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

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Agreed with you but let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit with the whole "nobody could keep it quiet because there would've been too many" line.

You CAN effectively keep a conspiracy on that scale covered up for a long time if you take the decentralized cell approach where damn near everything is compartmentalized and only a tiny handful of guys at the very top have the full picture while most everyone else involved only does one or two things with no idea about the rest of the plan.

I don't think that happened with the Moon landing though.

How could they keep it quiet, to this day, with the KGB being aware it was fake?

 

[Syaoran Li]

How could they keep it quiet, to this day, with the KGB being aware it was fake?

I agree with you that it was real, but the idea is that if it would be fake that the plan would have to be extremely compartmentalized and decentralized to even have a chance of fooling the KGB. It'd be doable but very inefficient and excessively time consuming for a project that was already costly and immense.

Now a filmed faked moon landing to temporarily throw off any KGB infiltrators while the actual real moon landing happens is a lot more logical of an idea.

The Moon Landing we saw on TV and heard on the radio back in 1969 was very much real but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some filmed fake landing that's gathering dust in some archive.

 

[Certified_Autist]

How could they keep it quiet, to this day, with the KGB being aware it was fake?

Plus the massive amount of people that would've been required to keep it quiet is just mind boggling.

I will say this in the most respectful way possible. But every time there's a conspiracy discussion and someone claims that its impossible to "keep quiet" about something, it makes me MATI. Because when you say it can't be "kept quiet", you're saying people can't keep secrets, which is laughably false. Doubly so when the number of people keeping secrets is very small due to compartmentalized projects.

You CAN effectively keep a conspiracy on that scale covered up for a long time if you take the decentralized cell approach where damn near everything is compartmentalized and only a tiny handful of guys at the very top have the full picture while most everyone else involved only does one or two things with no idea about the rest of the plan.

That's been done before, with the Manhattan Project. Around one hundred thousand workers but compartmentalized to the point of secrecy. It was successful too, the project info didn't get out until the government announced it. A similar compartmentalization (to a much lesser extent) was done with the D-Day preparations as well.

I don't think that happened with the Moon landing though.

I agree with you that it was real, but the idea is that if it would be fake that the plan would have to be extremely compartmentalized and decentralized to even have a chance of fooling the KGB. It'd be doable but very inefficient and excessively time consuming for a project that was already costly and immense.

Such things have been done before, see above.

Now a filmed faked moon landing to temporarily throw off any KGB infiltrators while the actual real moon landing happens is a lot more logical of an idea.

That would serve no purpose.

The Moon Landing we saw on TV and heard on the radio back in 1969 was very much real but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some filmed fake landing that's gathering dust in some archive.

I can see the argument that the moon landing did happen since the Russians didn't question it, but I simply can't ignore things like clearly staged photographs. In many instances the shadows are all wrong, and the lack of a blast crater on the dusty surface is very odd. I'm open to the idea that the moon landing was fake, I'm also open to the idea that the moon landing did happen but the photos were fake/edited to hide something on the moon.

I'm also open to the idea that the NASA program is a front and the actual space program is much more advanced then is let on, as evidenced in Gary McKinnon's claims of what he saw when he hacked into Pentagon computers.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I will say this in the most respectful way possible. But every time there's a conspiracy discussion and someone claims that its impossible to "keep quiet" about something, it makes me MATI. Because when you say it can't be "kept quiet", you're saying people can't keep secrets, which is laughably false. Doubly so when the number of people keeping secrets is very small due to compartmentalized projects.

How would you fake the entire moon landing, though? You had hundreds of NASA engineers working on it. It'd be impossible for all those people to have never talked about it.

 

[Certified_Autist]

How would you fake the entire moon landing, though? You had hundreds of NASA engineers working on it. It'd be impossible for all those people to have never talked about it.

Its the same problem with lots of comspiracies. Either its compartmentalized and so few are in the know that no one talks, or whistleblowers come forward, but are ignored because they contradict the authorities.

Now as far as I know, no whostleblower has claimed the moon landings were fake (and Edward Snowden claims that he spent time snooping around government computers and couldn't find evidence it was fake). But a guy named Ken Johnston who worked for the Apollo program claimed that the moon landing was real, but the photos were edited because there were already structures on the moon, presumably from non-humans.

