General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[sidcow]

48 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

ho have no question in their minds that god exists, despite there being zero proof.

That's bollocks mate. I saw him play a couple of hundred times. With my own eyes. 

Though it could have been a very very convincing video screen a couple of decades before high def was invented. 

It would have to be a box shaped video screen mind because my mate who sits in The Trinity also says he's seen him play although he's probably lying just for shits and giggles. 

[leemond2008]

**** sake, I **** hate it when I pop into a thread that is usually pretty quiet just to see what is popping and then realise that in the few days I haven't checked it shit has gone bat shit cray cray and now I'm going to have to go back 10 pages to catch up on the shenanigans 

[Follyfoot]

2 hours ago, Xela said:

Prove it

I thought you wrote sea-gulling at first, which has completely different connotations according to Urban Dictionary. 

 

Is it anything like space docking?

[Seal]

15 hours ago, blandy said:

Here's a thing. And it's a thing about your thinking that I don't really understand.

It goes like this. Once upon a time, we all lived in caves and, well, since those days, things have moved on a bit. We're now in a world where there's, as you mention satellite images. There's satellite TV, Satellite Communications, GPS/GNSS. All these space programme things - you don't seem to doubt these exist, nor the space Shuttle, nor the international space station.

So the thing I don't get is believing the conspiracy theories about there being no moon landings. You'll happily accept that a signal from earth can be directed at a relatively small object in space and then that satellite re-transmit the signal it receives down to earth. GPS satellites, for example are not geo-stationary - they are orbiting earth far more rapidly than the moon is, yet, you have a problem believing reflectors on the moon could be beamed at, because the moon is going so fast, in (your understanding).

You take an interest in space travel and stuff, and must be aware of the advances that have allowed astronauts to dock to the ISS and astronauts to space walk. So what is it that leads you to believe that "well, yes, we can dock a spacecraft to an orbiting space station, but we haven't managed to land one on the moon. And astronauts (obviously) have returned to earth from the space station.

I basically don't get how you are seemingly happy to accept the technology and capability exists and is used for all these things, but that it isn't (to you) credible that basically the same types of technology and travel are not credible  insofar as the moon is concerned.

People have provided all kinds of evidence and information regarding the moon landings, and surely critical thinking runs along the lines of "I know there are space station, Space shuttle Apollo rockets, astronauts, docking in space, space suits worn in outer space, the ability to hit a fast traveling tiny satellite with a RF beam from earth... that stuff is what 80, 90 % of the way to landing on the moon... There's independent evidence of moon landings....and then on the other hand there are a bunch of debunked theories and conspiracies, none written or proposed by anyone of any credible background or credentials...I know, I'll believe the non-credible ones over the weigth of evidence I know to be real, plus other evidence from the same "authority" that I know has put satellites up there and space shuttles and Apollos...

Still, each to their own

Sometimes if we encounter something that seems paradoxical, by virture of paradoxes not really being able to exist if reality is as presented, they can quite easily be navigated by checking our assumptions. 

You have assumed a lot of things about what is in my head. 

I think maybe I haven't explained the difference when I accept something is possible, vs accept something is real. I will also accept things on the basis that I don't really have a valid reason to not accept them.

I take an interest is space. I like looking at celestial bodys. Don't really have much interest in humans adventures in space. 

People have provided all kinds of evidence and I have responded to my thoughts on that in most instances. May have missed a few. I must admit to not finding a lot of it compelling. Debating over a flag or pole or shadow on a particular photo is not really that important when the entire breadth of the documentation appears ridiculous - to my perception. The landscapes. The videos. The movements. The technology. The narrative. The body languages. The inconsistencies. All of it looks ridiculous - to my perception.  I appreciate this is entirely subjective, as is anyones perception. I am not really worried about changing others perceptions.

One could argue all day about whether the photos from nasa of an overshoe years after other photos are the same or not, but at the end of the day - for me - it takes a huge suspension of reality and belief to accept that the below video is remotely real and not staged. To my mind and perception it is laughable.

 

This isn't the only shot. Literally the entire breadth of the adventure is riddled with - to my eyes flimsiness and inconsistencies. So the evidence needs to be a lot lot stronger than you have provided. I know you think it is strong evidence, but to be honest, I don't agree.

And if I were writing your point, I would have started it with, "Once upon a time, maybe, we all lived in caves..."

