What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[PittyKitty]

You don't know what it means then.
Demoralization,in Yuri Bezmenov's words,is "A mass brainwashing technique that aims to obfuscate your perception of reality". It does this by overloading the individual with useless information to subdue their ability to identify the current threat. Bullshit psyops like flat earth and "moon landing isn't real!1!!" are useless information; spread around in order to hide the actual truth under a muddy veil of retardation.

Oh, so this is why we need our overlords to censor that shit and keep us informed with the right kind of information, not thst demoralising, useless one. Its all for our own good.
We wouldn't want you to even think that something can go against mainstream narrative.

Discussing even the stupidest idea gives you the joy of ecploring the thought experiment of "what if?". No one is scared about those, not unless there's something to hide.

The right to discuss even the stupidest idea is the universal right.

Edit:fuck spelling.

 

[FlamingPie]

Here's a bonus breadcrumb for you to follow on your own: check out the distance on the alleged Van Allen Belts. Notice anything odd there? Even using their own retarded lying ways - how in the fuck did astronauts in the 60s (let alone trying it today) freely zoom right through that kind of radiation?

They insulated the ship to protect the astronauts from radiation and timed it so that when they launched, the belts were at their lowest intensity.

 

[L50LasPak]

Ignoring the topic itself for a moment, you actually bring up something that I'm not sure anyone has addressed throughout the thread. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but overall I have personally found the exploration of conspiracy quite freeing. Very much the opposite of demoralizing, in fact.

Its generally considered wise to be wary of euphoria.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Its generally considered wise to be wary of euphoria.

Euphoria can be incredibly dangerous and is often the precursor to making poor decisions. When we're in a state of euphoria, we tend to let our guard down and become less cautious than usual. This can lead us into all sorts of trouble, both personally and financially. For example, people who are feeling euphoric may make impulsive purchases or take risks that they wouldn't normally take. They may also neglect their health or well-being in pursuit of whatever it is that's making them feel so good. In short, euphoria is something to be avoided if at all possible.

 

[teriyakiburns]

They admit over, and over, and over, that it's impossible for us to get out of low earth orbit (not even mentioning their hilarious excuses for why we don't "go back" to the moon). Low earth orbit is only 2,000km out, whereas NASA claims the moon is over a hundred times further away than that. If we can't get out of low earth orbit, then how in the shit did we ever get to the moon? Lol?

The manned craft currently in general use aren't capable of getting to the moon because they don't have enough fuel and life support. It's a design issue, not an "it's physically impossible" issue. We've been sending probes to the moon since the 1960s without issue.

That aside, the easiest way to debunk the fake moon landing hypothesis is this: each of the moon landings had live broadcasts for long periods of time. Broadcasting a fake landing live would be an inordinate risk, because everything that can go wrong in a live broadcast will, in fact, go wrong. That would mean pre-recording it, which then bumps up against the limits of the recording technology available. At the time, magnetic video recording was still in its infancy, and digital video was a pipedream which leaves film as your only source.

Film is limited by reel size. The larger the reel, the more you can record. The largest reels in common use at the time were 10 inch, which could hold about 600 feet of film, or between 50 and 60 minutes. Larger reels existed, but were rarely used, because the risk of breakage increases almost exponentially as you increase the size of a film reel.

So you have to record your moon landing on film. The apollo 11 crew spent about 2 and a half hours wandering around on the moon. That's two and a half reels of film, requiring two reel changes during the broadcast. Now, this is where the whole thing falls apart: reel changes are very obvious. Even without the necessary reel change markers on the film (necessary for the operators to know when to change the reels), the jump at a reel change is pretty obvious. This is normally mitigated by putting the reel change across a scene or shot change, which allows the jump to be hidden, but apollo 11 only had a single video camera recording the entire lunar excursion.

 

[Fek]

The manned craft currently in general use aren't capable of getting to the moon because they don't have enough fuel and life support. It's a design issue, not an "it's physically impossible" issue. We've been sending probes to the moon since the 1960s without issue.

Well, to stop at the most pressing issue: probes aren't people. I have issues with probes in general, but not the place for that convo.

That aside, the easiest way to debunk the fake moon landing hypothesis is this: each of the moon landings had live broadcasts for long periods of time. Broadcasting a fake landing live would be an inordinate risk, because everything that can go wrong in a live broadcast will, in fact, go wrong.

I'm not sure how broadcasting a fake landing on the ground here on Earth would somehow be more risk-prone than supposedly beaming it back from supposedly hundreds of thousands of kilometers away?