 

[L50LasPak]

Now as far as I know, no whostleblower has claimed the moon landings were fake (and Edward Snowden claims that he spent time snooping around government computers and couldn't find evidence it was fake). But a guy named Ken Johnston who worked for the Apollo program claimed that the moon landing was real, but the photos were edited because there were already structures on the moon, presumably from non-humans.

The main problem I have with this angle is that I don't think it would have been that difficult to just choose a landing site some distance away from the hypothetical inhabited parts of the moon. Obviously if the whole thing was covered in structures even people with backyard telescopes would be able to see that pretty clearly, so there must be at least some locations on the moon that are still empty and would make a fine location for the "moon is uninhabited" photoshoot.

There's ways this can be twisted and bent, like saying the astronauts were on a mission to visit some particular location, or the alternative was that the structures on the moon were instead a welcoming party of alien spacecraft that showed up just before the craft touched down, then left after a certain point and apparently left behind evidence they were there in the lunar soil. I'm still not really convinced by either of those scenarios since I feel as though some planning or creative photography on the part of the crew could have gotten the shots needed on the ground.

There's only so different the lunar landscape could possibly be from what we can get an idea of on the ground, unless you want to dredge up supertechnology like cloaking devices and holograms that can hide things from orbit but for some unstated reason cannot continue to hide those same objects on the ground. At that point though we've gone into a realm of speculation that's not only quite outlandish, but also devolves into speculating on the minutiae of what the exact limits of this hypothetical technology are (why does it work in orbit but not up close, etc).

 

[Mr Bunny]

You don't even need to fake something sometimes, just lie and if enough people believe it then it's the truth.
The 2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident, is proof of that, just make shit up and it's just as good as false flagging.

As for the moon landing being fake, this is the first I heard about the USSR saying that the US didn't do it, so I decided to ask the Russian posters on the site was that ever taught in schools or an official made statement by the government to its people.

They said:

 

[PittyKitty]

in Gary McKinnon's claims of what he saw when he hacked into Pentagon computers.

Sounds interesting. Can you tell a bit more?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

An acquaintance of mine is unironically way into alien shit. I don't dismiss the possibility, but the conversation steered into conspiracy theories generally. He told me Woodrow Wilson's wife took over presidential duties for him, and I didn't believe it, but apparently it's true.

It got me thinking; if they let a woman do that over a hundred years ago, maybe that's happening today. Everybody assumes it's Kamala or Obama stepping in (him joking about it is beyond suspicious, obviously), but I haven't heard anybody else suggest it could be Biden's wife. She was literally pulling him away from the press recently, and interrupted for him, so it seems she is the likeliest one who's pulling his strings.

 

[byuu]

That's been done before, with the Manhattan Project. Around one hundred thousand workers but compartmentalized to the point of secrecy. It was successful too, the project info didn't get out until the government announced it. A similar compartmentalization (to a much lesser extent) was done with the D-Day preparations as well.

You had multiple Sovjet spies successfully infiltrating the Manhattan Project.

 

[Bionicle of War]

That humans, modern, talking, social, civilization building humans, are older than the 10k or so years we're credited with.

The clock keeps getting pushed back in every other aspect of early hominin timelines and even we homo sapiens has been around 300k years but we're expected to believe we hung out doing not much except walking around and eating megafauna then within a short period of time 290k years later all across the world we got our shit together simultaneously.

Anyway, thought spurred on by this article about another early hominin dating being pushed way back

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/sterkfontein-caves-0016955#google_vignette

For what it's worth the Vedas document events which are supposed to have occured millions of years before the appearance of homo sapiens, and they still have human characters more or less the same as the people alive today. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find similar examples from other texts.

 

[Fek]

Wikipedo

I loled.

Counter idea, NASA is putting out "we can't do thing" is stop to people from getting them to do something overly expensive and was nothing more than a dick weaving contest between world powers.

I wish I could believe that. It gets really hard to deny what is presented before me time and time again, though. Like..I wonder if that's something that's just lost on a lot of people coming in here and being dismissive without context (note: this is not calling the quoted poster out): I don't know a single soul on the "pro-tinfoil" side of things who started out there. They were just an average joe presented with mountains of evidence on <topic> that could not be ignored.

whistleblowers come forward, but are ignored

Or straight up killed. Rip Gus Grissom. Wonder what his documents/diary that the CIA raided his house to obtain (before anyone even knew he was dead, I might add) had to say about what was going on at the time?

