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

[Cheetahman]

(POWER LEVEL BULLSHIT YOU HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE: I know a guy that came up with a promising hypothetical cure for it...sort of. But it was impossible to get funding to actually try it.)

Giving people leukemia?

 

[heathercho]

Recently, I've been doing some editing work on an author's 1st treatment for a semi-sci-fi novel.
I hate Sci-fi, but I've become curious about fleshing out my knowledge on this stuff and redefining my opinions about "the moon landing", so I've been researching conspiracy theories and working backwards from there.

The most common rebuttal I've seen among normies related to the moon landing is usually "Of course we went to the moon, the stuff we put up on the moon is there, you can see it, something something laser beam."
You can't in actuality, not even the Hubble can, but that doesn't stop people from using it as their go to.

Conversely, the most common trope moon skeptics follow is the old "If we went in the 60's why haven't we gone again". Which is easily rebutted with the logic that it was never profitable.

Neither adds or detracts anything to or from the moon landing narrative.

I had the chance to speak to someone who works in the astronomy field professionally about their thoughts and whilst not American, doesn't think that people landed on the moon as stated, but doesn't like voicing that opinion professionally. They said it would "not be possible" to talk about their theories at work, because to do so is "anti-science".
The whole "You're Anti-Science" shit gets thrown around from moon landing to climate change, if you dare to question the mainstream narrative. I find it an interesting response, because when it comes to genders and troons, suddenly science is wrong and stupid.

I'm more interested in the human response to the moon landing, the lies and manipulation the astronauts suffered, more than I am the science of it. I find it an interesting thought that the astronauts going to the moon weren't briefed in a realistic way about the VERY high possibility of their deaths. That they didn't know that the procedure would be to cut communications and let them die. I just don't see 3 intelligent men not ask that question, not demand protocol.

I also can't fathom the reckless abandon of Nasa to broadcast the moon landing live, given the circumstances.

I find these behaviours more illustrative than "b-b-but why haven't we gone back".

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Giving people leukemia?

No but that's incredibly interesting and I'd never heard of this so glad you linked it. One of the great ironies of HIV is that, if tamed, it would be a fantastic vector for gene therapy. Very few viruses can get past the blood-brain barrier, but it can. Very little can get access to the immune system the way it can either.

That they didn't know that the procedure would be to cut communications and let them die. I just don't see 3 intelligent men not ask that question, not demand protocol.

Not the first bunch of explorers that went into very probable death.

If the moon landing(s) was a hoax, why didn't the USSR trumpet that everywhere?

 

[heathercho]

Not the first bunch of explorers that went into very probable death.

If the moon landing(s) was a hoax, why didn't the USSR trumpet that everywhere?

Fair, I guess after 9/11, America is perfectly happy to show death on live TV. That is the "only way" the public will believe it happened after all.

As for USSR, I think if they did, they would have culturally lost out more. I don't know a whole lot about the cultural dynamics of the USSR, but from what I do know, I believe it would have hurt their psyche more as a unit to make themselves the object of ridicule. Think about it on a human to human perspective - Joe goes to the Moon, Sergei says Fuck off Joe, no you didn't. Joe says prove it. Sergei says well ___ and ___. Joe says TV says I went to the moon.
It makes the doubting party look like a clown. The USSR's whole construct was built on ego, much as North Korea's Juche is. Pure ego.
Look at what the Nork's believe - they believe that NK can cure cancer and aids, the Kim's don't need to shit or pee, disabilities don't exist, that KJU could drive a car at 3, that nature itself mourns the death of the previous leaders, that the NK's win every Olympics (they've spliced together videos to show people of their "wins") and my genuine personal favorite - that North Korea discovered real, true and honest Unicorns.

These aren't myths, the people truly believe those things.
Ego is vital for the survival. At the time, I don't believe USSR, if they thought that the moon landings were fake, would have said a single thing.

I don't really know what I think about the moon landings, but I do find what current astronauts (often the ISS ones) say about further space travel interesting. Maybe they just misspeak, but I do find it a bit strange that they've said things like "when we work out the Van Allen Belts and can go further than we are now" and things about going further out than the ISS orbit. Not solid proof, but its strange and I just can't logically chalk every time up to an astronaut misspeaking.

 

[Lemmingwise]

If the moon landing(s) was a hoax, why didn't the USSR trumpet that everywhere?