That would mean pre-recording it, which then bumps up against the limits of the recording technology available.

Again, I'm not sure why they'd need to have it pre-recorded simply because they were faking it? We're probably going to talk right past each other on that one for the moment.

I do quite appreciate you discussing this in good faith. If you want to challenge your beliefs on the matter, I'd suggest something like the following:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KJLXicUoUTgm/

It's a bit on the longer side (40ish mins), but you will have plenty of official NASA footage/photos presented and reviewed. Since you're very convinced of the footage authenticity, then perhaps challenging your views on that might convince you of some farcical footage? I would challenge literally anyone to watch that and not come away with some doubts of the official narrative, frankly.

 

[L50LasPak]

I'm not sure how broadcasting a fake landing on the ground here on Earth would somehow be more risk-prone than supposedly beaming it back from supposedly hundreds of thousands of kilometers away?

The risk involved here is that any imperfection in the film recording such as dust, noticeable film grain, splicing marks, etc, would have a chance to appear, immediately signaling that the broadcast was faked to anyone even remotely experienced in film. Given that this was the 1960s, just about everyone who worked in the TV or film industry at the time was intimately familiar with the imperfections of film would be able to notice right away if there were issues.

A digital camera does not have this problem.

Again, I'm not sure why they'd need to have it pre-recorded simply because they were faking it?

It would need to be pre-recorded because the technology to accurately fake low gravity conditions using stuntmen and wire work was and to this day remains unreliable. A live broadcast relying on finicky trapeze and wires is completely out of the question, even if your stunt team was trained and drilled perfectly the equipment itself is still capable of numerous mechanical malfunctions and often the wires would be plainly visible without the benefit of being able to touch up the footage.

Therefore, pre-recording the ordeal would be the only way to shoot in the required slow motion needed to simulate artificial gravity, or at the very least even if you assume the magically perfect wire stunts scenario the film would still need to be pre-recorded so the effects team could touch it up to hide the wires that would be at least faintly, if not plainly visible in the shots.

some doubts of the official narrative

The United States of America is a violent, murderous country with a bodycount that is fathoms long and a very storied history of shady activity that has been used to justify all sorts of nefarious actions both against other nations and its own people. It is generally not difficult to get most people to doubt any of its official narratives. The arguments presented here however remain poor and unconvincing.

 

[Blackhole]

If we can't get out of low earth orbit, then how in the shit did we ever get to the moon? Lol?

Because we lost the fucking technology to do so you fucking sewer goblin holy shit.

 

[Meriasek]

Considering the source is the same bullshit artists making the claims in the first place (NASA), I'd be hard-pressed to trust their images. But let's give it the benefit of the doubt for a moment, shall we? Let's assume we did, in fact, end up on the moon.

Let's walk through some of NASA's own claims for a moment. This is super easy for any normie to check on their own. First, let's start with some official NASA-approved statements:
View attachment 3422884

They admit over, and over, and over, that it's impossible for us to get out of low earth orbit (not even mentioning their hilarious excuses for why we don't "go back" to the moon). Low earth orbit is only 2,000km out, whereas NASA claims the moon is over a hundred times further away than that. If we can't get out of low earth orbit, then how in the shit did we ever get to the moon? Lol?

Here's a bonus breadcrumb for you to follow on your own: check out the distance on the alleged Van Allen Belts. Notice anything odd there? Even using their own retarded lying ways - how in the fuck did astronauts in the 60s (let alone trying it today) freely zoom right through that kind of radiation?

And that's just a couple out of a fucking dizzying amount of evidence to the contrary of their farcical moon landing claims (you should check out the official photographs that were allegedly taken from up there). I'm telling you guys: If you just go exploring this shit on your own, you will ultimately be left wondering how you ever believed their lies in the first place. NASA shot themselves in the proverbial foot to the point where there's no foot left. They bent over backwards so hard that they lodged their head right up their own ass and are choking for air.

They can't leave LEO with manned vehicles right now because there aren't any rockets suitable for that anymore. It's an engineering and more so an economical problem, not a physical problem. The Saturn V used in the Apollo program was incredibly expensive and large, and there simply wasn't any use for such machines in the past decades since the Apollo program. After the moon race, why go beyond LEO? All the significant research can be done there, and dV requirements can be kept at a much more reasonable level, meaning that payloads can be increased and the whole thing becomes a lot cheaper.
Also, how long do you think the Apollo astronauts spent in the Van Allen Belt?
Look, if you're gonna explore shit on your own, at least make sure you have even a passing knowledge of scientific fundamentals, like doses and how the various types of radiation work, and how large the Van Allen Belt(s) is/are compared to the overall distance travelled.