For what it's worth the Vedas document events which are supposed to have occured millions of years before the appearance of homo sapiens, and they still have human characters more or less the same as the people alive today. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find similar examples from other texts.

Researching ancient religious texts has been wild, man. It's astounding how much knowledge is tucked into them, and how much of it is correlated between 'em (especially or in spite of when they're worlds apart). Even the spoopy esoteric texts of the mystery schools have been interesting and further confirm many things. Way more fulfilling than pissing a night away on vapid entertainment. Do recommend.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

For what it's worth the Vedas document events which are supposed to have occured millions of years before the appearance of homo sapiens, and they still have human characters more or less the same as the people alive today. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find similar examples from other texts.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. Are you saying that the Vedas are accurate because they document events that happened millions of years ago? Or are you saying that other texts also have human characters that are similar to people alive today? Either way, I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[jorgoth]

The Uvalde shooting being followed so closely by the ruling allowing CBP to raid any house it wants within 100 miles of the border wasn't a mistake.

First you create this narrative that local police can't be trusted and the CBP can, then you give them enhanced policing powers. Sure, they don't own the whole country yet, but they can raid anything in the coastal and border cities, which is like >60% of the population and the most politically and economically significant.

 

[Bum Driller]

Sounds interesting. Can you tell a bit more?

Basically McKinnon claimed to have seen evidence that the US military has actually obtained an alien spacecraft somehow, and has managed to reverse-engineer it, and thus has several secret hyper-tech gadgets at their disposal.

Now, usually such things could be brushed aside as complete bullshit, but the legal case against McKinnon by the US government, and how it played out in the end is indeed quite suspicious. I don't know about UFO's, but I've a feeling that McKinnon obtained something through his hacking, something that is so fucking explosive that he could bargain with the interior ministry of the UK to not be sent to the States for sentencing, nor to be sentenced in Britain.

Just to put this into perspective: Neither Edward Snowden nor Julian Assange, both men who have been charged by the US goverment for exactly similar crimes have obviously not managed to obtain any secret information that is so important in the scale of things that they could've used it as a leverage to buy their own freedom. But McKinnon obviously has. Just think about that for a moment: what on Earth could such information be?

 

[Fek]

<snip>

Interesting. I'd never heard of this until now. Thanks for the info! I'll have to check that out sometime.

 

[TurdFondler]

Edit: heard about the airport being insane, with weird murals, statues and absolutely no sense in terms of architecture (huge and weird?)

That's the Denver airport. There's tons of info on it online but it's basically an open secret that it's got a nuclear proof command bunker underneath. The renovations went massively, MASSIVELY over budget but no one ever claimed fraud. They went through a lot of different contractors and compartmentalized the plans. There's talk of a subway line that runs to some nearby government office. The art is super creepy, definitely has those elite weirdo spiritualism vibes. There's a weird triptych that shows nuclear war and rebirth of society.

List of all in last few years, posted on 4chan

View attachment 3414436

Honestly I think this isn't as nefarious as it comes across as. I'd LOVE to see the year over year funding for the state fire and safety inspectors in those locations. A lot of these buildings were probably from the 80s or before, so they were probably not fully sprinkler, and if they were the system was at end of life.

If you stop watching industry retards for two fucking seconds they will do the most retarded shit possible like start illicit biodiesel plants, bypass safety equipment or just not turn off leaky sprinklers and never turn them back on ever.

 

[Bum Driller]

The main problem I have with this angle is that I don't think it would have been that difficult to just choose a landing site some distance away from the hypothetical inhabited parts of the moon. Obviously if the whole thing was covered in structures even people with backyard telescopes would be able to see that pretty clearly, so there must be at least some locations on the moon that are still empty and would make a fine location for the "moon is uninhabited" photoshoot.

There's ways this can be twisted and bent, like saying the astronauts were on a mission to visit some particular location, or the alternative was that the structures on the moon were instead a welcoming party of alien spacecraft that showed up just before the craft touched down, then left after a certain point and apparently left behind evidence they were there in the lunar soil. I'm still not really convinced by either of those scenarios since I feel as though some planning or creative photography on the part of the crew could have gotten the shots needed on the ground.

