General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, Seal said:

i disagree that it proves such a thing. Occams razor is like an indicator. A theory if you will, perhaps best usable as a rule of thumb. Not more than that. For me occams razor suggests the apollo missions never went to the moon. 

You have also not responded to a number of points I have made. I assume similarly to me, that this has just become a bit of a messy thread there have been a lot of questions/points/comments fired my way. I have missed it. Later I will go and find it and give a response.

I'll ask you again.  Why would they fake it? For what purpose?

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, Seal said:

I understand your analogy. The issue for me is if the moon is also reflecting light. And sunlight is of a similar frequency to the photons. How are these photons of a similar frequency disambiguated? At optimal output sunlight is of a similar frequency that the apollo laser experiment was juicing out. I appreciate that it could be that there is a difference. And how then could the same effect be achieved before there was a reflector. As such I think it is an incorrect analogy because relative to each other the earth and the moon will be moving at speeds that would make not only hitting the target far more difficult but getting any results back from the target. I could get on board, a little more, if the targets were still. I am assuming ambient green light has 532nm, and sunlight 500nm at optimum output. A bit of a difference, still within the same broad wavelength. So essentially the moon is aglow with similar photons to what you are sending out. MAybe it is possible, but I doubt it. I don't see how they could filter out one (or a small amount) or photons, from a far larger amount of the same wavelenght?

Furthermore, I would like to know where you have seen evidence of such an experiment since it can only be done by great expense and in certain places? If you haven't how can you be sure that the results are actually just results? Or just things that are published? 

I don't think you fully understand my analogy (that might be my fault, I'm not blaming you) - I (tried to) cover the question of reflected light (and even direct light) from sources that aren't the reflector. This was the part where I said there are other folks chucking all different coloured tennis balls (some green, like "ours". Some are throwing the balls at the wall and they're bouncing off the wall at various angles, a few might hit the bin. Some are throwing the balls away from the wall, and some might go in the bin. Most will be different colours to our green ones. Some will be the same. Sunlight isn't a similar frequency to the laser, it's white light - all the frequencies, not just one spot frequency. So most of it is "other coloured balls" that we can spot and eliminate as "false returns". But yeah some of it will be at exactly the same frequency as our 532nm wavelength light (if that's the wavelength you want to cite). So that's where the bit I wrote about noise floor comes in. The bit about doing the bin test, but not throwing any balls yourself - the amount you collect when not throwing yourself - that's the background light. But when you know how many balls that is, and then you start throwing your own, the bigger number that then appear in the bin - the difference between the two numbers - that's how many of  "your"  balls bounced back to the bin. Further, because you have the bin lid/gate that's only open when you're expecting your own balls back, a lot of reflected light from other objects or places or angles will never get into the bin as it will take a different length of time to get to the bin than for a direct line between the ground laser and the moon reflector and back. 532 and 500 nm are different wavelengths and they can be discriminated apart.

The moon is aglow with light from the sun, reflected down to earth, to our eyes and instruments - that sunlight has travelled from the sun to the moon and then on to us. That light is across the spectrum - not just visible light by the way, but also IR and UV light. While our gate is open and given we've got a filter that only accepts light ina narrow band, most of it doesn't trouble the detector. What we're looking for is an increase in detected light at 532nm at the time (+2.4 secs) we send out each laser pulse. As each received photon can be detected, and as we can plot the time each one arrived we can discern laser returns from background noise.

The pointing stuff and angular velocity we already covered a couple of days ago. It's really (in engineering and science terms) quite a simple principle and implementation. I've done it myself (or been the engineer responsible for systems that do the same thing, in my actual job). We had an aircraft (without a human on board) the aircraft had a navigation system on it (GPS etc), so it had it's known position. It sent that positional data down to the ground station over a radio link(s). The ground location had been surveyed so that we had an absolutely precise defined location. At that location we had directional motor steered antennas. The ground received the aircraft position, a computer calculated the reverse vector to the aircraft and output a signal to a rotor controller. The rotator controller drove a motor to steer the antenna to point at the aircraft, so as the aircraft flew about the antenna constantly tracked the aircraft position. The rate of change of angle for the aircraft from the ground station was far greater than the rate of change of angle of the moon from a point on earth.

