General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[A'Villan]

Here's a bit of a conundrum for you. What's worse and slightly amusing given the hell I've been through is that I can prove this..

Moon landing. Vaccinations. Computers. Lasers.

All were known and accounted for when the English language entered the world as we know it. If you think language was developed organically, think again.

Edit: That's me getting a little carried away there. Forgive me it's been undeniably present throughout my adult life (conspiracy). When I elaborate on what I've mentioned to give context and support my claims, I'd be interested to see the reactions.

Edited September 19, 2023 by A'Villan

[Seat68]

Based on this thread I may start taking @Stevo985s posts seriously from now on. Great posts.

[Seat68]

2 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Here's a bit of a conundrum for you. What's worse and slightly amusing given the hell I've been through is that I can prove this..

Moon landing. Vaccinations. Computers. Lasers.

All were known and accounted for when the English language entered the world as we know it. If you think language was developed organically, think again.

They were adopted, adopted words. They weren't created wating for the right thing to come along.

[A'Villan]

Just now, Seat68 said:

They were adopted, adopted words. They weren't created wating for the right thing to come along.

It's 1am, I've had a long day. This conversation excites me now that I am not in the midst of it all and aside from from scars I'm okay in my book. Until the morning or tomorrow after the day's over I'm going to shut-up.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

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? 

But the words are important. The rotation of the moon is so different to it's orbital velocity that it completely changes the discussion.

The laser emissions used are diffracted more than enough by our atmosphere that aiming roughly at the moon is likely sufficient to hit a reflector. The further diffraction of the 800km distance to the moon and back and through the atmosphere again means that no more than a very small number of photons will make it back to the receiver. Luckily when can measure the frequency (and polarisation) of those photons incredibly accurately to confirm that they are from the same laser and allow the measurement of the delay. The speed of the moving bodies is rendered irrelevant by the parameters of the test.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Seal said:

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)

They didn't travel in the Space shuttle. The Apollo missions were in, er, Appollos. They were cramped for room.

 

2 hours 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. 

It absolutely is plausible. Obviously in today's world we have huge irrefutable evidence that "stuff" can be remotely controlled with extreme accuracy - whether you're talking about hobby drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft/UAVs, deep water search vehicles looking for shipwrecks, or examples like Mars Rover. So then the only question is what does it actually entail, and could they do that back then?

So here's (simplified a little) what it entails. There needs to be a camera. The camera needs a motor to drive it's angle (and another for focus, too maybe, or it could be set to a particular focal length suitable for the distance it would need top be positioned in). The camera would need a RF (radio) link to receive commands - today the commands would be digital, back then they would be analogue [increase the voltage go up, decrease the voltage go down, or positive DC go up, negative go down, or frequency modulated - higher frequency go up, lower frequency go down...etc.]. The Camera output would need to be also sent via RF. Again, these days it's digital, back then it was analogue - like terrestrial TV. Absolutely the technology was available to do send and receive camera images. There was TV back then, as we know. There were remote controlled planes (for hobbyists) back then. So the only thing left is the distance. RF signals have something called free space path loss which is a function of distance traveled [squared] - The signal doesn't really disappear, or be attenuated, but it spreads out - imagine the spray from a hose pipe nozzle - if you are close to the hose, you're gonna get drenched. As you move further away you are hit by a smaller slice of the jet from the hose. Unlike water, RF radiation doesn't fall to the ground after a few feet, it keeps on going, just getting thinned out. The solution to the thinning out, is either to start with more transmitter power, or to have a more sensitive receiver, or to have an antenna which captures more of the spread out RF energy - this is why the dishes at Jodrell Bank and other radio telescopes are effing massive. Google a picture of NASA antennas at Houston to see what I mean. So large antennas on the ground can capture tiny signals from space. Going the other direction, it's not practical to have huge antennas, or high transmitter power to send back to earth, but luckily earth can send very large signals from very high gain antennas, meaning enough signal gets to the moon for even a small antenna to pick it up.

