The Schizo Conspiracy Thread - The conspiracies that will get you laughed out of your friend groups and subreddits

[Fuck Bankers]

Ex-Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd
View attachment 7155863

Source on this?

 

[Fuck Bankers]

What if the entire George Floyd thing was a media set up?

View attachment 7160041

For the woman, a quote from Fr Saraphim Rose.

“Why do men learn through pain and suffering, and not through pleasure and happiness? Very simply, because pleasure and happiness accustom one to satisfaction with the things given in this world, whereas pain and suffering drive one to seek a more profound happiness beyond the limitations of this world. I am at this moment in some pain, and I call on the Name of Jesus—not necessarily to relieve the pain, but that Jesus, in Whom alone we may transcend this world, may be with me during it, and His will be done in me. But in pleasure I do not call on Him; I am content then with what I have, and I think I need no more. And why is a philosophy of pleasure untenable?—because pleasure is impermanent and unreliable, and pain is inevitable. In pain and suffering Christ speaks to us, and thus God is kind to give them to us, yes, and evil too—for in all of these we glimpse something of what must lie beyond, if there really exists what our hearts most deeply desire.” – Fr. Seraphim Rose

 

[NoBueno]

Source on this?

It's got a link to the website on the video.
What does 666 really mean?

Does this mean the elite worship the god that can grant them things on the physical plane?

 

[Bonesjones]

Sure, that's fine. But I'm still waiting for a simple reason why it has to be interdimensional beings and not just aliens.

Reality doesn't require simple explanation, it is a thing of itself. Also Occam's razor just says out of multiple explanations the simplist is the most likely correct answer, not that it is correct.

Why does NASA fake stuff with greenscreen? If we assume that they do, the most reasonable explanation is that they're basically scamming for funding. They don't do space stuff anymore because it's too expensive for the little benefit it has, but a lot of people work there and they gotta keep up appearances.

So you are completely OK with being lied to, so scam for funding. You really are an establishment cultist. They are supposed to actively doing things in space do the only reason they would need to fake it, is because they aren't.

Why is Mars Greenland from the native lemming present in one photo? I don't quite parse that sentence, but it's basically the same answer, they fake stuff because they have to uphold appearances. For funding, and also for the public image of the USA at this point. If true, then other countries with space programs would be in on this, especially Russia.

So you don't know what he's talking about but you'll gladly explain it away. Sure seems logical. They fake them because they can't actually do them. Not because they are just hiding they didn't get the result they didn't like.

By nature, the original moon landing images were shot on film and later digitized. They might have been touched up, and an AI might recognize that as manipulations. Which they are, but I don't know the extends of this right now.

"Guys I can't explain it but they didn't do it because I said so"

I shall just be annoying and ask if it’s true that some aspects of string theory are pretty much made up because we don’t have the mathematical constructs in place to even start testing them? I was told that by a mathematician once, but he was as pissed as a newt and I dont understand physics sober.

String theory is just mathematicians jerking each other off. It has no basis in anything.

String theory is a bit of a special case, it's widely pissed at because it's pretty much unfalsifiable and thus not very scientific. It's mathematically beautiful

Math isn't beautiful to real people, it's like saying music theory is beautiful. There's no beauty in it at all, just like any music PhD, the results are awful garbage because they got obsessed with the structure and forgot what it's for.

Again, not really a complex thing to think about, but sadly, you are retarded.

Funny you say that considering you've been retarded your whole life.

First of all, there is clearly moon dust disturbance, but since the ascend module and its rocket motor are sitting on top of the landing motor module, the rocket plume of the ascend motor doesn't hit the moon surface directly. And rocket exhaust disperses quickly in vacuum.

There shouldn't be moon dust to disturb because of the retro landing rockets.

Sometimes people running cults also run countries (like North Korea).

You mean like in South Korea? Just look at 2016.

Where does the Van Allen belt(s) come in? They are a completely different thing. We're talking about the ionosphere here, an area of charged particles within the atmosphere caused by solar radiation ionizing the atmosphere up to a height of about 300 km. The Van Allen belt is a region where solar wind (particles emitted by the sun)is captured by Earth's magnetic field, at around 3000-6000 km height.

"The sun sends so many charged particles at the Earth that you can constantly see their interactions but the outer Van Allen belts it stops mattering because NASA said it did"

Same reason why there are never any stars in the lunar pictures, exposure is too short. This also explains those "hot spots". Pretty simple photography stuff.

No it's because they faked it and didn't have the technology to accurately place them. There's zero reason to not have lunar star photos. Which you've already tried to explain in a lackluster manner as "they didn't have the space or capacity to do so" because you are a retarded shill.

