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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Meriasek said:
Are you capable of answering a simple question?
I don't know the specifics of what you're talking about, but we can take a look at each if you like. But I am also asking you to answer that simple question: Why the more complicated explanation?
Click to expand...
If you didn't even research the subject. How can I even argue with you? I think Occam's razor is a popular thing to bring up to shut down discussion. Like saying "logical fallacy" boom. Conversations over, you are a moron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CloverKitty
NoBueno said:
If you didn't even research the subject. How can I even argue with you? I think Occam's razor is a popular thing to bring up to shut down discussion. Like saying "logical fallacy" boom. Conversations over, you are a moron.
Click to expand...
There are so many different discussions around faking space stuff, I just wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing.
But ok, you don't want to answer, that's fine.
Occam's Razor is just a principle, it's not even a law set in stone, and while the more simple explanation is usually preferable, sometimes a more complex one is necessary. I just want to know why you think this is the case here.
 
Meriasek said:
There are so many different discussions around faking space stuff, I just wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing.
But ok, you don't want to answer, that's fine.
Occam's Razor is just a principle, it's not even a law set in stone, and while the more simple explanation is usually preferable, sometimes a more complex one is necessary. I just want to know why you think this is the case here.
Click to expand...
Look I know I'm not going to change your mind. Like just go out sometime an look at the crazy conspiracy stuff and see what you think is plausible, I'm not telling you to accept everything I say is the truth, I'm not even 100% sure. That's how insane things seem to me these days.
 
NoBueno said:
Look I know I'm not going to change your mind. Like just go out sometime an look at the crazy conspiracy stuff and see what you think is plausible, I'm not telling you to accept everything I say is the truth, I'm not even 100% sure. That's how insane things seem to me these days.
Click to expand...
I look at a lot of crazy conspiracy stuff, it's fun. But you gotta throw me a bone here, you come in with extremely out-there stuff, and refuse to engage in any meaningful way.
Let's take what you said before:
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.
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.
A softer version is that there have been space missions and probes on Mars and so on, but not in a long while because it's just not worth it except for the publicity. So they fake shit.
Why did Russia use Google AI to check photos of the 1969 moon landing and find they are manipulated? Could be all sorts of reasons. First, the pictures were actually fake, because the moon landings were fake. But we gotta take into account how AI works, what it looks at, and what it worked with. 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. The moon landing footage has existed since then, and obviously they didn't use digital image alteration. The pictures, if fake, were taken on a set made to look like the moon. How could an AI distinguish? Google AI is trained on altered and AI generated images to look for certain details of fakery. None of those should have been in the original pictures, because they were not digitally altered or AI faked, since they existed long before. So such detection is likely to be a false positive or otherwise incorrect result. I tried looking up some sources on that, but nothing conclusive came up, just some pages claiming that this was shown. But as I just showed, you need some more details to really assess that claim. AI assessments are generally to be taken with a grain of salt, as they're only as good as the training data and the material they work with. So I'd like to know more about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geocities
Meriasek said:
I look at a lot of crazy conspiracy stuff, it's fun. But you gotta throw me a bone here
Click to expand...
I don't think I really can
9a055ff66e37623110dbc71a93a1d87a4ea36624131f743da4fd462b3c0cd649_1.jpg
 
  • Feels
Reactions: CloverKitty
Meriasek said:
Physics isn't just made up because it's cool, it's all tested, improved, and expanded.
Click to expand...
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.
NoBueno said:
people with Degrees or PHDs in STEM automatically believe themselves smarter than the average person
Click to expand...
If you’ve PhDd and science’d properly you should be a blasted shell of your former self, in awe of creation, and aware you know nothing at all.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Mighty Banth, Vecr and CloverKitty
Otterly said:
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.
Click to expand...
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, but apparently you can just add new compactified dimensions and make shit up as you go along to basically fit arbitrary data and explain everything.
Physics isn't complete at all yet. The Standard Model also has issues, and it seems that much of particle physics is now in place to mainly sustain itself by coming up with bigger experiments and new theories that need bigger experiments, and not actually improving our understanding of the world.
I really hope to see some unified theory or at least some significant progress within my lifetime.
 
Meriasek said:
Physics isn't complete at all yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand that much, from my very limited perspective. I get the feeling that we are missing something fundamental, and yet the work being done is more tidying the edges? I’ve read about string theory and it feels so elegant but also somewhat untestable.
I like the ‘just one more hadron collider bro!’ Meme.
Maybe we will see a GUT in our lifetimes. I’d bet we won’t. I think we look at things wrong across many disciplines
 
My university time was 10 years ago, but it was still emphasized that we don't really know shit, that physics is incomplete, quantum mechanics are weird-ass bullshit, and that the best we can do is learn the math and the scientific principles to be able to do productive scientific work.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kulmeister and Otterly
NoBueno said:
You must've gone to school a loooong time ago.
Click to expand...
Last century, so yeah. Lucky to have gone through my entire schooling with none of that. They did hit us with rulers if we angered them, but looking back I’ll take a ruler over rainbows
 
I'm just saying is all. Why is there a stage member in a NASA shot?

