence and make millions from it.  David Icke creates content for financial gain. 

If you can come up with a specific topic I would be genuinely interested to debate it.  

But let me finish by saying that I am not picking out "conspiracy theories" as being anything unusual.  I don't believe in ghosts, contacting the dead, gods, fortune telling, witchcraft, Santa Claus or that people pay money to watch Birmingham FC. 

Isn't the trouble with the moon photographs a lot more than just there being no stars. It also includes images of celestial bodies that have been stuck on in photoshop, that can be identified by just changing the brightness levels. Photographs of the astronauts footprints being different to the actual footprints that exist in museums for the astronauts. Moon rovers in the middle of landscapes with no tyre tracks leading to them although with footprints around. What about the inconsistencies between the official photos of the earth from space from nasa, where the continent of africa varies in size spectacularly. Or the consistencies where the same cloud patterns can be seen in a number of different places on the earth. The evidence of fakery is huge, and not limited to the stars / lack of stars. 

It would make sense that the stars would need to be hidden, as if their patterns varied from what they should, then that would make them quite objectively fake. Although to be sure this is not proof either way. 

And also to be clear, because 1970's cameras don't suffer long enough exposure, doesn't mean that anyone went to the moon. Also - did 1970's cameras have a motion trackers that would have enable such as video as the below, without having to leave someone behind on the moon? Or was someone left behind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=226s (watch the take off here, and tell me that that is like any rocket taking off you have ever seen in your life. Plus the lansdcape looks exactly like a film set, rather than real life).

Did 1960's phone technology allow a phone call to and from the moon? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs - do you think the moons transit looks real in this official image? If so - why does it transit in a straight vector, rather than circling the earth?

 

 

[mjmooney]

9 minutes ago, Seal said:

Isn't the trouble with the moon photographs a lot more than just there being no stars. It also includes images of celestial bodies that have been stuck on in photoshop, that can be identified by just changing the brightness levels. Photographs of the astronauts footprints being different to the actual footprints that exist in museums for the astronauts. Moon rovers in the middle of landscapes with no tyre tracks leading to them although with footprints around. What about the inconsistencies between the official photos of the earth from space from nasa, where the continent of africa varies in size spectacularly. Or the consistencies where the same cloud patterns can be seen in a number of different places on the earth. The evidence of fakery is huge, and not limited to the stars / lack of stars. 

It would make sense that the stars would need to be hidden, as if their patterns varied from what they should, then that would make them quite objectively fake. Although to be sure this is not proof either way. 

And also to be clear, because 1970's cameras don't suffer long enough exposure, doesn't mean that anyone went to the moon. Also - did 1970's cameras have a motion trackers that would have enable such as video as the below, without having to leave someone behind on the moon? Or was someone left behind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=226s (watch the take off here, and tell me that that is like any rocket taking off you have ever seen in your life. Plus the lansdcape looks exactly like a film set, rather than real life).

Did 1960's phone technology allow a phone call to and from the moon? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs - do you think the moons transit looks real in this official image? If so - why does it transit in a straight vector, rather than circling the earth?

Crikey, we've got one. 

[Seal]

6 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Crikey, we've got one. 

lol. one what?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

12 minutes ago, Seal said:

Isn't the trouble with the moon photographs a lot more than just there being no stars. It also includes images of celestial bodies that have been stuck on in photoshop, that can be identified by just changing the brightness levels. Photographs of the astronauts footprints being different to the actual footprints that exist in museums for the astronauts. Moon rovers in the middle of landscapes with no tyre tracks leading to them although with footprints around. What about the inconsistencies between the official photos of the earth from space from nasa, where the continent of africa varies in size spectacularly. Or the consistencies where the same cloud patterns can be seen in a number of different places on the earth. The evidence of fakery is huge, and not limited to the stars / lack of stars. 

It would make sense that the stars would need to be hidden, as if their patterns varied from what they should, then that would make them quite objectively fake. Although to be sure this is not proof either way. 

And also to be clear, because 1970's cameras don't suffer long enough exposure, doesn't mean that anyone went to the moon. Also - did 1970's cameras have a motion trackers that would have enable such as video as the below, without having to leave someone behind on the moon? Or was someone left behind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=226s (watch the take off here, and tell me that that is like any rocket taking off you have ever seen in your life. Plus the lansdcape looks exactly like a film set, rather than real life).

Did 1960's phone technology allow a phone call to and from the moon? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs - do you think the moons transit looks real in this official image? If so - why does it transit in a straight vector, rather than circling the earth?

 

 

OK......let's break this down a little.  

If the moon landings were fake NASA would have faked 9 missions (I think). None of the thousands of people involved in that fakery mentioned it at the time.  The USSR who were the biggest rivals never denounced the landings as fake and actually acknowledge it happened. The moon landing sites can be seen and have been reported by many countries.  There is a reflector on the moon that allows scientists from any country to measure the distantance between us an the moon by bouncing a laser off it.  

What's led to all the discrepancies you mention? 