I'm actually fascinated by how selective your scepticism is. You reject any and all information out of principle, unless it's a hacked together short form video.

And we aren't surprised by your lack of scepticism at anything involving authority over you.

I am pretty dismayed that for someone who thinks so little of education and apparently prides himself in his critical thinking skills you seem to put absolutely no effort in actually thinking critically.

Funny coming from you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_D2drIs6E

Yes I know your stances, everything is co-incidence, everything is taken out of context, the mainstream always tells me the truth.

Yeah he's a retarded establishment shill who i argued with months ago in the conspiracy thread.

Not really my stance, but sometimes a cigar might just be a cigar.

Yet when it is a big black dick it's always just a cigar to you even when told it is.

She has all the signs of the other industry plants who were thrown to the masonic world at a young age. The symbolism is all there. The same thing I see again and again with these singers.

Her wealthy Finance father bought her way into the music industry.

 

[NevskyProspekt]

The plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces are called 'aglets'. Their true purpose is sinister.

 

[NoBueno]

Her wealthy Finance father bought her way into the music industry.

It's not about money, it's about pledging alliegience to the cult.

 

[Bonesjones]

It's not about money, it's about pledging alliegience to the cult.

Yeah that's kind of the point, people obsess over if it's real or not like professional wrestling, missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if they honestly believe in it or not when it's a useful signifier for how they behave. Secret Societies, cults, top secret classifications all work the same way to vet and compartmentalize groups of people into those who can be trusted and how much, the rest is window dressing.

 

[NoBueno]

Yeah that's kind of the point, people obsess over if it's real or not like professional wrestling, missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if they honestly believe in it or not when it's a useful signifier for how they behave. Secret Societies, cults, top secret classifications all work the same way to vet and compartmentalize groups of people into those who can be trusted and how much, the rest is window dressing.

Well theres been rumors the higher you want to get into the cult the worse things get. People think child sex is the worst thing you could do. But my impression is we are hearing about the low end people. What if you tortured a child? What if you sacrificed a child? What if you ate a child? What if you drank their blood? What if you played with their entrails? Just think of the worst possible cult hazing you could imagine.

 

[Meriasek]

Reality doesn't require simple explanation, it is a thing of itself. Also Occam's razor just says out of multiple explanations the simplist is the most likely correct answer, not that it is correct.

The point was that there isn't any reason to assume interdimensional beings, nothing even hints at it.

So you are completely OK with being lied to, so scam for funding. You really are an establishment cultist. They are supposed to actively doing things in space do the only reason they would need to fake it, is because they aren't.

No, I am not ok with that. I don't actually believe it, as I clearly stated I was just demonstrating that if NASA would fake stuff, there'd be a rather simple reason for it that doesn't require much more complicated belief structures up and to a flat earth.

So you don't know what he's talking about but you'll gladly explain it away. Sure seems logical. They fake them because they can't actually do them. Not because they are just hiding they didn't get the result they didn't like.

Again, explaining it using the rather simple assumption that it's simply smoke and mirrors to keep up appearances, not because they can't breach the firmament or something.
Could probably even argue that they did do a bunch of real space stuff before, but since there's not really much point in doing so in this day and age, they just fake it for the same results.

"Guys I can't explain it but they didn't do it because I said so"

I can't explain something when I have been given zero background. Do you expect me to just know the details of the AI check process? I wrote quite a bit about it, and tried looking up some original articles for it, but as usual, couldn't find anything and you schizofags refuse to ever link to anything substantial.
But the point was that if you think for five seconds you can't trust an AI to tell you shit about how photos from the 60s or 70s were manipulated, because how could they? How would an AI recognize a soundstage? I mean, do you know how an AI looks for image manipulation? It doesn't go by logic, thinking "Oh, this is a soundstage, the flag is waving in the wrong direction, there's a "C" on a rock". It analyses compression artifacts, gradients, all sorts of much more abstract metrics you wouldn't get in a soundstage picture. Because, guess what, the soundstage and what is in the picture is real.

Math isn't beautiful to real people, it's like saying music theory is beautiful. There's no beauty in it at all, just like any music PhD, the results are awful garbage because they got obsessed with the structure and forgot what it's for.

The sentence means that the structure of string theory is beautiful. It's a common sentiment amongst theoretical physicists and mathematicians that a big strength and draw of string theory is its mathematical elegance. And hey, theoretical physicists and mathematicians are all at least borderline autists. They find beauty in that sort of stuff. Not my thing, I sucked at that stuff, and even though I took a post grad theory course, I focused on the experimental side.

There shouldn't be moon dust to disturb because of the retro landing rockets.

That is actually a good point, I didn't even think of that. The landing would have blow away most of the dust in that area already.