That's the basic theory and it's all old. Modern stuff uses digital techniques to get more data onto an RF signal, which means more data in less time, but to control a motor to move a camera needs very little data - it's like the difference between 1960s black and white TV, and modern UHD digital TV - whether terrestrial or Satellite -  A small dish on your roof can pick up signals from Satellite's up in space , or a small antenna on your roof can pick up a signal from the transmitter miles away.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

Tachyonic comms are IN

I can do RF comms. Quantum is waay beyond my understanding.

[blandy]

On 19/09/2023 at 14:26, 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)?

Just seen this question. The antennas from the ground are directional. What that means is [simplified explanation again] like this: If you take say an antenna on a car that receives radio signals - that's called a monopole antenna and it has a radiation pattern which is like a ring donut - radiation from 360 degrees horizontally and none from directly above or directly below vertically - this is ideal for a receiver (or a transmitter) not knowing at any one moment where the other end of the link is. The disadvantage for a transmitting system is that your energy is spread out all round that 360 degrees. But if you know where the other end is, you can using a sector antenna, focus the energy to all go in a narrow beam (pointed, in this case, at a small area of the moon). The difference between what the person on the (in this case the moon) receives from a sector antenna compared to what they receive from a [isotropic - omnidirectional] antenna is what's called antenna gain. It doesn't actually amplify the signal, it just points it all in a narrow beam, but the downside is that if you're not in the beam, you see no signal. So unless there were other radios in the line of sight of the beam to the moon (and there weren't, because the beam was pointed up at the moon, not towards the ground) then no amateur radio folk would see or detect any signal.

In the other direction - transmissions from the moon to the ground, as I said in my earlier post, these would be much lower power than those from the ground upwards. So by the time they got to earth, unless you had a massive eff off dish pointing at the moon, you'd also not be able to detect them unless you had a high gain directional antenna, knew where to point it at what frequencies to tune to, which for most people would be extremely unlikely.

Finally, there's the frequency used. Radio frequency is regulated by people like OFCOM in the UK, ACMA in Australia and the FCC is the US. Various parts of the spectrum are allocated to various uses - the police and ambulance, TV, Music and speech radio, Radar, military, Air traffic control, Mobile phones and so on. NASA has its own part (not looked at what frequency they were allocated back then), but it's unlikely that "normal" kit to operate in that part of the spectrum would be even available to the general public [could be wrong, I'm just brain dumping here, not googling - Radio stuff and remote control links and so on is part of my CV].

[Seal]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

They didn't travel in the Space shuttle. The Apollo missions were in, er, Appollos. They were cramped for room.

 

It absolutely is plausible. Obviously in today's world we have huge irrefutable evidence that "stuff" can be remotely controlled with extreme accuracy - whether you're talking about hobby drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft/UAVs, deep water search vehicles looking for shipwrecks, or examples like Mars Rover. So then the only question is what does it actually entail, and could they do that back then?

So here's (simplified a little) what it entails. There needs to be a camera. The camera needs a motor to drive it's angle (and another for focus, too maybe, or it could be set to a particular focal length suitable for the distance it would need top be positioned in). The camera would need a RF (radio) link to receive commands - today the commands would be digital, back then they would be analogue [increase the voltage go up, decrease the voltage go down, or positive DC go up, negative go down, or frequency modulated - higher frequency go up, lower frequency go down...etc.]. The Camera output would need to be also sent via RF. Again, these days it's digital, back then it was analogue - like terrestrial TV. Absolutely the technology was available to do send and receive camera images. There was TV back then, as we know. There were remote controlled planes (for hobbyists) back then. So the only thing left is the distance. RF signals have something called free space path loss which is a function of distance traveled [squared] - The signal doesn't really disappear, or be attenuated, but it spreads out - imagine the spray from a hose pipe nozzle - if you are close to the hose, you're gonna get drenched. As you move further away you are hit by a smaller slice of the jet from the hose. Unlike water, RF radiation doesn't fall to the ground after a few feet, it keeps on going, just getting thinned out. The solution to the thinning out, is either to start with more transmitter power, or to have a more sensitive receiver, or to have an antenna which captures more of the spread out RF energy - this is why the dishes at Jodrell Bank and other radio telescopes are effing massive. Google a picture of NASA antennas at Houston to see what I mean. So large antennas on the ground can capture tiny signals from space. Going the other direction, it's not practical to have huge antennas, or high transmitter power to send back to earth, but luckily earth can send very large signals from very high gain antennas, meaning enough signal gets to the moon for even a small antenna to pick it up.

