The Conspiracy Theory

davis

PBlakeney wrote:

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.

Pish. It's not our atmosphere. It's Theirs.

Manc33

Here's what someone answered online to the question of the curving rockets...

"In the USA, rockets are usually launched from the east coast so that the early part of the flight is over water, rather than populated land."

They do this so they can launch it up vertically then curve it away so it falls into the sea well out of sight, then they just go retrieve the craft.

They always have an answer ready but they always have to have lol. Its mental gymnastics though. Science contradicts itself by claiming we have a band of stuff up near space that makes anything exiting Earth burn up if it flies too fast through it, then we have rockets that end up horizontal thus making the exit become as hard as possible in terms of avoiding being burned up, its just flat out nonsense. Either the atmosphere makes things burn up (meaning you have to take the shortest route) -OR- the atmosphere doesn't make things burn up and rockets can fly almost horizontally through it. You can't have it both ways. Where's the re-entry videos anyway. Try showing me something to back something up and I might be able to take it on board. Everything needs proof, everything else does and it is no different with this subject.

Playing lullaby music in the background and talking in a condescending tone proves nothing, apart from how manipulative people become when defending their ego, again all by design. We're born into a world where questioning anything already answered by so-called "experts" (in their own mind) is discouraged and unfashionable. Who are these scientists anyway, god? Yes you can question them, absolutely you can and we all must.

It doesn't work to say "something has already been answered" when the answer can be pulled apart in five seconds.

chris_bass

If a rocket wants to get into orbit (which it does even when going to the moon) it has to be going at 90 degrees to the earth, so unless it goes straight up then turns at a right angle it will have to curve? No?

chris_bass

Chris Bass wrote:

This is worth a watch

moon hoax not: https://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

I'm guessing you missed this first time round

city_boy

PBlakeney wrote:

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

I think 'space' is the bits between the stars, planets and stuff.
I think that's why they call it "space"!

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

If a rocket wants to get into orbit (which it does even when going to the moon) it has to be going at 90 degrees to the earth, so unless it goes straight up then turns at a right angle it will have to curve? No?

If the atmosphere makes things get hotter up there near the purported "space join" then they would go through it the shortest route possible which is vertically up. No rocket has ever been filmed not curving as it goes higher and higher.

No, if they were going to the moon they could fly vertically up say 200 miles, then they would be ten times higher than needed, so they have 90% the vacuum of space under them, then 10% is the air (that magically stays stuck there).

In this case, taking off vertically and going 200 miles up, then the moon is 238,655 miles away as opposed to being 238,855 miles away. They still have plenty of time to change direction and fly towards the moon. They have in those first 200 miles only covered about 1/1200th of the claimed distance.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

This is worth a watch

moon hoax not: https://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

I'm guessing you missed this first time round

Only 40 seconds into it he says:

"Some people say that in 1969, people were incapable of sending a man to the moon, but that they were capable of staging the whole thing in a TV studio. In fact, the opposite is true".

If the opposite is true, how did we get films like Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Gravity?

After just 40 seconds the guy is talking out of his ass so I turned it off, I don't need to hear the rest of it because the first part isn't consistent with reality I'm afraid.

I get how people want to believe we have an honest transparent space agency and so on. I want to believe it myself, its a nice thought, but reality gets in the way and that has to take priority because it involves observable facts as opposed to people speaking words and making up theories like gravity etc to force other stuff they are claiming to also work.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

This is worth a watch

moon hoax not: https://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

I'm guessing you missed this first time round

Only 40 seconds into it he says:

"Some people say that in 1969, people were incapable of sending a man to the moon, but that they were capable of staging the whole thing in a TV studio. In fact, the opposite is true".

If the opposite is true, how did we get films like Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Gravity?

After just 40 seconds the guy is talking out of his ass so I turned it off, I don't need to hear the rest of it because the first part isn't consistent with reality I'm afraid.

I get how people want to believe we have an honest transparent space agency and so on. I want to believe it myself, its a nice thought, but reality gets in the way and that has to take priority because it involves observable facts as opposed to people speaking words and making up theories like gravity etc to force other stuff they are claiming to also work.

And here lies the solution to all your problems, if you had carried on he answers all your questions!

Are you really comparing star wars to the moon landing coverage?

