The Conspiracy Theory

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Loads of land from 40 minutes onwards

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fyvE_B9RxgQ

Its the first one I have seen with any land.



Its the most convincing one I have seen up to now, mainly because Google Earth pretty much matches it for scale, which is all it was ever about. Even if it is genuine footage (which we have to assume, because it would be possible to fake this footage!) they could still just be doing the odd genuine mission and faking the rest. I mean you can't take away the fakery, the bubbles in space, the boingy hair, the gravity shifts in space and so on.

Its hard to debunk the footage but it could still be a fake. It depends which way you choose to believe.

Quid pro quo Manc...

What shape do you believe the Earth to be?

Manc33

Round and flat.

Now what are you going to do. :P

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

Round and flat.

Now what are you going to do. :P

The same as I always do when I read your posts...

gingaman

Did you miss the part where I said bask? I didn't say dissect. Thanks

byke68

Manc33 wrote:

Round and flat.

So, Manc33, where do you stand on the hollow earth theory?

gingaman

Manc33 wrote:

Its the first one...I managed to match it up...mainly because Google Earth pretty much matches it for scale, which is all it was ever about... they could still just be doing the odd genuine mission and faking the rest.

You've changed your tune a bit haven't you?!

You're basing your latest 'debunking' on composite images provided by NASA satellites and Google maps, all based on a spherical Earth

Manc33 wrote:

The glare from the sun is too much to identify it as such

WTF? :roll:

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, read it and weep...

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-t ... ould-know/

and all the ones which turned out not to be true?

Info wars (and Alex Jones) is a curious thing, tells you about all these things that the government are doing to harm you and then sells you stuff to protect you against them. Pretty clever on their part I suppose.

Then there is of course the wonderful interview Alex Jones did with Piers Morgan in which he embarrassed him self in spectacular style!

seanoconn

Manc33, you've taken a lot of stick and replied in a dignified manner. I think you're starting to wear the buggers down down, keep it up

stretchy

Bored the buggers more like zzzzzzzzz

Stevo_666

I

seanoconn wrote:

Manc33, you've taken a lot of stick and replied in a dignified manner. I think you're starting to wear the buggers down down, keep it up

I suspect that The Womble is part of a shady conspiracy to keep this thread going

veronese68

Stevo 666 wrote:

I

seanoconn wrote:

Manc33, you've taken a lot of stick and replied in a dignified manner. I think you're starting to wear the buggers down down, keep it up

I suspect that The Womble is part of a shady conspiracy to keep this thread going

I don't think it can get any more ridiculous. The competition between Manc and Cody has been won as far as I'm concerned. Cody has lost.

imposter2.0

To be fair to NASA, they are actually working really hard at the moment...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 5041597377

RDW

Imposter wrote:

To be fair to NASA, they are actually working really hard at the moment...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 5041597377

I just came across another link that should finally convince people who pretend they need convincing about Space - astronauts sharing their own, deeply moving, personal experiences:

http://www.clickhole.com/post/incredibl ... -be-s-2186

Manc33

Robert De Niro could give details about a "deeply moving, personal experience" it doesn't mean he isn't acting. :roll: What I am saying is, that proves nothing.

Here's one I haven't said yet: If space is a vacuum with nothing there, not even air... then what does a rocket thruster blast against to move? Nothing would even move in space that way, in a vacuum where everything is floating.

Use a common sense approach and you'll find yourself suddenly being able to answer these things. Rockets don't blast along in space because they don't go into space, there isn't a vacuum.

If there's a vacuum, how does this vacuum stay attached to a non-vacuum (our atmosphere) without them mixing together?

Laugh, post Gillian Anderson, post geek cartoons... but what I said above still remains, unanswered, as usual.

If you started making bullet points on all this stuff it gets pretty damning. It adds up. The non-vacuum/vacuum problem, the rocket blasting along in space problem, the lack of any real imagery of Earth from space, all the astronauts in secret societies, Kubrick helping out for the 1969 mission (then leaving clues in his films lol), the "gravity shift" on the ISS (while they are supposedly out in space), the bubbles underwater (while they are supposed to be in space), the wires holding them up on the ISS (while they are supposedly out in space), the CGI layering, the financial aspect of faking it all being more cost effective.

"NASA is doing a lot" lol... you mean they are putting out spin telling us they are doing a lot. Are you actually there with them?

gingaman

Dont worry lads, I'll take this one

Manc33 wrote:

Here's one I [just thought of] haven't said yet: If space is a vacuum with nothing there, not even air... then what does a rocket thruster blast against to move? Nothing would even move in space that way, in a vacuum where everything is floating.

Use a [skewed] common sense approach and you'll find yourself suddenly being able to answer these things [albeit incorrectly]. Rockets don't blast along in space because they don't go into space, there isn't a vacuum.

If there's a vacuum, how does this vacuum stay attached to a non-vacuum (our atmosphere) without them mixing together?