"The sun sends so many charged particles at the Earth that you can constantly see their interactions but the outer Van Allen belts it stops mattering because NASA said it did"

I just pointed out that the ionosphere and the Van Allen belts are two different things. The ionosphere is created by ionisation of atmosphere, the Van Allen belts are trapped solar wind. The radio frequency was chosen specifically to avoid attenuation by electron plasmas, both for lower ionosphere and the Van Allen belts. The latter would be less of a problem for radio waves since the electron density there is quite a bit lower, and lower electron density means lower plasma frequency.
The Van Allen belts have, however, higher particle energies and are larger, so secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation is worse for crews and material than the ionosphere.

And we aren't surprised by your lack of scepticism at anything involving authority over you.

None of this has authority over me in any way, and I'm quite sceptical. I just find the issues raised here to be not very convincing.
I just go by what seems more likely. A global conspiracy that requires thousands of people to keep quiet and nothing ever truly leaks, and the only evidence found in official pictures or other questions are weak at best? Or simple and known issues with photography, and other simple answers? Sorry, I'll go with the latter. I can't tell for sure they landed on the Moon. But I don't see a reason why they couldn't have done it.

 

[NoBueno]

I just go by what seems more likely. A global conspiracy that requires thousands of people to keep quiet and nothing ever truly leaks,

What do you define as "truly leaks"? What CNN told you is a leak? We are talking about it right now from things we've read and seen from other people, so obviously people haven't kept quiet. So to would seem you only trust an authority to tell you what is true or false.

 

[Meriasek]

What do you define as "truly leaks"? What CNN told you is a leak? We are talking about it right now from things we've read and seen from other people, so obviously people haven't kept quiet. So to would seem you only trust an authority to tell you what is true or false.

No, I mean, with such a big conspiracy going around the world, surely someone would have gone and taken some more tangible evidence and leaked it later. But all we get is conjecture and rather easily explained observations from officially released materials. Where's the leak? Russia must have been in on this, and surely someone there would have at some point said something, and much earlier than "Hey I checked this picture with an AI and it tells me it's fake xaxaxa".
I just want some evidence that I can't immediately poke a hole at.

 

[NoBueno]

No, I mean, with such a big conspiracy going around the world, surely someone would have gone and taken some more tangible evidence and leaked it later.

Whats more tangible evidence? You want to see a livestream personally of someone raping a child corpse or something? These cases already exist.

 

[Meriasek]

Whats more tangible evidence? You want to see a livestream personally of someone raping a child corpse or something? These cases already exist.
View attachment 7162271

I was talking about the fake moon landing.
I'm on board with sex trafficking among the rich and famous (and political elites and so on), massively disgusting shit going on, and wouldn't be surprised if there's some actual cult going on with all that symbology and shit.
I tend to gravitate more towards designers, choreographers and artists being surprisingly unimaginative and much of this stuff being more down to ideas and memes spreading among them over time. It could be just recycling art and ideas, people just using the same imagery over and over.
But I definitely wouldn't be surprised if it's really symbology for sex trafficking cults and international humiliation rituals and shit.
I mean, it fits all together, but then you gotta ask yourself the question, why would they do it so openly for everyone to see so easily? The fact that random retards like us can easily spot the patterns and symbols makes the whole "secret cult" thing kinda not very secret. But then again, it might just be part of the humiliation ritual, being able to flaunt all that evil in front of everyone and being simply above the law.

 

[NoBueno]

I was talking about the fake moon landing.
I'm on board with sex trafficking among the rich and famous (and political elites and so on), massively disgusting shit going on, and wouldn't be surprised if there's some actual cult going on with all that symbology and shit.
I tend to gravitate more towards designers, choreographers and artists being surprisingly unimaginative and much of this stuff being more down to ideas and memes spreading among them over time. It could be just recycling art and ideas, people just using the same imagery over and over.
But I definitely wouldn't be surprised if it's really symbology for sex trafficking cults and international humiliation rituals and shit.
I mean, it fits all together, but then you gotta ask yourself the question, why would they do it so openly for everyone to see so easily? The fact that random retards like us can easily spot the patterns and symbols makes the whole "secret cult" thing kinda not very secret. But then again, it might just be part of the humiliation ritual, being able to flaunt all that evil in front of everyone and being simply above the law.

I think partly. But you mentioned the moon. And I just keep coming across stuff like that. But as one guy who used to be in the cult said: "They told me they weren't worried now about people exposing them. Even if they came out and had a press conference and told everyone they lied about everything, you are so entranced, you wouldn't even believe them"

 

[Bonesjones]

Well theres been rumors the higher you want to get into the cult the worse things get. People think child sex is the worst thing you could do. But my impression is we are hearing about the low end people. What if you tortured a child? What if you sacrificed a child? What if you ate a child? What if you drank their blood? What if you played with their entrails? Just think of the worst possible cult hazing you could imagine.