As for USSR, I think if they did, they would have culturally lost out more. I don't know a whole lot about the cultural dynamics of the USSR, but from what I do know, I believe it would have hurt their psyche more as a unit to make themselves the object of ridicule. Think about it on a human to human perspective - Joe goes to the Moon, Sergei says Fuck off Joe, no you didn't. Joe says prove it. Sergei says well ___ and ___. Joe says TV says I went to the moon.

Better than "Tv says". Joe can say: "I saw it with my own eyes".

Nevermind that the images we got were black and white filming of projection screens that were displaying the color video of the moonlandings and nevermind that NASA lost the tapes of what might be man's greatest accomplishment.

The scenario you're describing is also presuming that the USSR knew it was a hoax. How exactly do you observe from earth when someone sends a rocket to the moon that there are humans on board? They might have known, or they might have been similarly fooled.

Bit of a sidepoint, but having discussed this before, people bring up retroreflectors as proof of moonlandings, but the soviets were able to place retroreflectors with unmanned rovers. It's possible that the apollo missions achieved something similar.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Cancer is not hard to imagine being incredibly difficult to cure though because despite the name it's a whole host of diseases with a similar MO rather than one disease with one cause like a virus.

It's funny you should say that, because several cancers have been demonstrated to have a viral cause in recent years. There's a growing consensus that a significant number of them might be caused by a previously unknown class of viral infections - or possibly by known infections that have previously unrecorded effects.

It makes sense when you think about it. A virus operates by hijacking your own cells and using them to produce more of itself (we have scads of remnant viral DNA lurking in our genome because of this), which includes fucking around with apoptosis mechanisms and immune responses.

 

[Migraineur]

I believe Tommy Wiseau is an ancient vampire that is still trying to adjust to normal human life. The Disaster Artist book only helped solidify this for me.

 

[Bum Driller]

Fair, I guess after 9/11, America is perfectly happy to show death on live TV. That is the "only way" the public will believe it happened after all.

As for USSR, I think if they did, they would have culturally lost out more. I don't know a whole lot about the cultural dynamics of the USSR, but from what I do know, I believe it would have hurt their psyche more as a unit to make themselves the object of ridicule. Think about it on a human to human perspective - Joe goes to the Moon, Sergei says Fuck off Joe, no you didn't. Joe says prove it. Sergei says well ___ and ___. Joe says TV says I went to the moon.
It makes the doubting party look like a clown. The USSR's whole construct was built on ego, much as North Korea's Juche is. Pure ego.
Look at what the Nork's believe - they believe that NK can cure cancer and aids, the Kim's don't need to shit or pee, disabilities don't exist, that KJU could drive a car at 3, that nature itself mourns the death of the previous leaders, that the NK's win every Olympics (they've spliced together videos to show people of their "wins") and my genuine personal favorite - that North Korea discovered real, true and honest Unicorns.

These aren't myths, the people truly believe those things.
Ego is vital for the survival. At the time, I don't believe USSR, if they thought that the moon landings were fake, would have said a single thing.

I don't really know what I think about the moon landings, but I do find what current astronauts (often the ISS ones) say about further space travel interesting. Maybe they just misspeak, but I do find it a bit strange that they've said things like "when we work out the Van Allen Belts and can go further than we are now" and things about going further out than the ISS orbit. Not solid proof, but its strange and I just can't logically chalk every time up to an astronaut misspeaking.

Do take in to account two things:

First, North Korea exists in a state of almost total isolation from the rest of the world. USSR never did, although traffic in and out of there was heavily regulated, it's citizens knew quite well that their system was total shit compared to what the people in the west had. In North Korea the regime has nearly total control of information and the population for the large part lives in a squalor not comparable to even that of the former USSR.

Two, what North Koreans claim to believe can't be taken without a considerable amount of salt. Even if they probably don't have very good general idea of how world works, they do know that they are dead as fucking stones if they don't toe the party line.

Also, if the moon landings would have been a hoax and the USSR would have known that, they would have definitely made it clear, as it happened in an age when USSR still had some amount of credibility among the western academic and political circles.

