General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Seal]

11 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Expert view.  

See the section "Hoax Claims and Rebutals".  Read the entry AND the attached footnoted articles and source documents. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

 

Okay, I will do so. Although I may not buy the items that it links to books unless I can find free pdfs on the internet. Unless you can recommend any of the books as being particularly worth reading?

Give me some time to do so.

I have read the entry. I don't think it really says a lot. Plus about ten years ago I was South Africa's all time third highest goal scorer for a few years, according to wikipedia.

 

[luckyeddie]

Does it matter if it is real or not, it's just a d*ck swinging competition for governments. The argument is like Big-Endians and Little-Endians in Gulliver's Travels. It will make no difference to us. The only thing we can say for certain is that if we do make it to the Moon, or any other place, we will f*ck it up and move on. We should not leave this planet until we learn how to live with it rather than live on it.

[ml1dch]

31 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

1. NASA needed to rent or buy a source soundstage, outfit it with the lunar landscape and various props.  Lights would have been installed.  Decorators would have painted the background.  Security guards would have protected the site.  Tha astronauts would have needed to rehearse their actions.  Someone would have edited the footage and slow it down to give the effect of gravity.  Someone would have to maintained the site of removed it.  Someone would have to edit and fake various video footage.  The astronauts and the entire group control crew would have needed to produce their footage.

Given the people at the top of the US Government failed to successfully cover-up a blow-job that happened in a room with nobody in it apart from the two people participating, it seems unlikely that fifty years on there wouldn't have been a whistle-blower or two. 

See also, all those trucks secretly delivering tonnes of explosives to the basement of the World Trade Centre and surrounding buildings while thousands of people were going about their busy days in Lower Manhattan. Quite the logistical nightmare.

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Must admit I found it a large number, but then I thought about the manufacturing, from conception, the planning, etc, I would expect a high number. 

Agreed. Remembering also, the world was different then, there was no photocopying, there was no auto filing of emails and maths was done by people not excel and Casio.

The numbers of people involved in computational maths, long hand books of calculations, then checked and proof read. The army of typists and then the people to file the typing and retrieve the records and physically walk them around the various buildings.

The people to clean the toilets, make the coffee, order the paper and store the paper… on and on and on.

I think if you want to show a big number, and its pre the age of shipping stuff out to agency staff, and you employ the engineer that designs the steel for the suspension rig that they practise dangling spaceships from, I think you get there really quite quickly.

[Seal]

6 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Must admit I found it a large number, but then I thought about the manufacturing, from conception, the planning, etc, I would expect a high number. 

I am surprised. I don't consider the source to be reputable. I don't necessarily find the arguments that a lot of people were involved therefore there would be lots of whistleblowers to be convincing. Firstly the process of compartmentalisation has been used plenty of times in secret projects so that the people involved have no idea what is going on holistically. Secondly, particularly with the moon landing if there were 400,000 involved, it may well be that 399,990 think that we have been to the moon. I think there was a channel 4 reality show once which basically showed how easy it was to trick people into thinking they went to the moon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series)

I know someone who works for nasa. He makes satellite technology to go in high altitude balloons. 

I do think it would take a sample of vastly more than 400,000 until you found someone whose name backwards was gnortsMr Alien to be selected to go to the moon ;). What are the chances eh?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

55 minutes ago, Seal said:

 

I have read the entry. I don't think it really says a lot. Plus about ten years ago I was South Africa's all time third highest goal scorer for a few years, according to wikipedia.

 

That's why the source documents are important. 

I know that you weren't South Africa's third highest goal scorer.  You were only fifth. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Spelling mishsteaks

[Xann]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

I'm afraid this one makes me so exasperated that I refuse to debate any further with moon landing conspiracy nutters. 

It's an insight into how the Tories keep getting in.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

many of the debunkings have been debunked as well

No they haven't.

I'm happy to address any points you have that you may think proves we didn't land on the moon. I can guarantee they can be debunked very easily.

We previously had a thread on VT that addressed the moon landing conspiracy. Several people who thought it was fake eventually changed their mind because of the evidence put in there. It was one of the best threads on the website but unfortunately got lost somewhere down the line.

 

I don't mean this in an aggressive way. I understand why some people don't think it was real. But I guarantee you it was, and I'm happy to help show you how we know that

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I believe that discussing conspiracy theories is important. In fact,  it's vital.  

Massive conspiracies exist and are historical fact.  

Hitler got millions of people to believe that the Jews undermined Germany during WW1 and were a lower form of humanity than true Germans.  He manipulated evidence,altered history and killed millions based upon a lie. 

1% of conspiracy theories are probably true. But they can hide amongst the other nonsense. 

We need intelligent people questioning whether there is evidence that Iraq has nukes before we invade. 