 

[Bonesjones]

See we lost the technology to go there, even though we have 3 fully complete rockets left over. This makes total sense to total fucking idiots only.

 

[DD214BRUH]

See we lost the technology to go there, even though we have 3 fully complete rockets left over. This makes total sense to total fucking idiots only.

We have leftover examples, yes. The ability and skilled workforce to recreate them? Fuck no.

 

[Bonesjones]

We have leftover examples, yes. The ability and skilled workforce to recreate them? Fuck no.

We have 5 and 6 axis CNC Machines that can make 100 perfect copies in the time it would take someone in the 60s to make 1. There's literally nothing we can't do better, faster, cheaper today than 60 years ago. You could literally take it apart piece by piece, laser scan a 3d model of each part and make a higher quality version. You could make as many as you want, you could open source release it and any billionaire could have an army remake 1000 of them.

 

[Fek]

Because we lost the fucking technology to do so you fucking sewer goblin holy shit.

We have leftover examples, yes. The ability and skilled workforce to recreate them? Fuck no.

Alright, let's run with that for a moment. Why not just follow this train of thought: Have they ever explained it to you in a satisfactory manner? Is it..rocketry technology? Telemetry data? Radiation shielding? What technology is missing that would have existed in the 60s and yet somehow be difficult for us to replicate in the present, exactly?

Also, how long do you think the Apollo astronauts spent in the Van Allen Belt?

Exactly zero hours, zero minutes, and zero seconds..because they never went to Luna, fren.

Look, if you're gonna explore shit on your own, at least make sure you have even a passing knowledge of scientific fundamentals, like doses and how the various types of radiation work, and how large the Van Allen Belt(s) is/are compared to the overall distance travelled.

Well, gee whiz. Guess I'm the dumb-dumb then. Man, a lot of you guys really can't help yourselves in resorting to personal attacks or "holier-than-thou" commentary, can you? Fine, here's someone with a big boy brain. He's a super fancy "NASA Engineer". So If he can say this shit here:

Is he then also just a simpleton who doesn't know what he's talking about? Listen closely around 3:05. Listen even closer around 3:37. Have any super intelligent commentary for that one? Are we right back to the "we lost the technology" excuse again?

Did you know the galaxy-brains at NASA "lost" a fuck load of the Apollo missions footage/photos? Did you know that includes the original "Moon landing" footage? Does that sound like something you'd do with honest-to-goodness authentic human accomplishments?

Did you know Google put on a big event to get other super big-brained people together to make unmanned space vehicles which could "go back" to the Moon, only for NASA to dash a lot of these people's dreams of ever seeing proof of NASA's bullshittery by getting a no-fly zone established over their supposed fucking "landing sites"?

Like what will it take for people to see there's something not quite right going on, here?

immediately signaling that the broadcast was faked to anyone even remotely experienced in film.

Funny you should mention that! If you want the super-autistic in-depth hot take on the videos and photos taken, I've got just the thing:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/leOF00pXCS0I/

Three and a half hours of pure triple-filtered grade A 'tism. A lot of it is world-renowned photographers very, very well-versed in lighting/etc checking out "Moon" photos/videos and demonstrating how ridiculous they are. These photographers are not even conspiracists; they're simply very experienced professionals giving their opinions. Most of them are old enough to have worked with the technology present during the Apollo missions, too, so they can't even be written off for that. If you'd like to skip to the part where they get involved and ignore the rest of the evidence as presented (I know most reading this will hardly give this the time of day, let alone hours of their time), then simply skip to 2:16:36.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

I begin to wonder if Ukrainian president Zelensky's real intentions was to revive Khazaria? There was lots of conspiracies theories about the Khazars and here a new one on the table.

https://www.eutimes.net/2022/04/there-might-be-a-plan-to-rebuild-khazaria-as-zelensky-says-ukraine-will-become-big-israel/

There might be a plan to remake Khazaria in Ukraine, the homeland of the fake Jews which Jesus warned about. There are several tips in the Israeli media to show this but to top it all off, Zelensky himself the Jewish president of Ukraine said that Ukraine will become “big Israel”.

In order to do this though they need to completely empty the land of Ukraine of all of its inhabitants and resettle all Jews in Israel to Ukraine. Remember the word “might” though. This is NOT a fact. This is just speculation, a possibility, but again, NOT A FACT! Only time will tell if this will happen or not.