 

[Human Flesh]

@CIA Nigger invented crack. Also highly possible they invented AIDS to purge the gays.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost]

I believe that the rumors of an actual small scale land invasion on the Kentish coast by the Germans in 1941 to test British defenses did actually take place. The Germans not expecting to meet heavy resistance on the parts where they landed including a mine field were forced back into the sea by the home guard and other infantry units stationed in the area and the majority of them killed by the use of anti-invasion equipment by the British including setting the water on the beach heads alight with a mixture of gas and oil. Several reports of burnt German bodies for weeks afterwards floating ashore were reported in local papers, though it was officially claimed by the Navy that it was likely from a sunken ship, except for the fact that the bodies were in Wehrmarcht uniforms.

A similar failed raid took place on the Isle of Wight where the small German raiding party ran into the Commando training units there and were also decimated.

In neither situation was an official report ever released. In the case of the beach raids, it was because the government did not want to admit that the Germans had actually managed to set foot on British soil during the height of danger from Operation Sea Lion being executed and a full scale invasion taking place.

In the case of the Isle of Wight it was never reported, because the War Office did not want it to become common knowledge that, that was where the majority of the training was going on for commando units training for coastal conditions to be put into places like Norway and France.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

It's funny you should say that, because several cancers have been demonstrated to have a viral cause in recent years. There's a growing consensus that a significant number of them might be caused by a previously unknown class of viral infections - or possibly by known infections that have previously unrecorded effects.

It makes sense when you think about it. A virus operates by hijacking your own cells and using them to produce more of itself (we have scads of remnant viral DNA lurking in our genome because of this), which includes fucking around with apoptosis mechanisms and immune responses.

Yeah, a bunch of weird viruses cause some cancers. AIDS in humans is caused by two. HIV is still the easier problem.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

HOW?

WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT The only way to properly explain, is with words. Chapter 1: Why? When asked to write the unabridged history of this organization, I was taken aback. I knew that I had reached many thousands in my quest to spread the truth, but I was bewildered and...

birdsarentreal.com

 

[teriyakiburns]

How exactly do you observe from earth when someone sends a rocket to the moon that there are humans on board?

They could listen in to the radio transmissions, as could anyone else around the world, and trivially calculate their position and distance in the sky. The only way to fake that would be to record hours and hours of radio chatter (e: and all the telemetry data the ships sent back) and then blast it into orbit around the moon. You'd have to invent a way to automatically change reels of tape in microgravity, or you'd have to send up multiple playback machines that could be automated to play in sequence, and hope that the tapes don't jam or tear and the machines don't just stop. Frankly it'd be cheaper to send people.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

They could listen in to the radio transmissions, as could anyone else around the world, and trivially calculate their position and distance in the sky. The only way to fake that would be to record hours and hours of radio chatter and then blast it into orbit around the moon. You'd have to invent a way to automatically change reels of tape in migcrogavity, or you'd have to send up multiple playback machines that could be automated to play in sequence, and hope that the tapes don't jam or tear and the machines don't just stop. Frankly it'd be cheaper to send people.

Likewise the government would have needed to have Cameras 30-40 years more advanced then existed at the time or make cameras LUDICROUSLY large [and keep all that manufacturing of Giant cameras] to film the moon landing footage

going to the moon would have been cheaper and easier

 

[Lemmingwise]

They could listen in to the radio transmissions, as could anyone else around the world, and trivially calculate their position and distance in the sky. The only way to fake that would be to record hours and hours of radio chatter (e: and all the telemetry data the ships sent back) and then blast it into orbit around the moon. You'd have to invent a way to automatically change reels of tape in microgravity, or you'd have to send up multiple playback machines that could be automated to play in sequence, and hope that the tapes don't jam or tear and the machines don't just stop. Frankly it'd be cheaper to send people.

I hadn't considered the triangulation of radio to calculate position, it's a good thought.

The assessment that it's cheaper to send people to the moon than to record 8 days of radio chatter and send that to the moon is just false. When examining the engineering difficulties for a moonlanding, getting one or multiple tapes to keep playing is a relatively easy one and definitely easier than keeping humans intact and alive.

All telemetry data is claimed to have been lost, so you can't work that into an argument to why we would have humans in a moonlanding. I think it's as likely that it's considered a state secret and the claim to have lost it is false, as that there never was any telemetry data. But in either case, you can't use absent evidence as evidence.

You're also assuming that all engineering difficulties to land (and takeoff) from moon with humans had been solved; if they hadn't, it wouldn't have been cheaper to just send people.

I guess one of my biggest questions remains: Why has the color video of the moonlanding never been made public?