What we don't need is gullible people forming opinions based SOLELY upon one side of the story. 

I remember the famous Wogan appearance by David Icke.  Most of the interview showed he was talking rubbish.  But he did say that capitalism was going lasting damage to the earth that might lead to disastrous consequences.  No-one too that seriously because he also said wearing purple shell suits would help and that Australia would sink a year later. 

David Icke is proof that the 1% of validity can hide amongst the 99% of rubbish. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Spelling mishsteaks

[Stevo985]

3 hours 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.

No they don't. I'm happy to debunk this if you give me specific examples.

3 hours ago, Seal said:

 Photographs of the astronauts footprints being different to the actual footprints that exist in museums for the astronauts.

I don't know how a footprint from the moon can be in a museum, so I assume this is referring to the boots of the astronauts not matching the footprints on the moon?
If so then this has been debunked many times. The astronauts wore lunar overshoes on the moon, those are what made the footprints, not the soles of their actual boots. This is well documented

3 hours ago, Seal said:

Moon rovers in the middle of landscapes with no tyre tracks leading to them although with footprints around.

Couple of reasons for this. Firstly the tyres of the rovers were made out of mesh and spread pressure a lot better than the boots of the astronauts. So they didn't actually make really deep tracks. 
Secondly, there's a shit load of dust up there. Often by the time the astronauts had got out of the rover, done whatever they were doing, and finally taken a picture, they'd kicked up so much dust that it had covered the tracks. 
You can see that in this picture

Tracks leading up to it, but none around the actual rover. The tracks are still there by the way. There are photographs of them

3 hours ago, Seal said:

What about the inconsistencies between the official photos of the earth from space from nasa, where the continent of africa varies in size spectacularly. 

This one is such common sense that I don't know why it's such a widespread trope. 
The size of continents varies depending on how close to the earth you take the picture.

If you're 500,000 miles away from the earth and take a picture and then resize it to be the same size as a picture taken 5,000 miles away from the earth, you're going to see a lot more of the earth's surface in the picture taken from far away then you are from the one taken close up. Hence the continents appear smaller

There are several youtube videos out there that give a literal visual demonstration of how this happens, but this diagram summarises it nicely

3 hours ago, Seal said:

Or the consistencies where the same cloud patterns can be seen in a number of different places on the earth. 

Again I'd have to see a specific example, but I imagine the explanation is that NASA openly admit to using composite pictures to depict the earth. This isn't a secret. Taking photos of the earth is hard, so to get the perfect pictures we see they often take parts of different photos and stitch them together. The famous blue marble photos released in 2012 are composites. NASA doesn't hide this. They can't get far enough away to take the photos in a high enough resolution to get such good photos, so they stitch various ones together. They also tweak the colours. This could result in similar cloud formations appearign in 

That doesn't mean the photos are "fake". There are plenty of raw photos of the moon taken by various apollo missions

3 hours ago, Seal said:

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).

No they didn't have motion trackers. They were controlled from Houston.
It was EXTREMELY difficult to achieve this, given the time it takes to get an input from a human to the moon for a cameras to move. 

So difficult in fact that there's a reason that footage is from Apollo 17. Because they tried it on Apollo 15 and 16 and **** it up both times. Because it's really hard

Why would a lunar module taking off from the moon look anything like any rocket I or anyone else had seen taking off before? We see rockets taking off from earth where you need an insane amount of power to escape the atmosphere and gravity.
That's a video of the lunar module taking off in near zero gravity. It's very very different. 
It's like seeing footage of me swimming upwards in a swimming pool and saying it doesn't look like any footage you've seen of anyone jumping before

3 hours ago, Seal said:

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

 

No. You couldn't make a phone call directly to the moon and back. Neither can you today.
What you can do is convert somebody talking on the phone into radiowaves and transmit those to the moon. And vice versa. That's how they spoke to Nixon on the moon (if that's what you were referring to)

3 hours ago, Seal said:

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?

Yes, it looks real.

If we're behind the orbit, why would it appear that it was circling?
If you were directly above someone throwing a ball a long distance, the ball would travel in a curved arc, but would it appear curved to you? No, it would look like a straight line to you because you're in line with the ball. The only thing that would tell you the ball was travelling in an arc would be that the ball would get closer to you as it reached the peak of the arc. Such a thing would be imperceptible on that video of the earth and moon because of the scale.