That's the basic theory and it's all old. Modern stuff uses digital techniques to get more data onto an RF signal, which means more data in less time, but to control a motor to move a camera needs very little data - it's like the difference between 1960s black and white TV, and modern UHD digital TV - whether terrestrial or Satellite -  A small dish on your roof can pick up signals from Satellite's up in space , or a small antenna on your roof can pick up a signal from the transmitter miles away.

By shuttle I was referring to the Apollos. They were cramped for room. 

I doubt that the radio link would be able to have an effect to the moon. At least to that kind of accuracy to enable a rocket taking off to be followed. Whilst I agree it is remotely plausible I think a more logical explanation is that they faked the takeoff. Then people pointed out something, then they made an explanation to explain it, particularly when combined with the other glaring oddities in what is frankly a ridiculous video. The insane level of accuracy needed to control that camera manoeuvre is beyond what I think is realistically possible bearing in mind scabbly signals, and the time it takes radio waves to travel plus other factors. 

I note that the video also shows some zooming out. Which sure is possible. But again, I think it adds to the overall complexity.

[Xann]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

... waay beyond my understanding.

You poor thing.

That's the mind control. We all see it, when you come over all unnecessary.

We will strike back for you.

We'll await on the Mount Of Olives for the Messiah to lead us.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

I doubt that the radio link would be able to have an effect to the moon. At least to that kind of accuracy to enable a rocket taking off to be followed. Whilst I agree it is remotely plausible I think a more logical explanation is that they faked the takeoff. Then people pointed out something, then they made an explanation to explain it, particularly when combined with the other glaring oddities in what is frankly a ridiculous video. The insane level of accuracy needed to control that camera manoeuvre is beyond what I think is realistically possible bearing in mind scabbly signals, and the time it takes radio waves to travel plus other factors. 

I note that the video also shows some zooming out. Which sure is possible. But again, I think it adds to the overall complexity.

I guess my explanation may not be good enough. I could use the "trust me, I'm someone whose job has involved doing pretty much the same stuff as we're talking about" line, but then again you don't know whether I'm telling the truth, so I won't expect you to trust my explanations. I wouldn't expect you to want to use https://scholar.google.com/ to verify how and why radio links and stuff are fine over long ranges or the techniques involved, as you'd probably either explode your head, or fall asleep, but I've no doubt the truth is out there....

 

[Davkaus]

Surely pretty much any sophisticated technology developed in recent decades, that weren't obvious to people long before then, that require a degree of experimentation, research, advanced engineering or other specialist knowledge is equally implausible.  It's not more logical to dismiss things because you don't understand the work that went into making them possible - and that's not a dig that you don't understand them, most of it goes over my head as well, but that doesn't mean it's "logical" to instead decide it was faked.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Davkaus

[Seal]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

Just seen this question. The antennas from the ground are directional. What that means is [simplified explanation again] like this: If you take say an antenna on a car that receives radio signals - that's called a monopole antenna and it has a radiation pattern which is like a ring donut - radiation from 360 degrees horizontally and none from directly above or directly below vertically - this is ideal for a receiver (or a transmitter) not knowing at any one moment where the other end of the link is. The disadvantage for a transmitting system is that your energy is spread out all round that 360 degrees. But if you know where the other end is, you can using a sector antenna, focus the energy to all go in a narrow beam (pointed, in this case, at a small area of the moon). The difference between what the person on the (in this case the moon) receives from a sector antenna compared to what they receive from a [isotropic - omnidirectional] antenna is what's called antenna gain. It doesn't actually amplify the signal, it just points it all in a narrow beam, but the downside is that if you're not in the beam, you see no signal. So unless there were other radios in the line of sight of the beam to the moon (and there weren't, because the beam was pointed up at the moon, not towards the ground) then no amateur radio folk would see or detect any signal.