[Seal]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

So the link to pages of pages of evidence from independent scientists, pace agencies, amateur scientists, colleges etc didn’t count?

yeah - it was pretty weak. I guess technically it 'counts' but I thought it was mostly quite weak.

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, Seal said:

yeah - it was pretty weak. I guess technically it 'counts' but I thought it was mostly quite weak.

Can you explain why you thought it was weak?

At this point it seems obvious that there is absolutely nothing that can convince you it happened.

There is heaps and heaps and heaps of evidence that it did. You've stated you don't believe that because it all comes from NASA and you don't trust them (why you don't trust them is unclear given the "lies" you think they told have mostly all been debunked)
Any evidence you've put forward that it didn't happen has been debunked.
You've asked for, and received, pages and pages of third party evidence from independent space agencies, scientists, astronomers etc; yet your only response is "it's weak"

What exactly would you like to see?

 

It appears there is nothing but blind faith holding you to this view. Faith in what, I'm not exactly sure. But nothing you are saying or believing is backed up by any evidence. You're literally just hanging your hat on incredulity. Which as explained by others, is really weird seeing as you accept that the technology to achieve a moon mission is there.

[sharkyvilla]

3 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter

 

Sealioning - Wikipedia

Can't be a coincidence surely?  

[Stevo985]

15 minutes ago, Seal said:

Sometimes if we encounter something that seems paradoxical, by virture of paradoxes not really being able to exist if reality is as presented, they can quite easily be navigated by checking our assumptions. 

You have assumed a lot of things about what is in my head. 

I think maybe I haven't explained the difference when I accept something is possible, vs accept something is real. I will also accept things on the basis that I don't really have a valid reason to not accept them.

I take an interest is space. I like looking at celestial bodys. Don't really have much interest in humans adventures in space. 

People have provided all kinds of evidence and I have responded to my thoughts on that in most instances. May have missed a few. I must admit to not finding a lot of it compelling. Debating over a flag or pole or shadow on a particular photo is not really that important when the entire breadth of the documentation appears ridiculous - to my perception. The landscapes. The videos. The movements. The technology. The narrative. The body languages. The inconsistencies. All of it looks ridiculous - to my perception.  I appreciate this is entirely subjective, as is anyones perception. I am not really worried about changing others perceptions.

One could argue all day about whether the photos from nasa of an overshoe years after other photos are the same or not, but at the end of the day - for me - it takes a huge suspension of reality and belief to accept that the below video is remotely real and not staged. To my mind and perception it is laughable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=190s 

So, again, it all comes down to incredulity, as I touched on above.

Basically "I don't think that's possible and therefore it never happened"

16 minutes ago, Seal said:

This isn't the only shot. Literally the entire breadth of the adventure is riddled with - to my eyes flimsiness and inconsistencies.

Like what?

Every inconsitency you've put forward has been very easily debunked. Some of it you're choosing to ignore, which is your prerogative, but so far you have provided literally zero inconsistencies that haven't been explained away with very basic science. 

If it is riddled with inconsistencies then you should be able to give us loads. 

And "this footage looks a bit weird" doesn't cut it. 

[NoelVilla]

So what do we think? Did the moon landing happen or not?

[fruitvilla]

6 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Can't be a coincidence surely?  

I don't know. Intentional? A cry for help? A coincidence? Hypothetically of course about the behaviour of sealioning.

[Mark Albrighton]

4 minutes ago, NoelVilla said:

So what do we think? Did the moon landing happen or not?

I still don’t believe that Oswald acted alone when he walked on the moon.

[Davkaus]

Now we've reached an impasse on the moon landings, can we delve a bit deeper into this view that Russia and America are on the same team, collaborating to pull the wool over all of our eyes?  

 

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Now we've reached an impasse on the moon landings, can we delve a bit deeper into this view that Russia and America are on the same team, collaborating to pull the wool over all of our eyes?  

 

First time he alluded to that was the point I checked out of believing it might be a genuine discussion.

[Davkaus]

17 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

First time he alluded to that was the point I checked out of believing it might be a genuine discussion.

While sceptical, I think we can rest assured that the case is going to be pretty compelling given the standard of evidence considered subpar for demonstrating the truth of the Apollo missions.

[Chindie]

Everyone knows the moon landing conspiracy peddling is just the acceptable front for other really absurd beliefs so best to get digging on those veins for the real gold.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Chindie

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Here's a quick summary according to me. 