That's been a known tactic for a long time, like Rob Lowe's controversy in the early 90s being a blackmail/honeypot attempt that failed. There was an interview Patrice O'Neal did about how celebrity works about a decade ago, where you are allowed a certain level of success but as you go up the chain you have to start paying it back.

The point was that there isn't any reason to assume interdimensional beings, nothing even hints at it.

According to? You make leaps of assumption because you are uncomfortable with the idea of the supernatural.

No, I am not ok with that. I don't actually believe it

Wow look at you and your ability to weigh an argument then immediately snap to what the conventional story says. How noble. What beliefs do you have that aren't 100% lockstep with what the government and media tell you?

as I clearly stated I was just demonstrating that if NASA would fake stuff, there'd be a rather simple reason for it that doesn't require much more complicated belief structures up and to a flat earth.

If NASA would fake stuff then that means you have to work from first principles, which is how do you know anything they tell you is real? It's not a hard concept to process if you had any critical thinking. Just like always, you don't understand what "independently verifiable information" is.

Again, explaining it using the rather simple assumption that it's simply smoke and mirrors to keep up appearances, not because they can't breach the firmament or something.

If you spend billions of dollars to tell me unicorns are real and yet can't produce a unicorn, I don't care what you say or do until you can bring me a unicorn. You just can't handle the fact that you live in an entirely fictional world view.

Could probably even argue that they did do a bunch of real space stuff before, but since there's not really much point in doing so in this day and age, they just fake it for the same results.

I don't care what you argue I care what you can prove. When given simple ways they could have proven they went to the moon, you make excuses for why they didn't.

I can't explain something when I have been given zero background.

I thought you loved conspiracies and talking about them? You aren't aware of the many pictures and videos of "space" that have a remarkable resemblance to places on earth with what looks like small mammals in them? You really are a retard who can't keep his story straight.

Do you expect me to just know the details of the AI check process?

Yes. Since you seem apt to comment about it. Maybe you should use AI to invent more of your lengthy empty posts.

wrote quite a bit about it, and tried looking up some original articles for it, but as usual, couldn't find anything and you schizofags refuse to ever link to anything substantial.

NASA has had over 50 years to conclusively prove they went to the moon and all they've got is "Oops we can't do it anymore" and you don't find that curious at all.

But the point was that if you think for five seconds you can't trust an AI to tell you shit about how photos from the 60s or 70s were manipulated, because how could they?

I bet you'll find some way to contradict yourself!

How would an AI recognize a soundstage?

Not here yet.

I mean, do you know how an AI looks for image manipulation?

Not here yet either.

It doesn't go by logic, thinking "Oh, this is a soundstage, the flag is waving in the wrong direction, there's a "C" on a rock". It analyses compression artifacts, gradients, all sorts of much more abstract metrics you wouldn't get in a soundstage picture. Because, guess what, the soundstage and what is in the picture is real.

Oh look there it is. Funny how it takes you forever to get to your point, so you can fluff up your word count. The point with the targets is that it wouldn't bleed, it's proof positive of photo manipulation. They just lie about it and you believe them.

The sentence means that the structure of string theory is beautiful. It's a common sentiment amongst theoretical physicists and mathematicians that a big strength and draw of string theory is its mathematical elegance. And hey, theoretical physicists and mathematicians are all at least borderline autists. They find beauty in that sort of stuff. Not my thing, I sucked at that stuff, and even though I took a post grad theory course, I focused on the experimental side.

Yeah and they are all retards, so why do we care what they think exactly? Theoretical frameworks are only useful in their application in the physical world, just like music theory is only useful in its application of making good music. It's meaningless in itself and the most eeducated are also the most worthless because they can't disconnect their construct to look at reality.

That is actually a good point, I didn't even think of that. The landing would have blow away most of the dust in that area already.

Yeah because you are a retard and I also said it the last time we had this conversation but you were too busy tonguing NASA's balls.

I just pointed out that the ionosphere and the Van Allen belts are two different things. The ionosphere is created by ionisation of atmosphere, the Van Allen belts are trapped solar wind. The radio frequency was chosen specifically to avoid attenuation by electron plasmas, both for lower ionosphere and the Van Allen belts. The latter would be less of a problem for radio waves since the electron density there is quite a bit lower, and lower electron density means lower plasma frequency.

They aren't different things. It's all the same system categorized separately for ease of description.

The Van Allen belts have, however, higher particle energies and are larger, so secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation is worse for crews and material than the ionosphere.

There you go admitting I'm right again using 1000 words.

