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

[Yak-130 Mitten]

Kiwifarms is where redditors go to if they get permabanned for the slightest spicy opinion.

 

[AnOminous]

I'd not be surprised if after the the initial scares of the cold war most nukes fell into disrepair and only a minimum are still usable. Maybe even the official peak numbers were fake.
I believe a significant number of nukes at least existed, tho, beyond the test devices.

Pretty sure ours are fine. Or at least enough to do whatever we need them to do. The Russian arsenal is probably in utter shambles. I'm not sure about the chinks but they're generally pretty sloppy. And I can guarantee Israel has the best it's possible to have.

 

[byron]

A woman in space is significant

If I design a car and I test it with a man, do you feel I must also test it with a woman.

lol, nevermind. Don't bother answering. You're going to say something stupid like "that's different"

The fact remains that the significant accomplishment is putting a human into space. After you've done that, there is no significance to saying, "zomg the first woman! zomg the first black man"

That's just identity politics stunts.

 

[AnOminous]

To make use of the Moon they'd have to have brought a camera with a tripod and a proper telescope lens like the Far UV Spectrograph (which weighed over 20 kg), and then they'd still only be able to take pictures marginally better than on Earth with less atmospheric distortion. Just not worth it.

It might make sense to have a telescope or some kind of observatory on the dark side of the Moon to avoid light pollution. You wouldn't really need to send humans up there for that, though, although I don't know if we have anything that can actually transmit through the entire Moon, so there'd probably need to be some signal repeater to communicate with it.

ETA: looks like they're planning on something like that in 2026: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/telescope-dark-moon-radio/

Going to the Moon was an amazing feat but ultimately nothing more than an expensive stunt.

The Moon is pretty useless and there's not much point going there. Even the potentially useful things to do there aren't terribly useful right now, like harvesting He-3. Until we have fusion there's no particular reason to care much about He-3. Otherwise there's nothing on the Moon we don't have right here anyway.

 

[byron]

The Moon is pretty useless

A number of economic activities have been proposed. I don't know if any of them are feasible.

One I read about that sounded pretty cool was using autonomous robots to make bricks out of regolith. You drop a bunch of little WALL-E droids on the surface and after a few years, you have a big pile of bricks. Then you use a mass driver to shoot them into orbit in such a way that they settle into one of the Lagrange points.

Then you pick them up and use them build a giant habitat there. It's basically free building material.

I google search says that china is running with the idea (though they want to use the bricks there on the moon): https://interestingengineering.com/space/china-sample-bricks-space-station-lunar-base

...meanwhile, the FAA has delayed the next SpaceX Starship launch until December. Why? They claim to be studying the effects of sonic booms on fish and other wildlife. A totally made-up reason. They're actually just intentionally fucking elon because the regime hates him now. SpaceX says they've been ready to launch since August.

 

[Squishie PP]

Geoengineering is used as a weapon, and has been for quite some time now by several state actors with access to the technology. Who has an interest in crippling the semiconductor supply chain by catapulting a hurricane straight towards the Sibelco mine in North Carolina?

 

[Meriasek]

It might make sense to have a telescope or some kind of observatory on the dark side of the Moon to avoid light pollution. You wouldn't really need to send humans up there for that, though, although I don't know if we have anything that can actually transmit through the entire Moon, so there'd probably need to be some signal repeater to communicate with it.

ETA: looks like they're planning on something like that in 2026: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/telescope-dark-moon-radio/

The Moon is pretty useless and there's not much point going there. Even the potentially useful things to do there aren't terribly useful right now, like harvesting He-3. Until we have fusion there's no particular reason to care much about He-3. Otherwise there's nothing on the Moon we don't have right here anyway.

He3 is in high demand among scientists since dilution cryostats that go down to the low milli kelvin range use He3, but losses of it are rather low so we're not running out of that for that purpose.
For fusion we'll see which fuel will make it. Proton-Boron 11 would be ideal, but it's super hard to pull off, and pretty much only inertial fusion approaches have some confidence of reaching the conditions.

 

[Rumpled Foreskin]

The Chinese balloon that was allowed to trapse across the continental US was spraying cloud seeding/weather altering tech. Things like the Palestine train derailment and the recent chemical plant explosion in Georgia area is made much, much worse by the unusual weather. Huh.

Also, there is rumor there is a giant Lithium deposite in the mountains of North Carolina. So maybe like the land grabbing in Hawaii, there might be some shady shit in North Carolina going down.