In the other direction - transmissions from the moon to the ground, as I said in my earlier post, these would be much lower power than those from the ground upwards. So by the time they got to earth, unless you had a massive eff off dish pointing at the moon, you'd also not be able to detect them.

Finally, there's the frequency used. Radio frequency is regulated by people like OFCOM in the UK, ACMA in Australia and the FCC is the US. Various parts of the spectrum are allocated to various uses - the police and ambulance, TV, Music and speech radio, Radar, military, Air traffic control, Mobile phones and so on. NASA has its own part (not looked at what frequency they were allocated back then), but it's unlikely that "normal" kit to operate in that part of the spectrum would be even available to the general public [could be wrong, I'm just brain dumping here, not googling - Radio stuff and remote control links and so on is part of my CV].

 

 

Okay. That is interesting stuff. However, if it was via radio there would be more of a delay that what there is. I'd guess four or five seconds minimum (however there is a few second delay in radio between two ships on the same ocean anyway so without being an expert I would expect more). Yet that does not show in the recording. There are some gaps, but taking into account that there is a few second delay. Sure it may have been edited, but I again I would have doubts, and their sign off at the end of the call is pretty much instantaneous. 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Seal
jsut added a bit

[blandy]

2 hours 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.

What's important here is not the speed measured in miles per hour or whatever, but the rate of change of angle between two points, one fixed on earth, and one fixed on the moon.

If you look up at the sky, at night you can see the moon travel across the sky, it's motion is discernable in real time as it moves across the heavens and you can easily follow it for hours on end - you don't have to turn your head much or quickly - and it's the same with an antenna pointed at the moon - it doesn't need to be steered at any fast rate at all to keep "on target". But then there's the factor that the moon is spinning on its own axis, which means that we're seeing a changing face of the moon as we track it, but we never see the dark side of the moon, because it rotates at the same speed around its own axis as it does around the earth (tidally locked, as Simon said) - it completes one full 360 degree turn on its axis in the same time it takes to circle round the Earth. That means the same side is always turned toward us, and it's on that side that the astronauts landed (or pretended to land, if you wish). So that's why mph speed is irrelevant here.

[chrisvilla4]

Give it up @seal you're never going to survive. 

Oh, hold on.

[Seal]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

What's important here is not the speed measured in miles per hour or whatever, but the rate of change of angle between two points, one fixed on earth, and one fixed on the moon.

If you look up at the sky, at night you can see the moon travel across the sky, it's motion is discernable in real time as it moves across the heavens and you can easily follow it for hours on end - you don't have to turn your head much or quickly - and it's the same with an antenna pointed at the moon - it doesn't need to be steered at any fast rate at all to keep "on target". But then there's the factor that the moon is spinning on its own axis, which means that we're seeing a changing face of the moon as we track it, but we never see the dark side of the moon, because it rotates at the same speed around its own axis as it does around the earth (tidally locked, as Simon said) - it completes one full 360 degree turn on its axis in the same time it takes to circle round the Earth. That means the same side is always turned toward us, and it's on that side that the astronauts landed (or pretended to land, if you wish). So that's why mph speed is irrelevant here.

Yes. But is there not a significant rate of change angles, that would be very difficult for a laser positioned adhoc decades ago. To maintain a position able to reflect lasers back. Taking account of things like the orbital precession and that the moons orbit is apparently change slightly over time. Would make a laser become redundant very quickly. 

Bearing in mind that the lunar refracting experiment was achievable before anyone went to the moon - allegedly - who is to say it is even the reflectors causing the effect?

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Seal said:

Okay. That is interesting stuff. However, if it was via radio there would be more of a delay that what there is. I'd guess four or five seconds minimum (however there is a few second delay in radio between two ships on the same ocean anyway so without being an expert I would expect more). Yet that does not show in the recording. There are some gaps, but taking into account that there is a few second delay. Sure it may have been edited, but I again I would have doubts. 