... but what I said above still remains, unanswered, as usual.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space

And if you track back a few pages your question about vacuum/ non vacuum interaction has been answered.

stretchy wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

No one has answered how a non-vacuum can stay connected to a vacuum, yet you believe in space. :roll:

If you want to believe there's thin air up there and then it magically turns into a vacuum, where everything floats around, then believe that - but you're then having to claim a non-vacuum can stay connected to a vacuum and maintain itself without one becoming the other over millions of years, which is ridiculous. That sort of thing would have evened itself out long before now.

For someone that does so much research i would assume you would've come across this?
http://www.quora.com/Why-wouldnt-Earths ... into-space

The summary is we lose 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen a year. Which is 0.00000000000017% of the atmosphere.

Oh let me guess this is "bollox" because you say it is.

Try again old boy..

Manc33

Oh yeah the genius of articles that start out by telling you "you're not a rocket scientist". :roll:

"Don't take this personally, Coulter, but you're no rocket scientist."

They might as well say "We know everything, you know nothing". Its really cheeky to just say that for a start. It sounds like the guy asking the question hit a nerve to me. He asked something that cannot be answered so they have to come up with some BS lol.

In other words the "religion of scientific theories" has to kick in again to save ourselves from feeling stupid - don't think for yourself - you can't anyway - so let us give you the answer instead.

Wow, its amazing that they even give you a made up answer, are they sure we can understand it alright? :roll:

All I will do is throw it back and say these people have not been into space and maneuvered a rocket around, so they cannot say with any certainty. I haven't been up in space flying a rocket around either, but I am not the one claiming magic happens in space, that it is a vacuum that magically stays connected to a non-vacuum.

They just sit there trying to make it work out any way they possibly can like Newton, then say "I have the answer" lol, but its all just diversionary bunk. They even start off by telling you that you can't know much about it, look at how manipulative that is. How about I start off assuming they know nothing, let's have it that way around just for a change and see if we get anywhere that way.

So molecules are bouncing around everywhere and that's how the atmosphere magically sticks to the Earth?

You will just read that and believe it?

All of the atmosphere would have vanished a long time ago (millions of years ago) if that were the case.

Look, you can spout theories all day, but has anyone built a working example of a machine where it has a non-vacuum touching a vacuum and one doesn't suck the other into the other? How might that work, can I see it?

Throwing out a bunch of equations isn't answering it, where's the physical proof? The "boundary" between the top of our atmosphere and the purported beginning of the vacuum doesn't count as proof by the way. Show me a working example of it please.

veronese68

If you're too simple to understand something perhaps you shouldn't question it.
Simplification for the intellectually challenged:
A jet engine pushes against the air. A rocket works by spewing 'stuff' out the back of it. The speed at which the 'stuff' is spewed pushes the rocket the other way. It doesn't need to push against anything.

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

Robert De Niro could give details about a "deeply moving, personal experience" it doesn't mean he isn't acting. :roll: What I am saying is, that proves nothing.

But surely you found Barry Wilmore's testimony compelling? And don't you think that Mae Jemison's observations about the land visible from space are really very striking?:
http://www.clickhole.com/post/incredibl ... -be-s-2186

Manc33

Veronese68 wrote:

If you're too simple to understand something perhaps you shouldn't question it.

Is there another example, like a machine, where you can see a non-vacuum staying attached to a vacuum?

Not writing... a physical machine aka some actual proof?

Veronese68 wrote:

Simplification for the intellectually challenged:
A jet engine pushes against the air. A rocket works by spewing 'stuff' out the back of it. The speed at which the 'stuff' is spewed pushes the rocket the other way. It doesn't need to push against anything.

Simplified further:
That doesn't answer it, because nothing is being pushed against anything and they even re-affirm this in their answer. Try again.

If "nothing pushes against nothing" you'd just have a motionless rocket blasting out what would be on Earth tens of thousands of pounds of thrust, but with nothing (they claim) in space to thrust against, the whole notion of there being thrust doesn't work. There isn't even air for fuel to combust and people believe the rockets work that way, in 1969 as well lol. :roll: They couldn't even do that today, in a vacuum that is. If we assume there isn't a vacuum a lot more things that didn't make sense do make sense, thats how you know the vacuum isn't there, too much flies in the face of it and as per usual it is only believed because someone wrote a convincing sounding theory on it.

Just because the best answer we have is a convincing sounding theory, it doesn't mean it is the right answer.

stretchy

Manc33 wrote:

Throwing out a bunch of equations isn't answering it, where's the physical proof? The "boundary" between the top of our atmosphere and the purported beginning of the vacuum doesn't count as proof by the way. Show me a working example of it please.

Considering you require something with the gravitational pull of the earth for this to work, i think you're going to be disappointed.

veronese68

As I thought, too simple. I cannot explain it in any simpler terms.
Take a long walk off Beachy head, you'll be fine there's no such thing as gravity.

Manc33

stretchy wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Throwing out a bunch of equations isn't answering it, where's the physical proof? The "boundary" between the top of our atmosphere and the purported beginning of the vacuum doesn't count as proof by the way. Show me a working example of it please.