OK, so we were using radio signals not laser signals, but exactly the same would have applied if we were using lasers to pass the data to and from the aircraft. Of course the receivers on the ground would get RF noise from all kinds of other nearby RF sources, but you know what - you can tune kit to ignore other frequencies - same principle as the laser we're talking about. It's like you can tune your TV to BBC 1 and it doesn't show you BBC2 when you do, or a mix of stuff from all the different channels - even humans can do it with our eyes - we can tell a green traffic light from a red traffic light or an orange one (unless you drive a Vauxhall Nova, in a baseball hat with very loud music blaring out, that somehow renders people colour-blind to traffic lights).

[Stevo985]

After my explanation and Blandy‘S excellent analogy, I’m not sure how you could not understand it unless you were doing it on purpose to be honest

[mjmooney]

By the loveliest of coincidences, this, on Facebook, just now: 

[villa4europe]

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

I'll ask you again.  Why would they fake it? For what purpose?

That's the most obvious thing about it all imo

The cold war and American superioty that's the purpose

The wheres and how's then get far more complicated but the why is simple

And let's face it the yanks did a whole lot of crazy stuff for that reason

[TheAuthority]

6 hours ago, mjmooney said:

By the loveliest of coincidences, this, on Facebook, just now: 

Now I need to who Roman Szwaba is and their username on VT!

[Seal]

12 hours ago, sidcow said:

I'll ask you again.  Why would they fake it? For what purpose?

Sorry - I missed this before. I don't know. To think something is false does not require you to know why something was falsified..

[Seal]

12 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't think you fully understand my analogy (that might be my fault, I'm not blaming you) - I (tried to) cover the question of reflected light (and even direct light) from sources that aren't the reflector. This was the part where I said there are other folks chucking all different coloured tennis balls (some green, like "ours". Some are throwing the balls at the wall and they're bouncing off the wall at various angles, a few might hit the bin. Some are throwing the balls away from the wall, and some might go in the bin. Most will be different colours to our green ones. Some will be the same. Sunlight isn't a similar frequency to the laser, it's white light - all the frequencies, not just one spot frequency. So most of it is "other coloured balls" that we can spot and eliminate as "false returns". But yeah some of it will be at exactly the same frequency as our 532nm wavelength light (if that's the wavelength you want to cite). So that's where the bit I wrote about noise floor comes in. The bit about doing the bin test, but not throwing any balls yourself - the amount you collect when not throwing yourself - that's the background light. But when you know how many balls that is, and then you start throwing your own, the bigger number that then appear in the bin - the difference between the two numbers - that's how many of  "your"  balls bounced back to the bin. Further, because you have the bin lid/gate that's only open when you're expecting your own balls back, a lot of reflected light from other objects or places or angles will never get into the bin as it will take a different length of time to get to the bin than for a direct line between the ground laser and the moon reflector and back. 532 and 500 nm are different wavelengths and they can be discriminated apart.

The moon is aglow with light from the sun, reflected down to earth, to our eyes and instruments - that sunlight has travelled from the sun to the moon and then on to us. That light is across the spectrum - not just visible light by the way, but also IR and UV light. While our gate is open and given we've got a filter that only accepts light ina narrow band, most of it doesn't trouble the detector. What we're looking for is an increase in detected light at 532nm at the time (+2.4 secs) we send out each laser pulse. As each received photon can be detected, and as we can plot the time each one arrived we can discern laser returns from background noise.

The pointing stuff and angular velocity we already covered a couple of days ago. It's really (in engineering and science terms) quite a simple principle and implementation. I've done it myself (or been the engineer responsible for systems that do the same thing, in my actual job). We had an aircraft (without a human on board) the aircraft had a navigation system on it (GPS etc), so it had it's known position. It sent that positional data down to the ground station over a radio link(s). The ground location had been surveyed so that we had an absolutely precise defined location. At that location we had directional motor steered antennas. The ground received the aircraft position, a computer calculated the reverse vector to the aircraft and output a signal to a rotor controller. The rotator controller drove a motor to steer the antenna to point at the aircraft, so as the aircraft flew about the antenna constantly tracked the aircraft position. The rate of change of angle for the aircraft from the ground station was far greater than the rate of change of angle of the moon from a point on earth.

OK, so we were using radio signals not laser signals, but exactly the same would have applied if we were using lasers to pass the data to and from the aircraft. Of course the receivers on the ground would get RF noise from all kinds of other nearby RF sources, but you know what - you can tune kit to ignore other frequencies - same principle as the laser we're talking about. It's like you can tune your TV to BBC 1 and it doesn't show you BBC2 when you do, or a mix of stuff from all the different channels - even humans can do it with our eyes - we can tell a green traffic light from a red traffic light or an orange one (unless you drive a Vauxhall Nova, in a baseball hat with very loud music blaring out, that somehow renders people colour-blind to traffic lights).