IF this is true, then this is why they needed this fake war, to remake Big Israel and to force the women of Ukraine to flee to neighboring countries. Some fled further to Germany, UK, dreaming about raining with money from the sky but they will find soon that life will be better in the “backwards” East Europe as West will completely collapse due to upcoming hyperinflation and mass famine....

....And here’s the report from the RT about Zelensky declaring Ukraine “Big Israel”:

President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that Ukraine will look to Israel for inspiration concerning its future security arrangements, arguing that an “absolutely liberal” Kiev is now “impossible” after Moscow’s attack in late February.

Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, the president said security would be the “number one” issue for Ukrainians for the next decade, even going so far as to forecast a lasting armed military presence in the streets.

There's also one video on the subject. https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ze981tbWlwy1/

 

[Dom Cruise]

The truth about the Moon landing is we only did it because it was a testing ground for technology that was then applied to nuclear missiles, tech they wanted to develop and test anyway so why not add a "for the good of mankind" scientific mission on top for the propaganda reasons during the height of the cold war?

But we went to the Moon, the "Moon landing was faked" stuff is nonsense, I like you @Fek and you're right not to trust the government, but sometimes paranoia can go too far and make you believe ridiculous things.

The reason we haven't been back is because there's literally no incentive to spend the time and money to do so, there's nothing to be gained militarily, if NASA acts weird about it sometimes that's probably why, they don't want people to realize it only happened for military reasons, not scientific, we haven't "lost" the the technology in a literal sense, we could go back if we REALLY wanted to, but we have no real reason to, at least in the government's eyes.

Please don't tell me that makes a lot more sense than they were somehow able to perfectly "fake" footage and photographs of the literal fucking Moon in the 1960s and there isn't a single smoking gun tell that it's "fake", landing on the Moon is a pretty wild achievement, but Occam's razor would tell us that given what we know about filmmaking especially in the 1960s that the idea they could so perfectly "fake" footage, that anyone would even be crazy enough to have thought such an endeavor would even be possible and actually tried it even though failure would have made the government look really fucking bad at the height of the cold war is laughable, it's a laughable concept.

It would take an inhuman level of talent and precision to "fake" the footage that people would be "convinced" with for over half a century, it's simply not possible, literally landing on the fucking Moon is a more plausible scenario than saying the footage was "faked".

 

[Bonesjones]

The truth about the Moon landing is we only did it because it was a testing ground for technology that was then applied to nuclear missiles, tech they wanted to develop and test anyway so why not add a "for the good of mankind" scientific mission on top for the propaganda reasons during the height of the cold war?

But we went to the Moon, the "Moon landing was faked" stuff is nonsense, I like you @Fek and you're right not to trust the government, but sometimes paranoia can go too far and make you believe ridiculous things.

The reason we haven't been back is because there's literally no incentive to spend the time and money to do so, there's nothing to be gained militarily, if NASA acts weird about it sometimes that's probably why, they don't want people to realize it only happened for military reasons, not scientific, we haven't "lost" the the technology in a literal sense, we could go back if we REALLY wanted to, but we have no real reason to, at least in the government's eyes.

Please don't tell me that makes a lot more sense than they were somehow able to perfectly "fake" footage and photographs of the literal fucking Moon in the 1960s and there isn't a single smoking gun tell that it's "fake", landing on the Moon is a pretty wild achievement, but Occam's razor would tell us that given what we know about filmmaking especially in the 1960s that the idea they could so perfectly "fake" footage, that anyone would even be crazy enough to have thought such an endeavor would even be possible and actually tried it even though failure would have made the government look really fucking bad at the height of the cold war is laughable, it's a laughable concept.

It would take an inhuman level of talent and precision to "fake" the footage that people would be "convinced" with for over half a century, it's simply not possible, literally landing on the fucking Moon is a more plausible scenario than saying the footage was "faked".

Or you just get it 90% right and have everyone in your already established news departments release PR statements supporting how real it is. Then, decry and demonize anyone who says anything differently. Only a crazy conspiracist would say it didn't happen! Haha look I bet he thinks the world is run by lizard people like these other plants we give credence to! What an idiot. Why no we refuse to offer physical proof that it ever happened. It's just lost or destroyed! We debunked that.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Or you just get it 90% right and have everyone in your already established news departments release PR statements supporting how real it is. Then, decry and demonize anyone who says anything differently. Only a crazy conspiracist would say it didn't happen! Haha look I bet he thinks the world is run by lizard people like these other plants we give credence to! What an idiot. Why no we refuse to offer physical proof that it ever happened. It's just lost or destroyed! We debunked that.

