General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Stevo985]

26 minutes ago, limpid said:

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

Nah it wasn't that one. It was a separate one. Someone started it specifically stating the moon landing was fake and then it evolved into a huge thread debunking everything.

 

It wasn't a dig by the way, I just tried to find it a while back and had no luck so assumed it had been trimmed

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, Xann said:

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.

 

See the problem with this, is we have someone in this thread who’s offering part of the justification of it all being fake by suggesting the USA and the USSR weren’t rivals.

There’s a layer of the conspiracy onion you’ve missed. You think they were rivals because of fake events such as Berlin, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam. That was just a back story to hide the actual joint enterprise, which was to pretend one side won the race to the moon.

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

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…

Yeah exactly. Battling with that kind of lag and trying to track a lunar module taking off was very difficult. They basically had to predict where it was going

[Designer1]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Nah it wasn't that one. It was a separate one. Someone started it specifically stating the moon landing was fake and then it evolved into a huge thread debunking everything.

 

It wasn't a dig by the way, I just tried to find it a while back and had no luck so assumed it had been trimmed

Yeah I remember it.

It was former poster @Sie who debunked absolutely everything thrown at him by the non-believers and in the end they had to admit defeat.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

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…

This kind of thing is partly why the Mars rovers are sent commands rather than directly controlled. 

I listened to a podcast episode on it where one of the scientists behind the last Mars rover was explaining how they would have to put together extended lists of commands for what they wanted the robot to do in its next phase of movement, which could be thousands of lines of code they'd all had to debate and get sign off for (because every second they could use and every byte of information they could send was precious) to just do anything at all, which would then be uploaded to the robot to perform, and they'd be driven mad by someone spotting something that might be important to their particular field in a batch of photos it sent back but to actually go investigate would require cashing in other movements and commands they already had planned so usually just ignored and made note of for a future investigation.

[Seal]

40 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

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?

The same results from the lunar refractor experiment were obtainable before we had been to the moon. So to get them, a lunar refractor is not necessarily required.  It had been going on since the early 1960's.

And personally I find lunar refracting from a small reflector to be quite hard to believe, although I don't disbelieve it. These numbers are from my head so sorry if they are a bit wrong, but I think they are materially right. But the earth spins at the equator by 1000mph, admittedly much slower as you head to the poles. The moon rotates at 2000 mph, and is 240,000 miles away. Light (I think is equivalent to laser speed?) takes about a second to get to the moon from earth. Two seconds needed to get ther and back. In one second the moon would have moved half a mile and the earth a quarter of a mile. I don't think that a laser position by hand decades ago would be able to maintain such an accuracy for decades, bearing in mind slight changes in orbit etc. I appreciate it could be possible engineering and laser accuracy is far more than I can imagine. But I am not convinced.

Also bearing in mind that Nasa state they have put objects on the moon in non-manned expeditions, then putting reflectors up there does not necessitate man walking on the moon.

[Stevo985]

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

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.

I fail to see the difference. You suggested that the footprints don't match the boots. I've explained why that isn't the case. It's not a possible explanation, it is THE explanation. That's the very definition of a debunking.

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

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.

Of course it's possible. But that doesn't make it true. It's possible that 9/11 was an inside job, but it doesn't make it so.

I used one example to show an example of why there were no tyre tracks. If there are "plenty of photos" then share them and let us debunk them. Won't be hard if there are so many

 

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

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

 

Image 6 isn't a photo. It's an image created using data from a satellite. Image 4 is another composite photo. Even so, 124km could easily account for the small difference in size on those photos.
You've acknowledged the explanation is scientifically accurate. To dispute it is a bit strange

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

 

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. 

We can photo the whole earth. Nobody says we can't. What we can't do is photograph it to a very high resolution from a distance far enough away to capture the entire earth. That's why composites are used. They allow you to take higher resolution photos closer up and stitch them together.

Cloud formations appear multiple times because if they're using composites then that formation could have travelled from over one part of the earth to another but the two photos used on the same composite.
There are hundreds of thousands of cloud formations over the earth at any one time. If one of them spells out a word it's coincidence. Just like some of them sometimes look like elephants or people.

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

 

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. 

 

Your personal incredulity does not mean it isn't true. It's true, it happened, the technology and the event are well documented and explained.

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

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. 

Again, your misunderstanding of what something might look like doesn't mean what we actually saw is fake. it's near zero gravity. It needs far less thrust than a rocket does to leave earth. 
Flames or sparks (of that kind) would require oxygen to ignite, of which there is none on the moon.

Because of the lack of atmosphere any dust generated was propelled horizontally rather than vertically (because there's no air for the dust to be suspended in). Plus the module was quite far off the ground when it launched, meaning not much dust was thrown up anyway.

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

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.  