You know what looters and communists have in common? The only good one, is a dead one.

 

[Screamer_2]

It wasn’t a stunt though. If you control the moon you control everything earth does in space. You control what can be launched and you control what gets launched past the moon too. So the moon is a massive strategic pissing contest. You put your boys up there and the others can’t get past.

We have so many satellites now, and we knew satellites would be big back then too. Even if all the moon was was a ‘bunch of rocks’ it’s still a bunch of rocks you can prevent the other nations from leaving earth from. It makes no sense that we never went back. The abandonment of the space program past low earth orbit up to recently makes no sense either.

I have no answers for any of it

So why aren't they still on the moon? Why can't they go back?
It was a stunt at the time.

There's a strong chance China will be on the Moon before America returns and they will plan to keep that capability. The USA's return to the moon is a mess.

 

[Bonesjones]

I'm in the hurricane disaster zone so I've been pretty busy, otherwise.

Because it's not easily accessible as I explained. And what PR win would it be? A picture of the stars proves nothing.

Except being used to triangulate positioning, which is pretty hard to fake on a set without powerful cgi, which didn't exist. Why do you make excuses for things they could have easily done and didn't, instead of questioning why?

Yeah? Because the solar wind is charged particles you can't see? What the fuck are you smoking?

That happen to be an extreme concern until they didn't need to be.

I mean, they took pictures of Earth. But Aurora Borealis is a temporary phenomenon you can't always see, and certainly not from that distance with hand cameras.

You also can't seem to see it from space, since I can't see any pictures on Google except cgi.

It's all relative. Accessible with a space suit. Turns out there are quite a few botched shots, but well, they trained with these things to minimize wasted film.

No, it's not. You claim something and then it gets disproved. You'll only double down though.

Dosis is still not that high tho. Particularly gamma rays, which are a relatively small component of the spectrum.

They still cause a huge problem even now for space photography.

The slow scan TV camera optimized for the same lighting conditions as the other cameras? You've seen the "Small Step" footage, you think they could just take some ultra grainy pictures of stars with it and suddenly you'd believe in the moon landing?

You didn't see the TV camera footage they used, it was projected onto a wall at NASA control which was then refilmed for broadcasting. Why would you do that if you weren't trying to add more distortion?

I think they could have easily mounted a long exposure camera and took pictures if they wanted to, they didn't want to so i question why. Then I question why anyone else doesn't find it suspicious. Curiosity only exists as far as it doesn't run against official narratives.

And a still photo of stars can't be faked while all the other pictures from the moon can be easily faked? What?

It's harder to fake you idiot. Everyone can see, photograph, study the stars. If you were faking it you have to be absolutely perfect.

Could also be faked, though. Don't pretend that such pictures would make you a believer.

I believe in the truth, if you can't provide it for me to be cross referenced, independently researched, then you are pushing propaganda and not science or research or anything. It's really fucking simple and obvious.

So now the camera didn't even exist?
Apollo 12 camera doesn't count? Of course not.

I asked for a simple piece of information, why did it take 2 people and apparently you searching through photo archives to find. (It's still not even the right one).

When we talk about Space Race theories, the one I’m closest to believing is the Lost Cosmonaut theory.
I could absolutely buy that Russia covered up the death of an early cosmonaut, and Yuri was the first guy to make it back from space.

Every country does black ops, I'm sure there's tons of dead astronauts besides the two they intentionally killed in testing.

There was the competing development of space capabilities. The US focused on going to the Moon but that was never a main goal of the Soviets. They put some resources towards it, but not enough to get it done. Which is why they never followed through by going.

Or they knew it was impossible and didn't even try. Von Braun said the delta V was something like 1000x more than what they used. I trust his word over NASA.

The US space program is impressive, but it's endlessly full of retarded, pointless and expensive decisions.

The public parts, the black ops are extremely successful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office

just whole departments magiced out of the air.

If I design a car and I test it with a man, do you feel I must also test it with a woman.

You mean the thing they were originally concerned about when testing cars and trains and airplanes that's played as a joke? Or did you not know that again?

lol, nevermind. Don't bother answering. You're going to say something stupid like "that's different"

Glad you continue to be stupid and pretend it's everyone else, while still being completely wrong.

The fact remains that the significant accomplishment is putting a human into space. After you've done that, there is no significance to saying, "zomg the first woman! zomg the first black man"

Why would we need to send a black man when we sent monkeys? You can't know something until you do it, which is why they asked the first women to be on a space station how many tampons they think she would need because it was all guess work.