Considering you require something with the gravitational pull of the earth for this to work, i think you're going to be disappointed.

You can't back it up then. :roll:

You need some duplicate model of the Earth to prove this magical vacuum, not me. Why would I be disappointed when I am asking for some physical proof and not being shown it? You talk as though I am making these claims or something.

Do you realize how wrong it is (in a scientific sense) to say "We cannot answer this because it would take a model the size of Earth to prove it but nevermind, let's just say it is proven as good as it would be if we had that model"

You can't say this, it is a big no no in science and if you think it isn't, if you think anything is proof when it hasn't been physically shown to be the case, you don't understand science. Don't worry, its been designed so it is hard to understand, it doesn't need to be.

You'll get more sense out of amateur astronomers, they find things on the moon that NASA would never show you, never does. I mean they already would be doing and aren't. So how is that? How come amateurs on a tight budget filming in their back yard are able to show us more stuff on the surface of the moon than NASA does?

Wise up!

davis

Hmmm... we'll try this one for a giggle.

Compare the rocket engine to a very big fire hose. Fire hoses need big burly men with 'taches to hold them 'cos they're pushing back so damn hard. The fire hose is being pushed the power of the water charging out of it. They're both pushing back against their own exhaust.

Citation: I'm a big burly man with a 'tache. I've held a big hose but it wasn't for me.

(some bits of the previous sentence aren't true)

RDW

https://xkcd.com/1133/

veronese68

Excellent. Unfortunately still too complicated for the brain of a goldfish to grasp as it would need to understand other basic principles.

ai_1

I thought I'd drop back in and see why this thread is not dead yet. I can't believe you guys are still playing is stupid little games. There is no way he is that stupid while still able to articulate his absurd assertions in a vaguely consistent manner. He is either pulling your leg which (I think and hope for his sake this is the answer), or he's been utterly taken in by all this bullshit and actually does think he gets it and we're idiots. The problem with this is he would then be in exactly the position he suggests we're in, a pawn selling fiction he takes for fact because he's either too afraid or otherwise inadequate to see through it.

Incidentally, I have done some rocket related science in my last stint as a student. Does that make me ultimately deluded or one of the evil-doers?

Manc33

You're presenting a fire hose with water coming out that is operated in the atmosphere at ground level and claiming it is the same thing as a rocket blasting to move in space?

Wow.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... gymnastics

Manc33

Oh, so that's why every single rocket ever blasted upwards starts to curve round in an arc and doesn't even go out of the atmosphere, there isn't one single exit or re-entry video, again, no video, no proof, they just expect you to believe it lol. People do, thats the thing. People post nonsense cartoons and so on, which I have just shown is nonsense.

Doesn't matter how "clever" the cartoons make themselves out to be (often by insulting people's intelligence just for asking a simple question) if you can just say "Yeah but all rockets go up, then they all curve". The shuttle does the same thing.

It takes some faith to go along with it if you're going to claim these things are breaking through into a vacuum, there's no video of a shuttle or rocket actually going from the air to the vacuum and yet everyone (or most people) believe it, no questions necessary.

You can keep on handing your mind over to "experts" but like I just said, rockets don't go straight up, they all do a big curve when they get to a certain height. Of course the cartoon doesn't tell you this part because it doesn't fit in with its already pre-conceived idea.

Scientists blame religious people for not altering their beliefs in light of new information whilst they do exactly that themselves. For example you can point out that rockets don't provably go into space, they curve when they get to a certain height and we get told they go into space. It doesn't matter that this is a fact, they will still say "Oh but come on you don't really think they don't go through the atmosphere do you?" when they are not even looking at the fact that rockets curve and end up horizontal when they took off vertically.

I know whats coming next, as the next bullchit excuse "Oh they have to do that so they don't burn up in the atmosphere silly!" when going through the atmosphere after a curve, almost horizontally, would expose the craft to multiple times more burning up - if you were going into space, the aim would be to get through that barrier the shortest distance possible, not sodding skirt along it for miles and miles going almost horizontally to the barrier! That way you're ONLY flying through the stuff that makes your craft burn up.

Nevermind let's just keep believing stuff that doesn't even make sense when looked at for five minutes.

davis

You really are brilliant.

Can we keep you?

Edit: Anyway, no. I'm not saying they're the same; for one, my incredibly butch 'tache is simply too macho for space. I'm merely pointing out they're largely exhibiting on the same principle, i.e. pushing against their own exhaust. Analogy, your honour.

(giggles)

pblakeney

davis wrote:

Hmmm... we'll try this one for a giggle.

Compare the rocket engine to a very big fire hose. Fire hoses need big burly men with 'taches to hold them 'cos they're pushing back so damn hard. The fire hose is being pushed the power of the water charging out of it. They're both pushing back against their own exhaust.

Citation: I'm a big burly man with a 'tache. I've held a big hose but it wasn't for me.

(some bits of the previous sentence aren't true)

Surely the water in that case is pushing against our atmosphere?

Plus, of course space isn't a vacuum. It can't be. It is full of stars and planets and stuff.