Why is it when they outright tell you, you don't believe it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perun
NoBueno said:
I'm just saying is all. Why is there a stage member in a NASA shot?
Click to expand...
That guy looks shopped in tbh. I'd ask for the source, but I know you won't give it to me.
NoBueno said:
Why is it when they outright tell, you don't believe it?
Click to expand...
Obviously the moon landers were not made of crumpled aluminium foil. It's covered in gold-coated mylar for heat protection. As for the lunar rover, there are pictures showing how it was folded up.
As for the clip with Buzz Aldrin saying "No you didn't, you watched animation", it's a bit out of context and cut together.
Because yeah, the landing itself wasn't filmed from the outside. Later you got footage from the lander and the descent, but the only live footage from the moon was from the SSTV camera when Armstrong descended the ladder. Everything else was audio.
I don't know about the other segments about using animation. Did they claim it was real, but clearly animation? Again, I'd ask for the source, but it's kinda hard to talk to you, so I'll see what I can find myself.

/edit: Oh yeah, that "official shot without their helmets on"? It's from training.

/edit2: Ok, I have to add a bit more. You berate everyone for unquestioningly believing in science and what NASA says, yet apparently you also unquestioningly believe what a random Frenchman on Tiktok says when several things are immediately questionable. Why would NASA make such a crummy lander model if they wanted to fake the moon landing? Surely Stanley Kubrick could have done a better set? You might say, "they did it for realism", but then the aspects of the lander you point at actually work in its favour.
The rover picture without helmets. Officially and clearly from during training on Earth. Same with the other helmet-less picture.
And I'm supposed to believe that Buzz Aldrin, who punched moon landing deniers in the face, went on to Conan O'Brien to claim that the landings never happened? In a clearly cut sequence? Come the fuck on.
Some animated footage with Mars in the background? Of course it's fake, and I doubt anyone claimed it's real. So there's a lot of very obvious subterfuge in that little Tiktok video, and yet you and your highly esteemed ability for criticism are blind to that. You are an idiot, a gullible moron who is incapable of actual critical thought. Just regurgitating silly shit that's on Tiktok. Fucking retard.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Cnidarian, Cowboy Kim, NiggerDeathRay and 1 other person
Meriasek said:
That guy looks shopped in tbh. I'd ask for the source, but I know you won't give it to me.

Obviously the moon landers were not made of crumpled aluminium foil. It's covered in gold-coated mylar for heat protection. As for the lunar rover, there are pictures showing how it was folded up.
As for the clip with Buzz Aldrin saying "No you didn't, you watched animation", it's a bit out of context and cut together.
Because yeah, the landing itself wasn't filmed from the outside. Later you got footage from the lander and the descent, but the only live footage from the moon was from the SSTV camera when Armstrong descended the ladder. Everything else was audio.
I don't know about the other segments about using animation. Did they claim it was real, but clearly animation? Again, I'd ask for the source, but it's kinda hard to talk to you, so I'll see what I can find myself.

/edit: Oh yeah, that "official shot without their helmets on"? It's from training.
Click to expand...
And they got a perfect tracked shot by a stationary camera by remote control in 1969 from the moon. In one go. Despite the speed of light delay. Not to mention what was the energy source and tower for the signal. This isn't 2025 wifi. It must've been the super secret science NASA said they destroyed.
 
NoBueno said:
And they got a perfect tracked shot by a stationary camera by remote control in 1969 from the moon. In one go. Despite the speed of light delay. Not to mention what was the energy source and tower for the signal. This isn't 2025 wifi.
View attachment 7133954
Click to expand...
That's Apollo 17 footage from 1972, from a camera mounted on the rover and powered by rover batteries. It's an analog radio signal, sent from the rover as well.
The light speed delay is one second, easy to account for. On Apollo 15 the mechanism failed, and on 16 the rover was parked to close for a good shot. For 17 they really made sure they had the math correct and could do it despite the delay. It's not that hard; the ascend speed was known, and for a given distance of the rover to the ascend module the camera operator knew how fast the camera had to move.
Again, not really a complex thing to think about, but sadly, you are retarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cowboy Kim, NiggerDeathRay and Tropical Cock Man
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back