 

[byron]

You can't know something until you do it

That is obviously untrue. It was not necessary to send a redhead into space to know that the spacecraft supports sending redheads into space.

In the context of the Space Race, producing a spacecraft that can take humans into space is significant. Publicity stunts where you send humans with different genitalia is not significant.

The first tranny in space is not significant. Only the first human in space is significant.

The first black person in space is not significant. Only the first human in space is significant.

The first left handed person in space is not significant. Only the first human in space is significant.

You have no argument against this.

 

[Bonesjones]

That is obviously untrue. It was not necessary to send a redhead into space to know that the spacecraft supports sending redheads into space.

Hey look you don't know what your talking about but will sperg out for 5 paragraphs like you do while you repeat yourself. You are a fucking retard dude, nothing will change that. The likelihood of you gaining even 1 iq point is lower than the chance we ever went to the moon.

 

[AnOminous]

That is obviously untrue. It was not necessary to send a redhead into space to know that the spacecraft supports sending redheads into space.

But gingers don't have souls. Suppose not having a soul causes you to die upon entering orbital heights?

 

[byron]

It was not necessary to send a redhead into space to know that the spacecraft supports sending redheads into space.

you don't know what your talking about

lol. This is where you're planting your flag?

"We must send a redhead into space, else there's no way for us to know if this spacecraft can send redheads into space"

No. It is not necessary to put a redhead in the space shuttle in order for us to know that the space shuttle supports sending redheads.

Suppose not having a soul causes you to die upon entering orbital heights?

lol yeah. Who knows??

Keep in mind that the person I'm arguing with thinks the earth is flat and covered with a dome. So, he doesn't actually believe anyone can go to space. This hilarious exchange where he pretends we have to send redheads into space is just him being a "debate bro" where he feels he has to disagree with everything. It shows that he's desperate.

 

[Bonesjones]

lol. This is where you're planting your flag?

No I just quoted part of your post to reply to it, you don't have an argument just insane ramblings. You still can't find that camera swing arm either, someone else couldn't even do it. Funny how you are just as worthless as you are dumb.

 

[Lei Wulong's Left Leg]

The US Army has a branch specializing in memetic warfare and swaying public opinion by astroturfing "cultural icons" and meme personalities. The only problem is that it's being run by the military, which is why they backed something as dumb as Hawk Tuah.

 

[melty]

The Moon is pretty useless and there's not much point going there. Even the potentially useful things to do there aren't terribly useful right now, like harvesting He-3. Until we have fusion there's no particular reason to care much about He-3. Otherwise there's nothing on the Moon we don't have right here anyway.

I think you're neglecting the massive potential of moon rocks. Flung from space those fuckers have the strength of 100 atomic bombs ready for the US to simply drop on their enemies.

 

[JesusChristDenton]

Not exactly one I 100% believe, but one that wouldn't shock me if it had some truth behind it:

Spoiler

Games like Helldivers 2 and their popularity are all part of some kind of psyop to normalize brutality and dehumanization towards any designated enemies of the west in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". Basically trying to create a whole new generation of NAFO style psychos.

 

[Meriasek]

Except being used to triangulate positioning, which is pretty hard to fake on a set without powerful cgi, which didn't exist. Why do you make excuses for things they could have easily done and didn't, instead of questioning why?

Oh, all the pictures of Earth and the Moon are easily faked, but stars require powerful CGI? OK.
I don't make excuses, I explained to pretty significant lengths why it wasn't easily done.

That happen to be an extreme concern until they didn't need to be.

Solar wind and radiation in space is a concern, yes. Astronauts wear dosimeters at all times. But you can't photograph it or anything in the visible range, so I don't get the point here. They photographed ionosphere interactions in the far UV on Apollo 16.

You also can't seem to see it from space, since I can't see any pictures on Google except cgi.

Since it's an atmospheric phenomenon and rather dim, photographing it from anywhere but the night side in LEO is practically impossible.

No, it's not. You claim something and then it gets disproved. You'll only double down though.

I was wrong about the viewfinder, yeah. But they made a holder that made the camera reasonably accessible when it was attached to the space suit, and the astronauts trained its use.

You didn't see the TV camera footage they used, it was projected onto a wall at NASA control which was then refilmed for broadcasting. Why would you do that if you weren't trying to add more distortion?