None of this has authority over me in any way, and I'm quite sceptical.

No you aren't.

I just find the issues raised here to be not very convincing.
I just go by what seems more likely.

If I told you I went to the grand canyon, and all I could show you was pictures of me in the desert with no grand canyon in the background, you'd be suspicious. If NASA does it, it's more likely than them lying. Makes sense.

A global conspiracy that requires thousands of people to keep quiet and nothing ever truly leaks, and the only evidence found in official pictures or other questions are weak at best?

What like COVID? Or the 20 other things posted in this thread? You really are a fucking idiot.

Sorry, I'll go with the latter. I can't tell for sure they landed on the Moon. But I don't see a reason why they couldn't have done it.

So skeptical.

No, I mean, with such a big conspiracy going around the world, surely someone would have gone and taken some more tangible evidence and leaked it later.

[Presented with a mile long list of discrepancies]
"hmm guys idk they didn't just outright admit it, so they must be telling the truth"

But all we get is conjecture and rather easily explained observations from officially released materials.

"How could they lie? Their story is straight and so professional?"

Where's the leak? Russia must have been in on this, and surely someone there would have at some point said something, and much earlier than "Hey I checked this picture with an AI and it tells me it's fake xaxaxa".
I just want some evidence that I can't immediately poke a hole at.

How many Russians do you actually talk to? Or are you just relaying the medias messaging yet again?

Whats more tangible evidence? You want to see a livestream personally of someone raping a child corpse or something? These cases already exist.
View attachment 7162271

Or just look at Daisy's Destruction, which is widely known and hundreds of people have been prosecuted for having as well as the Australian guy who made it.

 

[Meriasek]

I think partly. But you mentioned the moon. And I just keep coming across stuff like that. But as one guy who used to be in the cult said: "They told me they weren't worried now about people exposing them. Even if they came out and had a press conference and told everyone they lied about everything, you are so entranced, you wouldn't even believe them"
View attachment 7162308

That reads a lot into that sentence, and since it's cut together I can't really tell what he's actually saying. He could have simply meant that they were passengers on the flight in the sense that they didn't build the machinery and didn't calculate the flight paths, they just did their jobs. For most of the flight they were just passengers anyway, since they didn't have to actively do much to the flight path.
I'd like to see the full video, but apparently Bart Sibrel never posted it. Or I can't find it.

According to? You make leaps of assumption because you are uncomfortable with the idea of the supernatural.

According to what we know. What's a bigger leap of assumption? Ancient aliens were simply visitors from another planet, or visitors from another dimension? We know planets exist, but we have no idea if other dimensions exist.

Wow look at you and your ability to weigh an argument then immediately snap to what the conventional story says. How noble. What beliefs do you have that aren't 100% lockstep with what the government and media tell you?

I do believe there's more "secret elite club" going on than acknowledged. I also believe that for example migration is used to actively destroy social coherence, and that the push for renewable energies is another avenue for that. And a bunch of other things.

If NASA would fake stuff then that means you have to work from first principles, which is how do you know anything they tell you is real? It's not a hard concept to process if you had any critical thinking. Just like always, you don't understand what "independently verifiable information" is.

I don't know for sure if anything they tell me is real. It could all fake, but so far I don't see any reasonable evidence that that would be the case. If NASA (and most of the world since the 20th century) lied, it's internally very consistent. So unless proven otherwise I go with the assumption that they're telling the truth, because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I don't care what you argue I care what you can prove. When given simple ways they could have proven they went to the moon, you make excuses for why they didn't.

What do you want me to do? Go back in time and tell them "Hey, in 60 years there's gonna be some autist who demands that you also take some pictures of the stars, otherwise he won't believe you actually went there". They didn't take those pictures, there are decent reasons for it, and you don't like those reasons. That's how it is, you won't convince me and I won't convince you. To me it's not a smoking gun.

NASA has had over 50 years to conclusively prove they went to the moon and all they've got is "Oops we can't do it anymore" and you don't find that curious at all.

I don't find it curious because there's simple technical reasons. They don't have a launch vehicle capable of the required delta V anymore. It'd take a lot of time and money to make a new one, so for now they can't go to the moon. Simply building new Saturn Vs isn't as easy as it sounds, either, there's a whole supply chain that doesn't exist anymore.

Oh look there it is. Funny how it takes you forever to get to your point, so you can fluff up your word count. The point with the targets is that it wouldn't bleed, it's proof positive of photo manipulation. They just lie about it and you believe them.

Targets? I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the crosshairs that disappear behind objects?
Anyway, my point is that the original photos couldn't have been manipulated in a way that an AI could detect it.