 

[Inflatable Julay]

A while back when they had the anniversary broadcast of the moon landing in real time and they played all the radio chatter, there was a point where one of them said something (I can't remember exactly and I haven't been able to find it) like "these wires aren't holding me up" or some weird reference that would make no sense otherwise. I'm trying to find the exact quote.

 

[teriyakiburns]

All telemetry data is claimed to have been lost

The point is that it was broadcast in real-time and (relatively) easily received all over the world.

Why has the color video of the moonlanding never been made public?

The external camera on Apollo 11 was only a broadcast camera, not a recording camera, and was B&W because they weren't sure of the reliability of a colour video camera, and wanted to save weight. Subsequent landings used a live colour camera. Any other film shot on the first landing was on 8mm and is publicly available.

The reason the camera didn't record is because the industry standard video tape of the day was quad video, a 12 inch reel of 2 inch tape, which could store one hour of footage. To record the whole first moonwalk would have required changing the reel several times (and recording subsequent moonwalks would have required enough tape to fill the LEM). They could have recorded it on cine, but that would have meant either no live broadcast, or a second external camera alongside the cinecamera, and the reel-changing issue is still there unless you record at just a few frames a second. And before you ask, quad videotape wasn't capable of low framerates. It wasn't capable of a lot of things we took for granted in the 80s, let alone now.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

The point is that it was broadcast in real-time and (relatively) easily received all over the world.


The external camera on Apollo 11 was only a broadcast camera, not a recording camera, and was B&W because they weren't sure of the reliability of a colour video camera, and wanted to save weight. Subsequent landings used a live colour camera. Any other film shot on the first landing was on 8mm and is publicly available.

The reason the camera didn't record is because the industry standard video tape of the day was quad video, a 12 inch reel of 2 inch tape, which could store one hour of footage. To record the whole first moonwalk would have required changing the reel several times (and recording subsequent moonwalks would have required enough tape to fill the LEM). They could have recorded it on cine, but that would have meant either no live broadcast, or a second external camera alongside the cinecamera, and the reel-changing issue is still there unless you record at just a few frames a second. And before you ask, quad videotape wasn't capable of low framerates. It wasn't capable of a lot of things we took for granted in the 80s, let alone now.

If you believe it was a hoax you need to watch this

Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!

Writer/director S G Collins of Postwar Media debunks every theory that the Apollo Moon landings could have been faked in a studio. The filmmaker takes a look...

www.youtube.com

 

[Lemmingwise]

If you believe it was a hoax you need to watch this

The guy makes so many leaps of logic that it is a very poor video. I think I've said it before in this thread (months ago), but there were very reasonable doubting thomas type videos that asked reasonable questions, but they've all been removed, whereas the counters (debunkers such as this one) and the zany ones have not been removed from youtube.

For one example, he claims at 8:50 that the video was shot at 30 frames per second and is using that as part of an argument of the feet of film required. However considering we only have the filmed screens of the apollo broadcast, he is either basing that number of frames directly on NASA's claim without verifying it for himself, or he is basing it on the video of the video number of frames, which is completely irrelevant to the point being made. In either case, since he isn't working from the base evidence, that point is completely moot. That's just one of the numerous examples.

Be careful about trusting guys that look like they're toadies.

--

Moonlanding is also one of the 12-14 or so topics that youtube for a brief time gave an official story for on top of their results when you searched for moonlanding or apollo.

(other topics were: holocaust, kennedy assassination, seth rich, obama, global warming, rothschild, jewish and a couple more where I have to look up the screenshots I saved)

That more than anything makes me think we don't have the full story on it; practically every topic that google decided to use youtube to give their official version of events had some parts to it that did not tell a complete truth.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

The guy makes so many leaps of logic that it is a very poor video. I think I've said it before in this thread (months ago), but there were very reasonable doubting thomas type videos that asked reasonable questions, but they've all been removed, whereas the counters (debunkers such as this one) and the zany ones have not been removed from youtube.

Moonlanding is also one of the 12-14 or so topics that youtube for a brief time gave an official story for on top of their results when you searched for moonlanding or apollo.

(other topics were: holocaust, kennedy assassination, seth rich, obama, global warming, rothschild, jewish and a couple more where I have to look up the screenshots I saved)

You mean his explaining how Camera technology worked based on his 30+ years working with cameras?