It makes zero sense why the government would take such a massive risk at the height of the cold war on something that could potentially sour the world and the American people on the US government and lose us said cold war, for what? Why would we do that? The propaganda benefits do not outweigh the risks.

It also seems literally impossible for filmmaking to fake something even 90% right without an obvious smoking gun, seems literally impossible to me, landing on the Moon seems more possible.

What does make sense is to say we wanted to test out missile technology, we thought it was possible to get to the Moon and didn't want the Russians to beat us to it for how bad it would make us look, so we decided to do it, why not when there's obvious military and propaganda benefits at the height of the cold war? If we fail, we can at least gloat about trying and at least gain valuable military data again, at the height of the cold war.

We haven't been back in a while because there's not been such an obvious benefit to spend the amount of money, expend the amount of effort and risk the potential failure since.

Also, do people not realize we went more than once, so you're telling me not only did they "fake" footage once at least "90% right" but did so multiple times and there's no smoking gun? They really wanted to risk it MULTIPLE times? Come the fuck on now.

Strapping your ass to a fucking rocket ship and blasting off to the fucking Moon is a lot more possible than that, what's supposed to be so hard to believe that it happened? A lot of conspiracy theories are true but this is an instance where it's impossible.

To be fair it's no surprise these conspiracy theories have happened because the government has lied so much and given us little reason to trust anything they say, that's fair, but thinking about this subject logically you realize the conspiracy theory simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Bonesjones]

The Russians did think we faked it but you don't know that because you listen to the government telling you the opposite.

The original moon broadcast was a rebroadcast. They projected the supposed moonlanding and the various news corps filmed that. The decrease in quality would hide many small flaws or hiccups if they appeared. You'd know this if you listened to anything other than mainstream news.

Von Braun himself said they'd need a rocket about 100x larger than the ones we used to get to the moon. He's just an idiot though.

You do know that each successive moon landing corresponds directly in time to bad news in Vietnam? It was a publicity stunt to have people not lose faith in America. There's also many inconsistencies between the items that they supposedly shipped to the moon and the items used in the footage. A big one I remember is the moon scooter wheels being entirely different.

Its certainly possible we did go to the moon or atleast shot rockets onto it for whatever purposes, but the moon landing as shown in popular culture and as we know it, is entirely a fabricated PR stunt. Whether that means in part or in whole, its impossible to prove.

 

[Ukraine is Big Gay]

I have no strong opinion or other on the moon landing except for I think it's weird that not a single solitary soul amidst playing golf and singing on the moon wanted to test how high they could jump in low gravity in the footage. Especially given the natural born hu'white male drive in youth to jump and slap the top of any doorframe to see if they can.

 

[PittyKitty]

The truth about the Moon landing is we only did it because it was a testing ground for technology that was then applied to nuclear missiles, tech they wanted to develop and test anyway so why not add a "for the good of mankind" scientific mission on top for the propaganda reasons during the height of the cold war?

But we went to the Moon, the "Moon landing was faked" stuff is nonsense, I like you @Fek and you're right not to trust the government, but sometimes paranoia can go too far and make you believe ridiculous things.

The reason we haven't been back is because there's literally no incentive to spend the time and money to do so, there's nothing to be gained militarily, if NASA acts weird about it sometimes that's probably why, they don't want people to realize it only happened for military reasons, not scientific, we haven't "lost" the the technology in a literal sense, we could go back if we REALLY wanted to, but we have no real reason to, at least in the government's eyes.

Please don't tell me that makes a lot more sense than they were somehow able to perfectly "fake" footage and photographs of the literal fucking Moon in the 1960s and there isn't a single smoking gun tell that it's "fake", landing on the Moon is a pretty wild achievement, but Occam's razor would tell us that given what we know about filmmaking especially in the 1960s that the idea they could so perfectly "fake" footage, that anyone would even be crazy enough to have thought such an endeavor would even be possible and actually tried it even though failure would have made the government look really fucking bad at the height of the cold war is laughable, it's a laughable concept.

It would take an inhuman level of talent and precision to "fake" the footage that people would be "convinced" with for over half a century, it's simply not possible, literally landing on the fucking Moon is a more plausible scenario than saying the footage was "faked".

Wait are you saying it would more difficult to fake a video than fake a fucking moonlanding?