Yeah and they are all retards, so why do we care what they think exactly? Theoretical frameworks are only useful in their application in the physical world, just like music theory is only useful in its application of making good music. It's meaningless in itself and the most eeducated are also the most worthless because they can't disconnect their construct to look at reality.

Not a fan of string theory myself. It's practically unfalsifiable and it's on a well-deserved descent into obscurity. The hype around it has died down and physics departments are realising it's not really going anywhere.

They aren't different things. It's all the same system categorized separately for ease of description.

But they are. There's overlap between the inner VAB and the ionosphere, and they have in principle similar compositions (as in, there are charged particles), but they have different origins leading to different properties.

There you go admitting I'm right again using 1000 words.

Not really. The talk about the Van Allen belts came from ionosphere radio attenuation before. He threw in the Van Allen belts and I clarified that those are a different issue. And they are.
Again, they are all regions of charged particles, but the origins of them are different and issues they case are different.
In the ionosphere, atmospheric particles are ionised by solar UV radiation and particles, leading to a rather high density of electrons in the upper atmosphere. This plasma will reflect or absorb radio waves below a certain threshold. The energies of those electrons and ions is much lower, so they don't pose an ionising radiation hazard themselves.
In the Van Allen belts, solar wind is directly captured by the Earth's magnetic field, leading to much larger regions where there are a lot of high energy electrons and protons. Their density is lower, but their energies are much higher, so while they don't pose much of a problem for radio communication like the ionosphere, they do cause ionising radiation either directly or by Bremsstrahlung.

If I told you I went to the grand canyon, and all I could show you was pictures of me in the desert with no grand canyon in the background, you'd be suspicious. If NASA does it, it's more likely than them lying. Makes sense.

You'd photograph where you go, indeed. NASA went to the moon, so they took pictures of the moon. Your analogy is wrong. You went to the Grand Canyon, and took pictures of it, but since you didn't take any pictures around it and on your way, you can't prove you actually went there and didn't just take pictures in front of a photo wall or something.

How many Russians do you actually talk to? Or are you just relaying the medias messaging yet again?

A few. But I was specifically looking for that whole "Russia used AI to look into moon landing pictures and found they were fake" claims.
Actually, why would Russia even need to do that? Since they're in on the conspiracy (as they acknowledged the landing was real back then), they should have actual evidence stashed somewhere.

 

[NoBueno]

According to what we know. What's a bigger leap of assumption? Ancient aliens were simply visitors from another planet, or visitors from another dimension? We know planets exist, but we have no idea if other dimensions exist.

How? Have you been to another planet, have you been to another dimension? All we know is what they tell us.

 

[Bonesjones]

According to what we know. What's a bigger leap of assumption? Ancient aliens were simply visitors from another planet, or visitors from another dimension? We know planets exist, but we have no idea if other dimensions exist.

I thought physics proved the existence of higher levels of dimensions?

I don't know for sure if anything they tell me is real. It could all fake, but so far I don't see any reasonable evidence that that would be the case. If NASA (and most of the world since the 20th century) lied, it's internally very consistent. So unless proven otherwise I go with the assumption that they're telling the truth, because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

So skeptical that you always return to the official story. Hilarious.

What do you want me to do? Go back in time and tell them "Hey, in 60 years there's gonna be some autist who demands that you also take some pictures of the stars, otherwise he won't believe you actually went there". They didn't take those pictures, there are decent reasons for it, and you don't like those reasons. That's how it is, you won't convince me and I won't convince you. To me it's not a smoking gun.

There aren't decent reasons. You are just unable to not defend them.

I don't find it curious because there's simple technical reasons. They don't have a launch vehicle capable of the required delta V anymore. It'd take a lot of time and money to make a new one, so for now they can't go to the moon. Simply building new Saturn Vs isn't as easy as it sounds, either, there's a whole supply chain that doesn't exist anymore.

We have leftover Saturn 5s. So there's your first lie. Taking time and money is only an issue when it contradicts what they say and do, funny enough. Again, you defend them to the bitter end for no reason.

Targets? I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the crosshairs that disappear behind objects?
Anyway, my point is that the original photos couldn't have been manipulated in a way that an AI could detect it.

Ai is only multi generational fuzzy logic, it's just rapidly using algorithms to do more work in a short time. It's meaningless. It's just further evidence you don't know what you are talking about, yet pretend to. None of this is new argumentation and it's existed since the moon landings "began".

But they are. There's overlap between the inner VAB and the ionosphere, and they have in principle similar compositions (as in, there are charged particles), but they have different origins leading to different properties.

We have an atmosphere from the iron core in the earth generating a magnetic field. They aren't seperate just layers bleeding into each other. I thought you knew all this?