I understood your analogy. It was fine. It is correct in showing your point.

However, analogies are by their nature quite limited. And there are reasons why I disagree that the analogy you are making actually reflects what is said to be seen in reality. The sun gives off all of the electromagnetic spectrum and we know that the experiment, without a reflector could be achieved before there "was said" to be a reflector on the moon. We have also know that there are plenty of other reasons, including - updated theories - that are said to be responsible, plus looking into it it it looks like the ways the data received is processed is via matters such as residual analysis, which involves including predicted data to get your actual data vs measured data. Whilst I appreciate there is a purpose for this, it also isn't quite the best way, and is certainly a method of data analysis associated with, y'know. Fudging (when your data is from taking data versus a model or measured outcomes, you are on quite shaky grounds that could lead into the realms of making stuff be how you want it, you can even use it to incorporate updated theories into the actual result) . The problem with the analogy as you have said is not that its internal logic doesn't make sense, but more in that the menu is not the meal, their main use is to explain something. Your analogy could be made more realistic by, having moving walls, and moving throwers. There is a difference between the plane and the moon situation. A few hundred miles, but also that it is commonly replicated and we can see that it is being done and one is a rather ludicrous notion which has never really been replicated outside of a few locations using a very shaky methodology. 

Principles are not evidence that something has happened. Nor are diagrams. Extraordinary claims - like that there is a laser reflecting something on the moon - are often said to require extraordinary proof. I am not sure of the universal correctness of this claim, but I feel it applies for me here. Experiments were achievable before a reflector. Experiment is quite hard to believe occur, I think I will stick to the side of being sceptical until the logic (not the internal logic of your analogy but the logic of the nature of the results, the history of the explanation, and a clarity of what the results show is given). Don't forget that models don't always - more often than not - describe reality. Being able to draw a diagram of how something works is very different from it actually working how you say.

Nonetheless, it isn't proof, as we have discussed that the apollo missions went to the moon, and that we can agree on.

[villa4europe]

38 minutes ago, Seal said:

Sorry - I missed this before. I don't know. To think something is false does not require you to know why something was falsified..

I disagree, I think "why?" is a huge question and actually the most interesting question

I've got no interest in the science side of the conspiracy or the how but have a huge interest in the history side of the conspiracy

same with the likes of JFK, how the cia and mafia teamed up to kill him isn't as interesting as why they did it

[Seal]

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

After my explanation and Blandy‘S excellent analogy, I’m not sure how you could not understand it unless you were doing it on purpose to be honest

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think that have a diagram of how something can happen is proof that it has happened. Recall an earlier part of this discussion. You pointed out the effect of perspective on the size of the continents. What you said was correct. However it didn't correlate to the images I showed you. In this instance, you and Blandy have provided an explanation.

Nonetheless, it is not evidence the apollo missions went to the moon.

The main question I feel you haven't answered - although I appreciate that you have clearly been comprehensive in your replies, I did not mean to indicate otherwise - is for evidence that we went to the moon that doesn't rely on the word of an authority?

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think that have a diagram of how something can happen is proof that it has happened. Recall an earlier part of this discussion. You pointed out the effect of perspective on the size of the continents. What you said was correct. However it didn't correlate to the images I showed you. In this instance, you and Blandy have provided an explanation.

Nonetheless, it is not evidence the apollo missions went to the moon.

The main question I feel you haven't answered - although I appreciate that you have clearly been comprehensive in your replies, I did not mean to indicate otherwise - is for evidence that we went to the moon that doesn't rely on the word of an authority?

what such evidence would suffice out of interest? as someone else has said, it's like you would need to be physically taken there yourself to believe it

[Seal]

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I disagree, I think "why?" is a huge question and actually the most interesting question

I've got no interest in the science side of the conspiracy or the how but have a huge interest in the history side of the conspiracy

same with the likes of JFK, how the cia and mafia teamed up to kill him isn't as interesting as why they did it

I agree it is a very interesting question and agree, the most interesting. However I do not know why, I am just saying that you do not need to know why something happened to think that what happened is false. 

I have heard ideas. But none really stand out for me.