As far as I know, the SSTV signal was converted in real time to NTSC and broadcast. The signal had to be converted since it was a very different format. The signal conversion process used a monitor and a camera, not projection on a wall, and that did add degradation to the image quality. Seems like recordings of the raw SSTV signal were lost, but apparently it wasn't a high priority to save that since the conversion worked. Which sucks, I'd have loved to see some properly restored raw SSTV footage.

I think they could have easily mounted a long exposure camera and took pictures if they wanted to, they didn't want to so i question why. Then I question why anyone else doesn't find it suspicious. Curiosity only exists as far as it doesn't run against official narratives.

It's not that easy to bring yet another instrument and take pictures that are ultimately just not that interesting. In general I guess they just didn't really think of taking pictures of stars because it was not high priority or interesting to do, and explicitly gathering "proofs" that they actually were there wasn't really on their mind.

It's harder to fake you idiot. Everyone can see, photograph, study the stars. If you were faking it you have to be absolutely perfect.

All the other photographs (which also had to get things perfect) were easily faked, but the pictures that would just show point sources, now those would be impossible to fake!

I asked for a simple piece of information, why did it take 2 people and apparently you searching through photo archives to find. (It's still not even the right one).

Because it wasn't a priority photographing a camera used for a single purpose mounted on the descent stage.
What would it change if there had been more pictures of that camera? You'd ask for factory acceptance tests and complain that they didn't test for specific radiation or something, and dismiss those.
Here's the thing, they went there for the specific experiments they ran, and not to collect specific pieces of evidence people would maybe ask for later.

Except being used to triangulate positioning, which is pretty hard to fake on a set without powerful cgi, which didn't exist. Why do you make excuses for things they could have easily done and didn't, instead of questioning why?

It wasn't easily done, and the question why they didn't put in the extra effort is easily answered.

If I design a car and I test it with a man, do you feel I must also test it with a woman.

Yes, actually. Crash tests performed with a men-size dummy might yield different results with a woman-sized dummy. There's a reason there are dummies in different sizes from child to grown-ass man.
Space per se, however, isn't that different. Saturn V acceleration is like 4.5 G, which is something easily endurable for any reasonably fit man or woman. But there are engineering sides that need to be taken care off. EVA equipment (particularly the plumbing) must be designed differently for women, and other factors. It's not really a significant milestone per se, but it's engineering stuff that needs to be solved.

I think you're neglecting the massive potential of moon rocks. Flung from space those fuckers have the strength of 100 atomic bombs ready for the US to simply drop on their enemies.

You'd need a huge mass driver for that to work, and the station required for that would need to be so big it's barely aimable. 100 atom bombs is a bit overblown, too, that'd require extreme speeds. Might as well do the Rods From God thing, load a bunch of tungsten telephone poles on a satellite and let them drop shit on your head.

 

[byron]

you don't have an argument

Sure I do!

My claim is that designing and building a spacecraft that can take a human into orbit is an achievement. Having done that, launching a second spacecraft, carrying a person with a different hair color, does not count as an achievement.

My argument is that there is no reason to believe the existing spacecraft, given that we proved it could carry blondes, would not be capable of carrying redheads. Thus, carrying a redhead is not a new achievement.

The first time a person does a thing, for example going into space or landing on the moon, is a great achievement. Repeating that feat with (insert identity group) is not an achievement, even though identitarians will applaud it.

Humans have been to the moon. That was an achievement. At some point in the future, a black man will go to the moon. That's cool, but it's not an achievement. At some point in the future, an asian will go to the moon. That's cool, but not an achievement.

That is my argument. You have no rebuttal.

Crash tests performed with a men-size dummy might yield different results with a woman-sized dummy.

It's true that men tend to be taller than women. Nonetheless, size is not a determining factor. To put that another way, there are many 5'3" men and many 6'1" women.

I can agree that it's important to test cars with 5'3" dummies, and 6'1" dummies. But you need to understand that certifying that a car is safe with a 5'3" dummy is not certifying it for women. It's certifying it for 5'3" people ...which includes short men.

More to the point, the "achievement" is the creation of an automobile with specific performance characteristics - for example, speed. When the Bugatti Veyron achieved 260 mph, that was an achievement. Repeating that with a woman in the passenger seat is not an achievement.

some kind of psyop to normalize brutality and dehumanization towards any designated enemies of the west

I recently watched Inglorious Bastards and I had the same thought. They justify brutality against an honorable enemy by dehumanizing them with a label. It's really scary to me how many people I've seen on sites like reddit that use that same tactic.