Again, they are all regions of charged particles, but the origins of them are different and issues they case are different.
In the ionosphere, atmospheric particles are ionised by solar UV radiation and particles, leading to a rather high density of electrons in the upper atmosphere. This plasma will reflect or absorb radio waves below a certain threshold. The energies of those electrons and ions is much lower, so they don't pose an ionising radiation hazard themselves.

So you are told.

In the Van Allen belts, solar wind is directly captured by the Earth's magnetic field, leading to much larger regions where there are a lot of high energy electrons and protons. Their density is lower, but their energies are much higher, so while they don't pose much of a problem for radio communication like the ionosphere, they do cause ionising radiation either directly or by Bremsstrahlung.

No the Van Allen belts are solar wind blocked/diverted by our atmosphere, which is why it's so dangerous in the first place.

You'd photograph where you go, indeed. NASA went to the moon, so they took pictures of the moon. Your analogy is wrong. You went to the Grand Canyon, and took pictures of it, but since you didn't take any pictures around it and on your way, you can't prove you actually went there and didn't just take pictures in front of a photo wall or something.

Except they didn't take pictures that proved they went to the moon. Good job on being retarded yet again. You really need to work on your deflection. You also left out where they deleted the telemetry data. So it's like saying I went to the Grand Canyon and asked which way I went, I said I didn't know.

A few. But I was specifically looking for that whole "Russia used AI to look into moon landing pictures and found they were fake" claims.
Actually, why would Russia even need to do that? Since they're in on the conspiracy (as they acknowledged the landing was real back then), they should have actual evidence stashed somewhere.

Wait till you find out the holocaust is entirely made up and both the USA and the Soviets were in on it.

 

[Meriasek]

How? Have you been to another planet, have you been to another dimension? All we know is what they tell us.

I mean, we can see other planets. For thousands of years people have known that some of the lights in the night sky are different from the rest. Since the invention of telescopes they could tell that they're very different. So we know we live on a planet. We know other planets exist that orbit our sun.
We know other stars exist, and while we can't directly see other planets, we can use indirect measurements to show they exist, and it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that they exist.
So it's very reasonable to assume that life could exist on other planets.
Other dimensions, though? So far, nothing suggests they exist.
Now one could argue a geocentric worldview in which the Earth is the center of the universe. The observable orbits become extensively complicated, and with the very observable gravity, it becomes impossible. Even in classical gravity, all massive objects attract each other, and that can be easily demonstrated in experiments. With classical mechanics you can easily calculate orbits that match the observations.

I thought physics proved the existence of higher levels of dimensions?

No. String theory postulates something like 10 dimensions, but they're compactified and more mathematical constructs than anything else. They're also practically unfalsifiable and thus not very good theories.
There are some other theories that postulate extra dimensions, but they are also not really dimensions or planes of reality where beings could live and cross over. And none of them have been experimentally verified in any way.

So skeptical that you always return to the official story. Hilarious.

Being skeptical doesn't mean one always has to reject everything out of principle.

There aren't decent reasons. You are just unable to not defend them.

Not caring about taking pictures of the stars enough to bring another camera or bothering enough to set one up to do so is enough for me. It might be a smoking gun to you, but it isn't for anyone else.

We have leftover Saturn 5s. So there's your first lie. Taking time and money is only an issue when it contradicts what they say and do, funny enough. Again, you defend them to the bitter end for no reason.

They're decades old and inoperable. They'd need an entire rebuild, on par with building new ones. At most you could use the engines and shell, but you'd need new turbopumps to retrofit in there, and entirely new telemtry retrofitted as well. Might as well just build a new design that is much better optimized based on modern standards.

Ai is only multi generational fuzzy logic, it's just rapidly using algorithms to do more work in a short time. It's meaningless. It's just further evidence you don't know what you are talking about, yet pretend to. None of this is new argumentation and it's existed since the moon landings "began".

Well it can't be that old since the whole "Russian used AI to check photos of the moon landings and determined they're fake" was apparently from like last year.
And yeah, I agree, that's what AI is. The way it works is unsuitable for detecting image manipulation in this case. It's meaningless.

We have an atmosphere from the iron core in the earth generating a magnetic field. They aren't seperate just layers bleeding into each other. I thought you knew all this?

I know this. The magnetic field protects the atmosphere from solar wind stripping it over time. But that doesn't mean that the Van Allen Belts and the ionosphere are the same thing. Similar, but not the same. One is generated by (mainly) UV light in the upper atmosphere, the other is solar wind trapped further outside. Why is this even an argument?

So you are told.

I mean, it's basic electrodynamics and photoionisation. The electron energies are necessarily low, much lower than the particles in the solar wind. Photoionisation gives you a few eV of energy, the solar wind has MeV ranges.