[Seal]

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

what such evidence would suffice out of interest? as someone else has said, it's like you would need to be physically taken there yourself to believe it

That would be really good evidence to be honest. Scepticism does not always need to be stifled I am happy being sceptical. To be clear I haven't been arguing no one has been to the moon, but that the apollo missions didn't go there. I have no knowledge of what I don't know so cannot preclude the possibility that someone ahs been to the moon in an unpublicised way - although I feel this is unlikely, I would never hang my hat on that.

So I guess to answer your question. I would like the evidence to come from a source that isn't the person making the claim. It would need to be stronger to my reason and intuition than the ample holes and inconsistencies in the current body of evidence.

[tomav84]

4 minutes ago, Seal said:

I agree it is a very interesting question and agree, the most interesting. However I do not know why, I am just saying that you do not need to know why something happened to think that what happened is false. 

I have heard ideas. But none really stand out for me.

surely the 'why' is a big factor in whether you believe a theory though? like if there was any real belief that it was faked, that russia would be shouting it from the rooftops that they did not in fact lose the space race

they didn't though, they conceded defeat, because they did indeed lose

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

That would be really good evidence to be honest. Scepticism does not always need to be stifled I am happy being sceptical. To be clear I haven't been arguing no one has been to the moon, but that the apollo missions didn't go there. I have no knowledge of what I don't know so cannot preclude the possibility that someone ahs been to the moon in an unpublicised way - although I feel this is unlikely, I would never hang my hat on that.

So I guess to answer your question. I would like the evidence to come from a source that isn't the person making the claim. It would need to be stronger to my reason and intuition than the ample holes and inconsistencies in the current body of evidence.

but there have been various scientists etc that haven't made the claim, that are not employed by NASA and are not in any way affected by whether we went there or not. there's an entire page on the royal museums greenwich that debunks the theories. why would they care if the moon landings were faked or not? they don't...they're not the ones claiming we landed on the moon...they're just providing the information to debunk the theories

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

Sorry - I missed this before. I don't know. To think something is false does not require you to know why something was falsified..

That's bollocks mate. You're spouting on about critical thinking. Motivation to do something hugely elaborate that costs billions and billions has to form part of your questioning. 

[villa4europe]

13 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

surely the 'why' is a big factor in whether you believe a theory though? like if there was any real belief that it was faked, that russia would be shouting it from the rooftops that they did not in fact lose the space race

they didn't though, they conceded defeat, because they did indeed lose

which to me also answers one of the bigger questions around them being faked - why hasnt anyone done it since or isnt doing it now?

its because the pissing contest has finished 

[sidcow]

8 hours ago, villa4europe said:

That's the most obvious thing about it all imo

The cold war and American superioty that's the purpose

The wheres and how's then get far more complicated but the why is simple

And let's face it the yanks did a whole lot of crazy stuff for that reason

Yeah, I don't see anyone authorising billion upon billion of dollars and taking away thousands of top science brains and facilities for decades just for a bit one one upmanship. 

They'd have been better spending more money on extra spies and better weapons. 

And believing that successive presidents with different regimes including different parties would have all agreed to continue the sham and expenditure is frankly laughable. 

 

[villa4europe]

13 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Yeah, I don't see anyone authorising billion upon billion of dollars and taking away thousands of top science brains and facilities for decades just for a bit one one upmanship. 

They'd have been better spending more money on extra spies and better weapons. 

And believing that successive presidents with different regimes including different parties would have all agreed to continue the sham and expenditure is frankly laughable. 

I'd argue they entered at least 2 wars, dropped 2 atomic bombs, instigated who know how many coups around the world, killed their own president and flooded their own country with coke for the same reason as to why they put a man on the moon...so take your pick as to whether or not going to the moon was a pissing contest they spent billions on or was something they were willing to fake

but to me the "why?" part of it is definitely there, there's reason to fake it, the scale of the "how?" drives a bus through it though, its too big a lie

and the vietnam war cost more than the moon landings, their ability to chuck money at the red peril was definitely there

[Seat68]

Minion "Mr President, we want to beat the Russians to the Moon"

JFK "Why?"

Minion "Because of there not really being a cold war, but also a cold war"

JFK "OK, So before I sign up to this, whats the current national debt?"

Minion "280 billion dollars Sir"

JFK "and the cost of this?"

Minion "It will run to about 25 billion dollars"

JFK "To beat the Russians?"

Minion "Yes Sir"

JFK "To just go to the moon?"

Minion "Well no sir, the cost will be to build a sound stage in California to pretend we went to the moon."

JFK "Sign me up."