There's only so different the lunar landscape could possibly be from what we can get an idea of on the ground, unless you want to dredge up supertechnology like cloaking devices and holograms that can hide things from orbit but for some unstated reason cannot continue to hide those same objects on the ground. At that point though we've gone into a realm of speculation that's not only quite outlandish, but also devolves into speculating on the minutiae of what the exact limits of this hypothetical technology are (why does it work in orbit but not up close, etc).

The idea that there would be structures on the visible side of Moon is so easy to debunk with proof that believing such just betrays one's ignorance about astronomy in general. Just about every university with astronomy department has powerful enough lens- and mirror-telescopes that can easily view the Moon with enough clarity that if there were structures there, they would've been detected by now.

And now some retard jumps up and claims "but the astronomers are all in one big conspiracy to hide it from the public", unto which I can only reply "Do you understand how many astronomers, and students of astronomy, there are on this planet?".

 

[L50LasPak]

The idea that there would be structures on the visible side of Moon is so easy to debunk with proof that believing such just betrays one's ignorance about astronomy in general. Just about every university with astronomy department has powerful enough lens- and mirror-telescopes that can easily view the Moon with enough clarity that if there were structures there, they would've been detected by now.

And now some retard jumps up and claims "but the astronomers are all in one big conspiracy to hide it from the public", unto which I can only reply "Do you understand how many astronomers, and students of astronomy, there are on this planet?".

I'm creative enough to come up with a number of conventional, low-to-mid technology ways that you could hypothetically camouflage structures on the surface of the moon that wouldn't really work as well if you were standing right in front of them. IRL there are a lots of ways to hide military installations and complexes even in barren open zones like desert or rocky broken ground. However, this would necessarily mean that those structures would have to be either few and far between or otherwise not very extensive.

So, logically, if there are structures on the surface of the moon hidden from view, there would have to be relatively few of them, and therefore you can just pick another landing site instead of having to fake your photographs.

-

A more conventional theory suggests that the first moon landing was a suicide mission and/or the lunar lander failed to rendezvous with the orbiter after takeoff. The TV footage is real according to this theory, but the photographs are faked since the nameless astronauts who were sent to their doom obviously failed to make it back to Earth to hand over their equipment. Why the Soviets kept this a secret ranges from us having dirt on some of their failed programs that also got people killed (beyond the ones the public knows about) to them just not thinking it was important enough to dispute since the important part, getting a man to the moon, was accomplished.

This theory is often silent on whether or not the subsequent moon landings were faked. Some people say they weren't and we refined the process, and one of the subsequent missions was to clean up the first moon landing site and retrieve the bodies (assuming the suicide mission scenario, not the lost in space scenario).

 

[Bum Driller]

I'm creative enough to come up with a number of conventional, low-to-mid technology ways that you could hypothetically camouflage structures on the surface of the moon that wouldn't really work as well if you were standing right in front of them. IRL there are a lots of ways to hide military installations and complexes even in barren open zones like desert or rocky broken ground. However, this would necessarily mean that those structures would have to be either few and far between or otherwise not very extensive.

So, logically, if there are structures on the surface of the moon hidden from view, there would have to be relatively few of them, and therefore you can just pick another landing site instead of having to fake your photographs.

-

A more conventional theory suggests that the first moon landing was a suicide mission and/or the lunar lander failed to rendezvous with the orbiter after takeoff. The TV footage is real according to this theory, but the photographs are faked since the nameless astronauts who were sent to their doom obviously failed to make it back to Earth to hand over their equipment. Why the Soviets kept this a secret ranges from us having dirt on some of their failed programs that also got people killed (beyond the ones the public knows about) to them just not thinking it was important enough to dispute since the important part, getting a man to the moon, was accomplished.

This theory is often silent on whether or not the subsequent moon landings were faked. Some people say they weren't and we refined the process, and one of the subsequent missions was to clean up the first moon landing site and retrieve the bodies (assuming the suicide mission scenario, not the lost in space scenario).

The whole idea that moon landing would've been faked is so weird because it's peddled by your typical conspiratard - a being who vehemently believes that the evil elites are about to bring the hell of socialism upon all of existence. And yet, the moon landing in itself is one of the greatest monuments to the triumph of capitalism and the very American patriotism these people profess to have faith in. I just don't get it. It would be much more keeping with the theme to be suspicious about for example Soviets getting to the space before 'muricans, or something.