Genuinely hope that helps

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985

[StanBalaban]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

I am surprised. I don't consider the source to be reputable. I don't necessarily find the arguments that a lot of people were involved therefore there would be lots of whistleblowers to be convincing. Firstly the process of compartmentalisation has been used plenty of times in secret projects so that the people involved have no idea what is going on holistically. Secondly, particularly with the moon landing if there were 400,000 involved, it may well be that 399,990 think that we have been to the moon. I think there was a channel 4 reality show once which basically showed how easy it was to trick people into thinking they went to the moon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series)

I know someone who works for nasa. He makes satellite technology to go in high altitude balloons. 

I do think it would take a sample of vastly more than 400,000 until you found someone whose name backwards was gnortsMr Alien to be selected to go to the moon ;). What are the chances eh?

I think it was @Mandy Lifeboats that mentioned the reflector on the moon - I think there are multiple reflective panels on the moons, used to calculate and constantly measure changes in distance. Are you suggesting the scientists around the world using their lasers and providing data from numerous sources, are making up their findings too? 

If they're not, and you agree the panels are on the moon, who put them up there?

[Withnail]

One question with the moon theory is why fake it. What purpose does faking the moon landing serve?

[limpid]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

We previously had a thread on VT that addressed the moon landing conspiracy. Several people who thought it was fake eventually changed their mind because of the evidence put in there. It was one of the best threads on the website but unfortunately got lost somewhere down the line.

It was in one of the general purpose threads that people keep insisting on using. I think it was "Things You Often Wonder".

[Davkaus]

Of course, Stevo is on the aerospace payroll  

[Seat68]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Of course, Stevo is on the aerospace payroll  

Big Plane, we all knew it

[Xann]

1 minute ago, Withnail said:

One question with the moon theory is why fake it. What purpose does faking the moon landing serve?

As we can see satellites with the naked eye, shall we work in a shallower pool of woo where Sputnik, Laika and Gagarin happened?

Because if they didn't happen, we're in deep woo and conjecture regarding magic islands is on? 

 

So in the post WWII battle of ideologies, the USSR and America were head to head on the World stage.

Nearly everyone sees the stars. They've captured the imagination of the whole of mankind since forever. Everyone's interested.

The USSR smashed early space exploration, America were well behind as Russian pics were coming from the Moon.

So America got Kubrik in and it was all made up.

[bielesibub]

wow, I just stepped into the you can't educate pork thread. When I was in hospital for a period of time earlier in the year, we set up a twice daily conspiracy theory meeting, we discussed everything from the moon landings to birds not being real. My topics were Bag Puss and the magical mechanical mouse-organ being completely fabricated by Emily and The Button Moon landings were faked by Mr Spoon to fund his meth addiction.

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

4 hours ago, Seal said:

 

No they didn't have motion trackers. They were controlled from Houston.
It was EXTREMELY difficult to achieve this, given the time it takes to get an input from a human to the moon for a cameras to move. 

So difficult in fact that there's a reason that footage is from Apollo 17. Because they tried it on Apollo 15 and 16 and **** it up both times. Because it's really hard

Just for information, and not to dispute what you’ve said, it takes about 1.2 seconds for a radio signal to reach the moon. It takes another 1.2 seconds for the return signal to reach the earth. In the 60s and 70s signal processing would add maybe another second to the 2.4, so maybe a loop of just over 3 seconds between the operator on the ground sending a command and them seeing the command achieved. The effect is like steering a child’s remote controlled car, moving the stick, but nothing happens until 3 seconds later. We did a thing at work (on a simulator) deliberately increasing a delay between a pilot/operator manually landing a UAV and the UAV fed back video showing on his screen. Obviously more complex than panning a camera, but at around 140ms it started to get quite tricky, it’s so easy to think “it hasn’t done it, I’ll move the stick a bit more” and then you’ve over cooked it…

[Seal]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

No they don't. I'm happy to debunk this if you give me specific examples.

I don't know how a footprint from the moon can be in a museum, so I assume this is referring to the boots of the astronauts not matching the footprints on the moon?
If so then this has been debunked many times. The astronauts wore lunar overshoes on the moon, those are what made the footprints, not the soles of their actual boots. This is well documented

Couple of reasons for this. Firstly the tyres of the rovers were made out of mesh and spread pressure a lot better than the boots of the astronauts. So they didn't actually make really deep tracks. 
Secondly, there's a shit load of dust up there. Often by the time the astronauts had got out of the rover, done whatever they were doing, and finally taken a picture, they'd kicked up so much dust that it had covered the tracks. 
You can see that in this picture

Tracks leading up to it, but none around the actual rover. The tracks are still there by the way. There are photographs of them

This one is such common sense that I don't know why it's such a widespread trope. 
The size of continents varies depending on how close to the earth you take the picture.