No the Van Allen belts are solar wind blocked/diverted by our atmosphere, which is why it's so dangerous in the first place.

That doesn't make any sense. The VABs are much further out than the atmosphere. Do you suggest the solar wind gets reflected by the atmosphere that far, and then just decides to linger there?

Except they didn't take pictures that proved they went to the moon. Good job on being retarded yet again. You really need to work on your deflection. You also left out where they deleted the telemetry data. So it's like saying I went to the Grand Canyon and asked which way I went, I said I didn't know.

They didn't take pictures you think they need to prove they went to the Moon. Nobody else ever thought they'd be relevant, since, well, they went to the Moon and wanted to look at that, first and foremost.
As for deleted data, yeah, that was stupid. But then again, it was the late 60s, storage space was at a premium, and the data did its job. Archival wasn't a priority, but in hindsight, it should have been.

Wait till you find out the holocaust is entirely made up and both the USA and the Soviets were in on it.

There's definitely something fishy there, and I agree that the USA and the Soviets would be in on it. After two world wars they had serious concerns about Germany trying to dick around a third time, so they made sure the people would be as cucked as possible. Makes sense to induce a massive collective guilt complex that can be used to guilt-trip the population for generations to come. The US didn't go with the Morgenthau Plan since they needed an industrialized Germany as a buffer to the USSR, but they needed something to keep it docile and forever anti-nationalist. At least against itself.
It'd make sense for sure. Although the Morgenthau Plan was officially denounced after it was leaked, so maybe originally the plan was for full deindustrialization with the Holocaust as the justifying narrative. And then, when relations to the Soviets cooled off, at least the deindustrialization part was cancelled.

 

[Bonesjones]

Since the invention of telescopes they could tell that they're very different. So we know we live on a planet.

That has no logical basis at all, it's pure speculation with no definitive proof.

We know other stars exist, and while we can't directly see other planets, we can use indirect measurements to show they exist, and it's not a huge leap of logic to assume that they exist.

Astronomy, the cuck chair of science. Always speculating and watching with zero hands on evidence.

So it's very reasonable to assume that life could exist on other planets.

There you go making giant leaps of logic to defend the official narrative again.

Other dimensions, though? So far, nothing suggests they exist.

Just like any evidence we went to the moon. Why else would they hand out fake moon rocks? Why else would they need to constantly create new cover stories?

There are some other theories that postulate extra dimensions, but they are also not really dimensions or planes of reality where beings could live and cross over. And none of them have been experimentally verified in any way.

So the absence of evidence means something doesn't functionally exist? Funny how you don't apply that process universally.

Being skeptical doesn't mean one always has to reject everything out of principle.

Yes that's literally what that means. You aren't a scientist if you don't do science. You clearly don't do science while claiming to be one.

Not caring about taking pictures of the stars enough to bring another camera or bothering enough to set one up to do so is enough for me. It might be a smoking gun to you, but it isn't for anyone else.

Yes we know any excuse to defend the narrative no matter how damning the lack of triangulatable data of being on the moon is.

They're decades old and inoperable. They'd need an entire rebuild, on par with building new ones. At most you could use the engines and shell, but you'd need new turbopumps to retrofit in there, and entirely new telemtry retrofitted as well. Might as well just build a new design that is much better optimized based on modern standards.

See the old equipment doesn't work and the new equipment is too expensive to build, so we shouldnt do it. The same useless song and dance from a retard on a string.

I know this. The magnetic field protects the atmosphere from solar wind stripping it over time. But that doesn't mean that the Van Allen Belts and the ionosphere are the same thing. Similar, but not the same. One is generated by (mainly) UV light in the upper atmosphere, the other is solar wind trapped further outside. Why is this even an argument?

You knew it but didn't mention it until after I brought it up. Funny how that works.

That doesn't make any sense. The VABs are much further out than the atmosphere. Do you suggest the solar wind gets reflected by the atmosphere that far, and then just decides to linger there?

Yeah nothing I say makes sense when you need to remain ignorant.

They didn't take pictures you think they need to prove they went to the Moon. Nobody else ever thought they'd be relevant, since, well, they went to the Moon and wanted to look at that, first and foremost.
As for deleted data, yeah, that was stupid. But then again, it was the late 60s, storage space was at a premium, and the data did its job. Archival wasn't a priority, but in hindsight, it should have been.

Yeah the crowning achievement of all of human kind just wasn't worth keeping around. You'll believe any horseshit as long as it's got an official badge on it. The fact you remain ignorant about how the moon landing being doubted since day 1 says it all. You just post to pretend like you know what you are talking about and steer the conversation in the way you hope. Unfortunately for you I'm more autistic than you are retarded.