Manc33

He doesn't answer anything whatsoever. Exactly what does he say that answers why NASA couldn't fake moon landings but Stanley Kubrick could?

He doesn't have an answer to that and if he does he is making something up to answer it that is not an acceptable answer. The only way he could be taken seriously would be if we didn't have the proof that it can all be staged - with a film from 1968 showing us exactly that.

The guy is talking but he isn't saying anything. He just says "The opposite is true" then doesn't explain why, in fact he only re-affirms that it can all be staged, by even mentioning the Kubrick film from 1968.

So I'm not sure what he thinks he is achieving lol. The video just seems to point out that it can be faked while telling you it cannot. I couldn't give a toss if some guy says it cannot when there's a film from 1968 showing it can, he can say what he wants, its all hot air.

Unless he can reverse time and persuade Kubrick not to make 2001: A Space Odyssey, so that film never ends up existing, or Star Wars, or Gravity... then yeah we might be living in a world without proof that this can be faked, but we are living in a world where those movies exist. This guy is making out it doesn't even matter that movie companies can fake it, NASA still can't. What a crock lol.

What next, down is up and up is down?

chris_bass

Did you actually watch it? All of it? If you missed the point then there is no arguing with you.

2001..... Doesn't actually look anything like the moon landing though, so what's your point?

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

What next, down is up and up is down?

actually, no one knows which way up or down is, the globe is just that way round because explorers from the northern hemisphere made it.

But there is nothing to say that it isnt the other way up or at 90 degrees to what we think or any other angle for that matter!

pblakeney

City Boy wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

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

I think 'space' is the bits between the stars, planets and stuff.
I think that's why they call it "space"!

So a vacuum is just the gaps between stuff. Helpful.

What is in the space between the nucleus and electrons in atoms?
Atoms are the smallest particles, so nothing, so space, so a vacuum.

Kind of like Space. So our Solar system is like an atom.

That could make you ponder the greater Universe.

Manc33

The guy is using a clever tactic in an attempt to make people look stupid, by pointing at how deniers say "You can't see any stars" when that point is explainable and it is correct that there should be no stars, due to exposure settings needed to properly show the moons surface at the right density.

This is a clever tactic where it makes people think anyone asking questions must be stupid, because they don't understand exposures and so on. This makes people think all anyone denying the moon landing does is comes up with stuff you can easily debunk. Clever, real slick, but it doesn't work on everyone.

The rest of the time the guy is talking crap about how NASA "cannot fake" something in 1969 that a movie director on a far smaller budget had already accomplished one year earlier in 1968. You can't hide this fact, or skew it as he is clearly attempting (and failing) to do. The guy might as well have a clown outfit on.

Does anyone here even listen to the reasons people think it is fake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRUMt7n_U7k

None of the main conspiracy theorists touch the moon landing subject, which is odd in itself considering they will have us thinking reptilian overlords are ruling the Earth, or the Government is on the verge of frogmarching everyone into work camps... David Icke never mentions the far more easily looked at subject of the moon landings, Alex Jones never mentions it, pretty much none of them do. Almost as if these people are only there to again distract you from anything real.

That's the only question you need to ever ask, am I being told something different from what common sense suggests? We have been fooled into handing over all our integrity... not just a portion of it, ALL of our integrity, to "experts" that could be telling you anything. :roll:

Get a few amateur astronomers on the case in their own back yard with a telescope and oh look, they are finding stuff all the time and noticing structures on the moon, I wonder why NASA never told us any of that. No, you don't wonder, you realize they are bullshitting and that is that.

It is not just "hard to defend NASA" at that point, it is completely wrong and unfeasible.

city_boy

PBlakeney wrote:

So a vacuum is just the gaps between stuff. Helpful

Sort of. If something fills a space then that space is not a vacuum. If there is nothing in the spaces that are between the somethings then that would be a vacuum.

What is in the space between the nucleus and electrons in atoms?

An electron cloud, according to quantum physics...way beyond my level of comprehension TBH

Atoms are the smallest particles, so nothing, so space, so a vacuum.

Sub atomic particles are smaller than atoms.
Atoms are still something, so would occupy space, so therefore not a vacuum.

Kind of like Space. So our Solar system is like an atom.