Moon Landings - Real. Ample strong evidence.  Not challenged by the USSR at the time or Russia since.  Far too many people involved over such a long period to maintain a conspiracy. 

Flat Earth - False. Nonsense.  Idiocy.  

JFK -  Killed by Oswald. He was the only active shooter.  He was clearly involved with USSR/USA government agencies. These agencies did not assist him to kill JFK. The evidence was tampered with by law enforcement who were desperate for a conviction and others trying to hide Oswald's connections.  Ruby killed him to shut him up under coercion from others.  

Princess Di -  Died in a car accident where the press pack contributed by chasing the vehicle. Had she worn a seat belt she would have walked away.  The driver was an informant to French security services. At least 1 of the chasing press mob was actually undercover law enforcement. 

There is a group of rich pedophiles who are protected by the establishment  -  True.  Its hard to deny when there are so many proven examples.  But its not a massive club with a membership list and an annual conference in a hollow volcano.  It's several groups of rich and powerful people working together to protect themselves. 

COVID - An accidental release from a Chinese experiment.  Many profited from the vaccines but they worked. The long term effects are not known.  The lockdown saved lives in the short term but may have cost lives in the long term. 

Boris Johnson.  - A very clever man pretending to be stupid.  He wanted his performance during COVID to become the modern equivalent of Churchill in WW2.  He thinks he can lie his way out of any problem.  He eventually got found out.  Dangerous. 

David Icke - Makes a nice living from peddling unprovable theories.  A small amount of his guesses have proven correct.  But he conveniently ignores his guesses that proved to be absolute twaddle.  A clever man taking money from the gullible. 

Donald Trump -  Says things that make his followers feel good.  Portrays his followers as being "true patriots" and anyone opposing him as a fraud.  A stupid mad pretending to be clever.  Dangerous. 

[luckyeddie]

47 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Here's a quick summary according to me. 

Moon Landings - Real. Ample strong evidence.  Not challenged by the USSR at the time or Russia since.  Far too many people involved over such a long period to maintain a conspiracy. 

Flat Earth - False. Nonsense.  Idiocy.  

JFK -  Killed by Oswald. He was the only active shooter.  He was clearly involved with USSR/USA government agencies. These agencies did not assist him to kill JFK. The evidence was tampered with by law enforcement who were desperate for a conviction and others trying to hide Oswald's connections.  Ruby killed him to shut him up under coercion from others.  

Princess Di -  Died in a car accident where the press pack contributed by chasing the vehicle. Had she worn a seat belt she would have walked away.  The driver was an informant to French security services. At least 1 of the chasing press mob was actually undercover law enforcement. 

There is a group of rich pedophiles who are protected by the establishment  -  True.  Its hard to deny when there are so many proven examples.  But its not a massive club with a membership list and an annual conference in a hollow volcano.  It's several groups of rich and powerful people working together to protect themselves. 

COVID - An accidental release from a Chinese experiment.  Many profited from the vaccines but they worked. The long term effects are not known.  The lockdown saved lives in the short term but may have cost lives in the long term. 

Boris Johnson.  - A very clever man pretending to be stupid.  He wanted his performance during COVID to become the modern equivalent of Churchill in WW2.  He thinks he can lie his way out of any problem.  He eventually got found out.  Dangerous. 

David Icke - Makes a nice living from peddling unprovable theories.  A small amount of his guesses have proven correct.  But he conveniently ignores his guesses that proved to be absolute twaddle.  A clever man taking money from the gullible. 

Donald Trump -  Says things that make his followers feel good.  Portrays his followers as being "true patriots" and anyone opposing him as a fraud.  A stupid mad pretending to be clever.  Dangerous. 

That is my take on all of this except the highlighted. I would call him educated, privileged, connected and arrogant. He plays down his intelligence, but his actions have been pure stupidity, as a man with his advantages should succeed. I know there are many types of clever, but he doesn't fall into any of them for me, just an attention seeking grifter.

[fightoffyour]

"The moon landing looks ridiculous, so it didn't happen."

So does St. Andrews, but it still exists.

[Follyfoot]

2 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

"The moon landing looks ridiculous, so it didn't happen."

So does St. Andrews, but it still exists.

Barely

 

[luckyeddie]

5 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

"The moon landing looks ridiculous, so it didn't happen."

So does St. Andrews, but it still exists.

And neither has an atmosphere