If you're 500,000 miles away from the earth and take a picture and then resize it to be the same size as a picture taken 5,000 miles away from the earth, you're going to see a lot more of the earth's surface in the picture taken from far away then you are from the one taken close up. Hence the continents appear smaller

There are several youtube videos out there that give a literal visual demonstration of how this happens, but this diagram summarises it nicely

Again I'd have to see a specific example, but I imagine the explanation is that NASA openly admit to using composite pictures to depict the earth. This isn't a secret. Taking photos of the earth is hard, so to get the perfect pictures we see they often take parts of different photos and stitch them together. The famous blue marble photos released in 2012 are composites. NASA doesn't hide this. They can't get far enough away to take the photos in a high enough resolution to get such good photos, so they stitch various ones together. They also tweak the colours. This could result in similar cloud formations appearign in 

That doesn't mean the photos are "fake". There are plenty of raw photos of the moon taken by various apollo missions

No they didn't have motion trackers. They were controlled from Houston.
It was EXTREMELY difficult to achieve this, given the time it takes to get an input from a human to the moon for a cameras to move. 

So difficult in fact that there's a reason that footage is from Apollo 17. Because they tried it on Apollo 15 and 16 and **** it up both times. Because it's really hard

Why would a lunar module taking off from the moon look anything like any rocket I or anyone else had seen taking off before? We see rockets taking off from earth where you need an insane amount of power to escape the atmosphere and gravity.
That's a video of the lunar module taking off in near zero gravity. It's very very different. 
It's like seeing footage of me swimming upwards in a swimming pool and saying it doesn't look like any footage you've seen of anyone jumping before

No. You couldn't make a phone call directly to the moon and back. Neither can you today.
What you can do is convert somebody talking on the phone into radiowaves and transmit those to the moon. And vice versa. That's how they spoke to Nixon on the moon (if that's what you were referring to)

Yes, it looks real.

If we're behind the orbit, why would it appear that it was circling?
If you were directly above someone throwing a ball a long distance, would it appear curved? No, it would look like a straight line to you because you're in line with the ball. The only thing that would tell you the ball was travelling in an arc would be that the ball would get closer to you as it reached the peak of the arc. Such a thing would be imperceptible on that video of the earth and moon because of the scale.



Genuinely hope that helps

Okay so on the footprints I am referring to the boots in a  museum vs the footprints. I appreciate that explanation. However, I consider it an explanation rather than a debunking. The reason being that it provides a possible explanation, rather than an objective solution. Not that I think an explanation isn't a useful response. When you tell a lie, you often find you have to add adornments as time passes. I appreciate lunar overshoes are a possible explanation, but when you consider other issues such as the severe lack of space in the shuttle (which to an extent anyway I find implausible) and the perhaps more logical idea of having minimal footwear options there are other possibilities also.

That is one photo. There are others that show different. It is entirely possible that some photos were mocked up with tyre tracks whereas in others it was neglected. There would still be evidence of disturbance. Plenty of photos do not show this.

Regarding the perspective and the continents. Refer to image 6 in the slide. This is taken from 700km away. It shows a small united states. Then take the blue marble image, slide 4. This was taken 824km away and shows a huge United States. Whilst the explanation is valid scientifically. It does not correlate to the photos, so I don't consider it to have debunked the issue. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/world/gallery/earth-photos/index.html

Like you say Nasa does claim to use composites rather than photos. We are able to photo the moon so it shouldn't be too hard to photo the earth. The issue with the composites is matters such as why the same cloud formations appear in multiple. Why are some clouds composited to read the word sex. 

I don't think it is plausible that the camera's could be controlled with that accuracy from houston. I doubt such a video was important enough to warrant such a technological innovation. 

If a lunar module taking off from the moon looked plausible, I would expect: not sparks that look like a few primary colours; Some kind of expulsion; be it a bit of fire or smoke; some dust from the lunar surface; and a more natural streamlined trajectory. Not the surreal rocket that does really give off vibes of being puppet stringed up. 

R.e the telephone call. If they were radiowaves, did no other radio's pick it up surely every amateur radio enthusiast would have been trying to do this (I don't know whether they did or not)? Furthermore I don't think the phone call shows a five or six second delay in the conversation. Sure it might have been edited.  

It would appear it is circling because that is the trajectory it takes. Taking into the account of the position of the earth in the shot, I think that could expect to be seen. Especially if you look at the surface and how the perspective never changes from the visible details.

Sorry, I do appreciate the spirit in which you have commented  and haven't taken them aggressively. I hope that you take mine in the same manner. I appreciate the offer of answering questions also.

[regular_john]

9 hours ago, Withnail said:

One question with the moon theory is why fake it. What purpose does faking the moon landing serve?

The common belief/conspiracy is that, in the context of the cold war, winning the space race against Russia was vital for national morale, therefore it was better to fake the win rather than legitimately lose

Edited September 19, 2023 by regular_john