More qualified and knowledgable bods than I would suggest its nigh on impossible to create a pure vacuum, even in space...so you could be right?

That could make you ponder the greater Universe.

Absolutely!

rick_chasey

Manc33 wrote:

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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn

Need to get better at physics Manc.

Manc33

Nothing in that link proves anything. They are introducing gravity (a concept) again to "explain".

Doing a slingshot around things is bunk, there's no proof of it.

chris_bass

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn

Need to get better at physics Manc.

That could be the understatement of the year!

I fear that link requires manc to believe in gravity.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn

Need to get better at physics Manc.

That could be the understatement of the year!

I fear that link requires manc to believe in gravity.

Yep.

Using an unproven theory to back something up means the thing being backed up must remain unproven.

You can't base facts on a concept.

orraloon

Manc33 wrote:

You can't base facts on a concept.

But you can observe and from that deduce.

Anyway, why we 'listening' (yeah right) to a numpty who has trouble working out why a card only petrol pump won't take cash?

Manc, you are either a total fxxkwit or a WUM who doesn't know when the joke has worn thin. I have this Colin Hunt picture in my mind...

Manc33

orraloon wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

You can't base facts on a concept.

But you can observe and from that deduce.

I agree, but "deducing" isn't fully verifiable, its a crapshoot.

Who is to say that kind of logic is "logic" either, to suggest we should base what we think on theories? That is a deviation away from science and into something else, faith. At the very least you have to say "Well sometimes yes we do have to bend the rules and be slightly unscientific to make our other answers check out".

That is, the fact that certain ideas are only based on a theory or concept is lost on people and it is programmed into us to find it funny if this were ever to be questioned. I can accept answers like "Its the most convincing theory we have" because it could very well be, but it might not be the right answer and oh well, let's just treat it as such and seal off that avenue of exploration forever.

No need to go looking into it yourself, its all taken care of.

Manc33

Who believes the Big Dung Theory?

I don't.

Any physicist will tell you "You can't get something out of nothing" (let alone... everything).

They also tell us energy cannot be created or destroyed.

So much of science contradicts itself it is becoming a laughing stock.

Is there life on Mars?
Is there life on Mars?
Is there life in Peckham?
Is there life in Peckham?

Name that tune without looking it up. :P

orraloon

Manc33 wrote:

"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?

Ok, here's one for you Manc. See this NASA obsession of yours, evidence methinks of over-dalliance with them 'Mericun nutjob sites.

NASA wasn't the only ones in space, or not depending on your viewpoint. The Soviets were up there, what with Yuri Gagarin the 1st man in space and all that. Or were they? And what about Mir and those Soyuz capsules? Real? Not real?

So in the full blast of the cold war, was there never a time when the Soviets said to themselves 'right, we can stick it to them Yanquis by blowing the gaff on how all space exploration is faked'? Don't remember those headlines myself.

Or were the Soviets in cahoots with the US as part of this global conspiracy? So there was never a real cold war, nor a "free" capitalist West facing off against the evil communist empire?

I think the truth should be told. Got a view on that grandest of conspiracies?

MisterMuncher

Manc33 wrote:

Get the Oil of Ulay out lol she's 46.

Blokes get away with this stuff, but women can't. No wonder when they apply make up and take it off 365 times a year. Its really clever how they do it, they flog people all these different skin potions (none work) then people wonder why their skin is all messed up, so what do they do then? Buy another skin potion because "this one might work".

Yeah, that's how "they" do it, and the seething misogyny in your post has fup all to do with it, has it, big lad?

MisterMuncher

orraloon wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

"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?

Ok, here's one for you Manc. See this NASA obsession of yours, evidence methinks of over-dalliance with them 'Mericun nutjob sites.

NASA wasn't the only ones in space, or not depending on your viewpoint. The Soviets were up there, what with Yuri Gagarin the 1st man in space and all that. Or were they? And what about Mir and those Soyuz capsules? Real? Not real?

So in the full blast of the cold war, was there never a time when the Soviets said to themselves 'right, we can stick it to them Yanquis by blowing the gaff on how all space exploration is faked'? Don't remember those headlines myself.

Or were the Soviets in cahoots with the US as part of this global conspiracy? So there was never a real cold war, nor a "free" capitalist West facing off against the evil communist empire?