Thanks. I haven't (ever) looked at whatever images or video you're talking about, I'm just typing about how radio works and video and stuff. Radio waves travel at the speed of light (300,000,000 metres per second or just under to be a bit more precise). As I posted earlier, there's also processing speed - it takes a very brief additional time for a radio to process the signal it's recieved and demodulate it and output a command (a voltage or other signal). WIth modern kit that time is incredibly fast. With old analogue kit it may be slightly slower, but as I said the full loop of ground operator - moon - moon action - back to the ground operator is somewhere around 3 seconds. With ships at sea it isn't that long. It depends a little on what RF link they're using - radio waves travel in straight lines at higher frequencies from VHF upwards. At lower frequencies they will also hug the earth's curvature - this is why and how radio amateurs and maritime traffic and so on used HF radios (before satcom was invented). Further radio waves will bounce off the ionosphere, particularly at night leading to multipath propagation - the thing which used to (if you're old enough) bugger up radio reception at night for radio luxembourg - fading in and out as signal cancelled each other out and interfered negatviely and positively....anyway, er, ships. there's a delay at distance, but nowhere near the same as that to the moon. A tenth of a second sees RF travel 30,000 kilometers, or 3/4 of the way round the earth. More realistically at sea and even 3,000 km you're looking at 1/100th of a second, plus processing speed.

[Paddywhack]

Genuine question @Seal, I’m not taking the Michael.

If all your questions and doubts got answered and you determined there was enough evidence that the moon landing wasn’t faked, would you be disappointed?

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Seal said:

But is there not a significant rate of change angles, that would be very difficult for a laser positioned adhoc decades ago. To maintain a position able to reflect lasers back. Taking account of things like the orbital precession and that the moons orbit is apparently change slightly over time. Would make a laser become redundant very quickly. 

Bearing in mind that the lunar refracting experiment was achievable before anyone went to the moon - allegedly - who is to say it is even the reflectors causing the effect?

OK. We've moved away from radio not working now, and lasers aren't my thing in the same way. But as I understand the science the rate of change of angles thing - no it's exactly the same factor for a laser as a radio dish antenna (only with less margin for pointing error - the rate of change of angle is not too fast to deal with - like I said you can just use your eyes and look at the moon in the sky - it doesn't whizz along, it travels slowly across the sky at night The laser pointing system just needs to track the moon same as us with our eyes. It obviously needs to be super steady, and will be mounted on (I imagine) an ultra stable foundation to eliminate the effect of vibrations from heavy traffic, all kinds of stuff. So then "all" you need is a really really precise type of motor drive and bearings and no "play" in the bushes (Kenny) etc. plus knowing exactly where the spot your aiming at will be at each moment. Fortunately we do. While the moon doesn't follow to the micrometer exactly the same path on each orbit, we know exactly where it will be in a years time, 10 years time and so on, at any moment - so as long as you programme that very very gradual change into the steering algorithm, all's good.

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, Seal said:

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.

Astronauts boots don't match the footprints. 

Astronauts wore boot covers

Those covers do match the footprints.

 

I'm not sure what else you need explaining

 

3 hours ago, Seal said:

 

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.

No you wouldn't. Only if those photos were taken from exactly the same distance

 

3 hours ago, Seal said:

 

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?

There are lots of examples of a photo of earth from space. Nobody has ever said otherwise

Here's one

Here's another one

The problem is they don't look great when you're trying to show the entire earth really clearly as a whole. That's why many of the popular photos of the earth that are all bright colours and you can see everything clearly are made from composites. The two things are independent. Nobody said there are NO photos of the earth that aren't composites

3 hours ago, Seal said:

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. 

But when you're only evidence for something not happening is "I don't believe that could happen", and the evidence for the other side of the debate is actual evidence and science, it's not really a good look is it?

3 hours ago, Seal said:

 

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. 

You are failing to account for size. The earth and the moon are **** enormous. That section of orbit is tiny in comparison to the whole thing. So you probably do see it get closer and the features change but the change is so tiny because of the scale that it is imperceptible

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985