1. NASA does re-touch photographs for publicity issue.  

2. Original photographs are copied, reprinted, re-copied and faked by the press.  Many of the photographs you claim to have seen aren't the originals.  They are a bad copy of a bad copy. 

3. You pose question that I am not qualified to answer.  But I guess neither are you or the people who made the video.  You ask me if the rocket taking off looks right.  I have only ever seen 1 launch.  (The space shuttle in the 2000's.)  The experts say there are no discrepancies.  Neither of us are qualified to doubt that. 

4.  Even if I accept that all the photographs and videos are distorted due to editing, copying and fakery - its sill no proof that the moon landings were faked.  Its proof that publicity of the moon landings was faked.  

[LondonLax]

22 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Crikey, we've got one. 

[Designer1]

'The Moon Landings were fake' has been debunked so many times I'm amazed anyone still has the slightest bit of doubt.

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

'The Moon Landings were fake' has been debunked so many times I'm amazed anyone still has the slightest bit of doubt.

Resident nobhead on my fb feed was having a good old laugh at the people who believed the recent Indian moon landing was real.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Resident nobhead on my fb feed was having a good old laugh at the people who believed the recent Indian moon landing was real.

I was watching a feed at one point and they had a sort of emoji symbol representing the landing craft and it was like a cross between Pac-Man and a space invaders thing. Slowly slowly Pac-Man got closer, and eventually landed, then everyone in the control centre stood and shouted and clapped and celebrated.

I thought, someone is going to point out that’s a fake.

 

[mjmooney]

23 minutes ago, Seal said:

lol. one what?

Sorry, I cannot be more specific without picking up warning points for post on poster.   

[Mark Albrighton]

That being said, Danny Lloyd IS wearing this jumper.

That fact is undeniable and makes a legitimate, compelling argument.

 

[Seal]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

OK......let's break this down a little.  

If the moon landings were fake NASA would have faked 9 missions (I think). None of the thousands of people involved in that fakery mentioned it at the time.  The USSR who were the biggest rivals never denounced the landings as fake and actually acknowledge it happened. The moon landing sites can be seen and have been reported by many countries.  There is a reflector on the moon that allows scientists from any country to measure the distantance between us an the moon by bouncing a laser off it.  

What's led to all the discrepancies you mention? 

1. NASA does re-touch photographs for publicity issue.  

2. Original photographs are copied, reprinted, re-copied and faked by the press.  Many of the photographs you claim to have seen aren't the originals.  They are a bad copy of a bad copy. 

3. You pose question that I am not qualified to answer.  But I guess neither are you or the people who made the video.  You ask me if the rocket taking off looks right.  I have only ever seen 1 launch.  (The space shuttle in the 2000's.)  The experts say there are no discrepancies.  Neither of us are qualified to doubt that. 

4.  Even if I accept that all the photographs and videos are distorted due to editing, copying and fakery - its sill no proof that the moon landings were faked.  Its proof that publicity of the moon landings was faked.  

Were there thousands of people involved? Take for instance the control room. They didn't actually see anyone go to the moon, they just heard a blip on a screen. They may well have believed they did go to the moon. Thousands of people being involved is only necessary if there was actually a space programme. If there wasn't then there would have been less than thousands. Try watching the press conference after the apollo missions. It looks very much like people who know that they are lying and are very depressed about having to do so. 

I disagree that the USSR and USA were rivals. But I imagine that our conceptions of what reality is differ greatly. Broadly speaking, I suspect nations states are middle management. I suspect you suspect that nations compete within a nation state system under rules of international politics. Both views are cool imo and would make an interesting discussion, except I am also happy to accept your views as entirely reasonable on this and think its best to just accept we have a differing view on 'international politics'. I do suspect all wars are rackets, like smedley butlers book, and that the cold war was no different. 

Nasa does retouch stuff yes, it refers to its images as images rather than photos because that is what they are. One of my favourite retouches is how they have 'retouched' their image of pluto to show pluto the dog on its face.

 Sure original photos are copied and reprinted. However all photos I am referring to can be found on Nasa's official website and are official photos. 

Which experts say there are no discrepancies? Are all people that call themselves experts actually experts? There are certainly plenty of people who call them selves experts who say that there are discrepancies. You are the most qualified person out there to use your eyes and think. It is pretty clear to the naked eye that that take off is very unlike regular take offs. 

With regards to your point 4. Yes you are correct. But it is not proof that it isn't and is evidence of manipulation however low level it may be. And when taken with other evidence of Nasa lying through the ages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm) and much much more, then it indicates to me that not trusting them is a reasonable position to make. I don't trust any publicity.

[Seal]

18 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

'The Moon Landings were fake' has been debunked so many times I'm amazed anyone still has the slightest bit of doubt.

many of the debunkings have been debunked as well

[Seal]

10 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Sorry, I cannot be more specific without picking up warning points for post on poster.   

I will assume you meant a conspiracy scientist

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

I will assume you meant a conspiracy scientist

Bit stronger than that, tbh.