I think the truth should be told. Got a view on that grandest of conspiracies?

Blah blah secret gobernment yak yak playing one off the other rhubarb rhubarb inscrutable motives and endgame waffle waffle planning so perfect as to require literal precognition or hindsight and the power of delusional rationalisation.

Am I getting warm?

Manc33

The soviets tried to do it and realized there's an impenetrable barrier there, or the Van Allen belt, or whatever was there made them hold off and let the Yanks take it all over, because they could fake it better than the soviets.

So when people ask "The Russians would have exposed NASA by now" it doesn't quite work like that at the top. We know it doesn't, because they manage perfectly well to have dozens of nations all agreeing on a treaty to secure Antarctica so no one can go anywhere near it without permission. So when it suits they do all work together (which publicly isn't very often) but openly they all oppose each other.

France is doing this, Spain is doing that... last time I checked these objects were inanimate land masses, we have talking inanimate land masses now do we... and that isn't off the wall crazy? Apparently not lol, they always say it on the news, it means nothing and simply means they don't have to give you anyone's actual name. Talk about racism or, putting down an entire nation in one quick intro "[country] says it blah blah blah..." sure it did... and I suppose statues can talk too?

RDW wrote:

I'm increasingly convinced that Manc33 is some sort of AI chatbot, mining crackpot websites for random phrases and assembling them into a superficially plausible word salad that would almost pass the Turing test. Gillian Anderson contemplates orbital mechanics and Newton's Third Law.

Thats not a red snake is it. :roll:

pblakeney

Over 2 billion people are "unbanked".

BBC headline. Why does everyone have to be in the banking system?
Hmmmmm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32314901

tangled_metal

Did anyone understand Manc33's last post? One or both of us could well be finally unhinged. Or is it a conspiracy to make me and only me come across as confused and get sectioned?

You know what, let's just live in peace and Gillian Anderson photographs. That bit I understand!

ai_1

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did anyone understand Manc33's last post? One or both of us could well be finally unhinged. Or is it a conspiracy to make me and only me come across as confused and get sectioned?

You know what, let's just live in peace and Gillian Anderson photographs. That bit I understand!

It's just more of the usual garbage.
In this case it appears he's claiming there's an impenetrable barrier preventing us going to space. This Van Allen belt stuff is standard conspiracy theorist nonsense and has been debunked many, many times. If I'm not mistaken it's also been dismissed as nonsense by Van Allen himself. The belt may be real but it's imagined status as an impenetrable barrier is not. People once suggested the speed of sound was impenetrable in controlled flight. This was called the sound barrier. It was then exceeded and we moved on. Considering the troll simply dismisses fundamental scientific principles as meaningless theory, and other demonstrated facts as fake, how can he justify latching onto specific scientific discoveries and theories and offering them as proof of their own position? It's utterly inconsistent and highly dishonest, to themselves in particular. Furthermore they inevitably misrepresent these scientific theories/observations as the troll has done continually.

The stuff about Spain and France saying or doing stuff is just childish idiocy (that seems unfair to children everywhere!). He's claiming land masses can't talk - seems like filler. he must be getting low on material today. It's unclear whether he's pretending not to understand or is just taking issue with the convention of saying "France" when one means french state government or french military forces. It's telling that it's not even clear what he's trying to say much of the time. Not that it matters!

Oh, the Gillian Anderson photo quote and the logo (is that BT?) appears to be an attempt to link Gillian Anderson with a large and evil company based on the fact that she was once photographed in a vaguely similar pose (yes i know one is lying down with a toy rocket and the other is apparently running with a trumpet of some sort, I'm being really, really generous here!)
He seems to be implying that because the right arm, torso and leg in the logo resembles a snake there's some hidden meaning. The fact that it also resembles a leg, torso and arm seems beside the point in his world.


If not a troll he's simply someone who prefers to think he's being kept out of the loop rather than accept that he just doesn't understand stuff. His absurd arguments and failure to realise when they're debunked is evidence enough of his lack of comprehension.

tangled_metal

Sorry to be crude but that last photo makes me think of two short Stigs pestering GA.

veronese68

TM's post looks really odd now you've changed the picture. I liked the first picture, it was a bit odd though. Why would you wash your hands with gloves on? I'm sure our resident deranged nutter can come up with an adequate theory.