Honestly I don't know if it could have been picked up. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

24 minutes ago, Seal said:

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.

No it wouldn't. I explained this. it would appear to be a straight line because you are on the orbiting plane. And even if you could see the curve I think at that scale it would be imperceptible. You have to take into account the vast size of these objects

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

15 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

Yeah I remember it.

It was former poster @Sie who debunked absolutely everything thrown at him by the non-believers and in the end they had to admit defeat.

That's the one. He was absolutely superb.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985

[Xann]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

There’s a layer of the conspiracy onion you’ve missed. You think they were rivals because of fake events such as Berlin, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam. That was just a back story to hide the actual joint enterprise, which was to pretend one side won the race to the moon.

Also we know @blandy's lying because the Greys are capable of faster than light travel. Tachyonic comms are IN.

I fear @Seat68 maybe lost too? You know who They  target?

[A'Villan]

6 hours 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. 

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I'm not sure that a debate is necessary. I don't particularly feel the need to argue any matter here. I just want to qualify that by societal standards and dogma, I am probably the least equipped to engage the discussion with any level of credibility. Which is interesting.

I have come across much evidence, and even some proof, of the conspiratorial agendas and workings that we have mentioned at surface level here. You might think I'm being dramatic or deluded here, but I am versed in this in ways that go further than research reading and YouTube video content. I was on the wrong side of it to the point I have a permanent diagnosis. What I have learnt along the way is that for every level, there's another devil. Ignorance is venomous and it murders the soul, spreading like a virus running rampant, out of control.

@Mandy Lifeboats I've spent well over a billion moments on this planet, as we do by the time we hit 30 years old. It would be quite an undertaking to convey where I sit on these matters and the specifics as to why I am that way inclined.

Then there's always the possible, what I'd call probable, that you will be unable to see it yourself even if we were to have a lengthy talk about it all. Which is all that I'm interested in. I'm not here to waste my energy or yours, anyone's with back and forth on this one if we are to assume opposing views before the talking has begun. Without me going very deep into specifics and the evidence and proof I've accumulated, and then perhaps too, it will only offer a glimpse into depths that have been muddied so they lack clarity.

Edited September 19, 2023 by A'Villan

[A'Villan]

Research 101 for the newcomers.

1. MK-Ultra
2. Operation Northwood (specific to the hijacking of American aircrafts to crash into American infrastructure to gain support for war with Fidel Castro) 
3. COINTELPRO
4. Aaron Russo interview on David Rockefeller approach and discussion
5. The Red House Report
6. Julian Assange (and maybe why he's not given a corporate media investigative journalism offer)

Edited September 19, 2023 by A'Villan

[TheAuthority]

You're all wrong. This 1978 documentary explains it all.

[Xann]

Right wing and conspiratorial funnies are where I'm at for funnies right now.

[limpid]

19 minutes ago, Seal said:

And personally I find lunar refracting from a small reflector to be quite hard to believe, although I don't disbelieve it. These numbers are from my head so sorry if they are a bit wrong, but I think they are materially right. But the earth spins at the equator by 1000mph, admittedly much slower as you head to the poles. The moon rotates at 2000 mph, and is 240,000 miles away. Light (I think is equivalent to laser speed?) takes about a second to get to the moon from earth. Two seconds needed to get ther and back. In one second the moon would have moved half a mile and the earth a quarter of a mile. I don't think that a laser position by hand decades ago would be able to maintain such an accuracy for decades, bearing in mind slight changes in orbit etc. I appreciate it could be possible engineering and laser accuracy is far more than I can imagine. But I am not convinced.

Also bearing in mind that Nasa state they have put objects on the moon in non-manned expeditions, then putting reflectors up there does not necessitate man walking on the moon.

Rotation isn't measured as a speed.

The earth rotates once per day. It's the same value however close to the poles you get. It can't rotate at different speeds based on latitude, that would be insane.

As it is tidally locked. the moon rotates once per its orbit which is around 28 days, that's about 12 degrees per day. I've no idea where you've got 2000mph from.

 

[Seal]

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I fail to see the difference. You suggested that the footprints don't match the boots. I've explained why that isn't the case. It's not a possible explanation, it is THE explanation. That's the very definition of a debunking.

Of course it's possible. But that doesn't make it true. It's possible that 9/11 was an inside job, but it doesn't make it so.

I used one example to show an example of why there were no tyre tracks. If there are "plenty of photos" then share them and let us debunk them. Won't be hard if there are so many

 

Image 6 isn't a photo. It's an image created using data from a satellite. Image 4 is another composite photo. Even so, 124km could easily account for the small difference in size on those photos.
You've acknowledged the explanation is scientifically accurate. To dispute it is a bit strange

We can photo the whole earth. Nobody says we can't. What we can't do is photograph it to a very high resolution from a distance far enough away to capture the entire earth. That's why composites are used. They allow you to take higher resolution photos closer up and stitch them together.

Cloud formations appear multiple times because if they're using composites then that formation could have travelled from over one part of the earth to another but the two photos used on the same composite.
There are hundreds of thousands of cloud formations over the earth at any one time. If one of them spells out a word it's coincidence. Just like some of them sometimes look like elephants or people.

Your personal incredulity does not mean it isn't true. It's true, it happened, the technology and the event are well documented and explained.

Again, your misunderstanding of what something might look like doesn't mean what we actually saw is fake. it's near zero gravity. It needs far less thrust than a rocket does to leave earth. 
Flames or sparks (of that kind) would require oxygen to ignite, of which there is none on the moon.

Because of the lack of atmosphere any dust generated was propelled horizontally rather than vertically (because there's no air for the dust to be suspended in). Plus the module was quite far off the ground when it launched, meaning not much dust was thrown up anyway.

Honestly I don't know if it could have been picked up. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No it wouldn't. I explained this. it would appear to be a straight line because you are on the orbiting plane. And even if you could see the curve I think at that scale it would be imperceptible. You have to take into account the vast size of these objects

I don't see how you can say it is THE explanation. Rather than one of a number. I think it is quite a lacking explanation personally. To debunk you would need to show how it is THE explanation.

With regards to the images. Even if it is a composite, you would expect the continents to be the same size if it is based on actual images. Plus the 124km difference couldn't explain it inline with your previous graphic because the images show the opposite  i.e the closer image appears significantly smaller than the further one.

But surely it would be impressive just to see that one photo? Rather than being served a constant illusion as to what the earth looks like from space?

Sure my personal incredulity doesn't make anything true. But not does it make things false. What I think is plausible or isn't, like many people, does though have an impact on what I think. Same as for most people. 

Sure about the clouds and yes coincidences happen. But it is quite intellectually dishonest to notice a lot of 'coincidences' and to disregard them. I think. 

If I understood your explanation, you were saying that as we are level It would appear to be in a straight line in that it is horizontal.  This explanation was lacking for me. I think you would expect to see it get larger and smaller as it transits the horizontal. You would also expect to see features at a different angle as the it moves across your perspective. 

[Seal]

13 minutes ago, limpid said:

Rotation isn't measured as a speed.

The earth rotates once per day. It's the same value however close to the poles you get. It can't rotate at different speeds based on latitude, that would be insane.

As it is tidally locked. the moon rotates once per its orbit which is around 28 days, that's about 12 degrees per day. I've no idea where you've got 2000mph from.

 

Like I said, I took 2,000mph from my head. I can't  remember where from. I have just googled, it says 2,288mph. 

https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/176--How-fast-does-the-Moon-travel-around-Earth-#:~:text=The Moon orbits Earth at,(3%2C683 kilometers per hour).

In my post, I said, "admittedly much slower as you head to the poles' so yes I had taken into account. Even allowing for it being at a guess 200 mph in the UK, then I contend it would not work. 

 

[limpid]

7 minutes ago, Seal said:

Like I said, I took 2,000mph from my head. I can't  remember where from. I have just googled, it says 2,288mph. 

Ah, you mean that the moon has an orbital velocity of 2000mph. You said "The moon rotates at 2000 mph" which is utterly wrong.

8 minutes ago, Seal said:

In my post, I said, "admittedly much slower as you head to the poles' so yes I had taken into account. Even allowing for it being at a guess 200 mph in the UK, then I contend it would not work. 

The Earth rotates at exactly the same "speed" at all latitudes; once per day. Your concept of how rotation is measured is utterly wrong.

This isn't even GCSE level science.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

This thread typifies the problem with conspiracy theories. 

99% of academics who work in the space industry have no doubt that humanity put a man on the moon. 

Nothing you can say will make me think they are wrong and conspiring with others to hide the truth. 

Equally, some people will always believe in the 1%.  

There have been some excellent posts on here regarding the moon landings.  People who really know their stuff have posted excellent explanations. 

I have found it incredibly interesting. 

[Seal]

5 minutes ago, limpid said:

Ah, you mean that the moon has an orbital velocity of 2000mph. You said "The moon rotates at 2000 mph" which is utterly wrong.

The Earth rotates at exactly the same "speed" at all latitudes; once per day. Your concept of how rotation is measured is utterly wrong.

This isn't even GCSE level science.

Luckily science is based upon the reality of things not on the words used to describe them then. That isn't even kindergarten levels of philosophy . Yes I meant the "velocity" it moves around the earth. And yes I have just been reading about rotational speed. It is interesting thanks. I don't see that it invalidates my actual point though. But if we use a different word for something does that effect the outcome? 

[Wainy316]

I think the moon landings are real, but I can't KNOW they are because I don't even know for sure if I'm real.