The Conspiracy Theory

chris_bass

Veronese68 wrote:

Why would you wash your hands with gloves on? I'm sure our resident deranged nutter can come up with an adequate theory.

Whilst (hopefully) you weren't referring to me as our resident deranged nutter I have a theory, maybe they were washing the gloves?

veronese68

Chris Bass wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Why would you wash your hands with gloves on? I'm sure our resident deranged nutter can come up with an adequate theory.

Whilst (hopefully) you weren't referring to me as our resident deranged nutter I have a theory, maybe they were washing the gloves?

Well...if the cap fits. :P

chris_bass

Veronese68 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Why would you wash your hands with gloves on? I'm sure our resident deranged nutter can come up with an adequate theory.

Whilst (hopefully) you weren't referring to me as our resident deranged nutter I have a theory, maybe they were washing the gloves?

Well...if the cap fits. :P

Only if it is made from the finest tin foil.

imposter2.0

In before the lock...

imposter2.0

So, now what?

Kieran_Burns

You all know that the whole Global warming thing is simply a ruse to generate green taxes, right?


(I'll be hiding in the corner)

tangled_metal

More photos perhaps. More Manc33 definitely. The conspiracy continues.

RDW

The MancBot would also add that that isn't really the Titanic, but its sister ship the Olympic in disguise, sunk by a Norwegian submarine under the control of JP Morgan in an attempt to eliminate his rivals and pull off a complicated insurance scam, or something.

chris_bass

RDW wrote:

The MancBot would also add that that isn't really the Titanic, but its sister ship the Olympic in disguise, sunk by a Norwegian submarine under the control of JP Morgan in an attempt to eliminate his rivals and pull off a complicated insurance scam, or something.

I think he was also hoping to boost sales of iceberg lettuce the world over.

ai_1

RDW wrote:

The MancBot would also add that that isn't really the Titanic, but its sister ship the Olympic in disguise, sunk by a Norwegian submarine under the control of JP Morgan in an attempt to eliminate his rivals and pull off a complicated insurance scam, or something.

Can you prove that's not what happened?
All of the documentation, eye witness "evidence" etc has been tampered with. Why do you think there were so few survivors? They knew the survivors could give the game away so along with destroying th eship they had to "disappear" most of those on board. The ones that survived where in on it all along. If you believe they thought the ship was unsinkable so didn't bother with lifeboats you're nuts. Of course they knew. You think they could build a ship that size and speed but couldn't work out how to put on enough lifeboats? How come they only "found" the wreck several decades later? How hard can it be to find a huge ship just sitting there on the bottom of the Atlantic. You don't seriously believe that do you?
There is no wreck. They faked the underwater pictures to make you think it's there. No-one's ever been that deep underwater. No robots vehicles either. You know how high the pressure is down there? It's enormous, they say that's because of gravity but that's just a lie, it's because you're near the bottom of the world of course. They say the ocean is nearly 12km deep and that they've sent stuff down there. Of course that's a lie, anything you sent down that deep would just collapse. It's obvious, but we just accept what we're told.
So everyone who was on it is dead or part of the conspiracy. No-one can see the wreck with their own eyes. There's all these stories about life boats and icebergs. As if ice can damage steel anyway.
Here's an experiment you can do yourself to see how it's all a lie. Go look at your car on a really cold winter morning. Did the frost make a big hole in your car? No!!! So how did ice sink the Titanic? It didn't.

Besides they even got their fake pictures wrong!
Why would the back of the ship go up in the air? They say it sank but the pictures they all did afterwards show it rotating in the middle. What do you think there's a big hinge in the water? Ha! So gullible. Because the ship is dense it would just go down unless there was an antigravity drive in the back.

imposter2.0

classic

chris_bass

that was scarily similar! I think you need some time away from this thread!!

imposter2.0

Worryingly, I'm actually starting to believe that version of the sinking now...

chris_bass

Imposter wrote:

Worryingly, I'm actually starting to believe that version of the sinking now...

But I thought nothing sank? now i'm confused.

tangled_metal

Was it not Cameron the film director involved in either finding the wreck or the big filming and surveying of it? Hmmm! A Hollywood film director...think he could fake the film of the wreck?

The conspiracy deepens.

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

Worryingly, I'm actually starting to believe that version of the sinking now...

I'm very surprised how easy it is to talk seemingly plausible but in fact completely ridiculous paranoid shite when you're not burdened with the need to make a logical argument. I've lost the small amount of admiration I had for the troll's creativity - it's easy!

chris_bass

I think we have the conspiracy's the wrong way around.

James Cameron is in fact a deep sea diver and not a film director at all and Stanley Kubrick was in fact an astronaut and his films were actually documentaries. I mean how else would he know what space looked like?

tangled_metal

Except Cameron never dived deep into the sea anywhere, they faked the deep sea stuff in space. Noone can go down that deep but space is a doddle really. I mean they don't have to worry about such high pressures and the like. Easy peasy is space.

Conspiracy deepens unlike Cameron's dive depth.

davis

We're sending Cameron into the sea now? Ace.

imposter2.0

So if I've understood this correctly, the moon is actually at the bottom of the sea, and the Titanic is in space?

That's incredible...

chris_bass

Tangled Metal wrote:

Except Cameron never dived deep into the sea anywhere, they faked the deep sea stuff in space. Noone can go down that deep but space is a doddle really. I mean they don't have to worry about such high pressures and the like. Easy peasy is space.

Conspiracy deepens unlike Cameron's dive depth.

yeah true and without all that gravity to contend with, sorry I mean densities, it would be much easier to lug that huge ship around too.

tangled_metal

Is it? Reminds me of that story of the good Wiltshire folk a few centuries ago who were drinking in the tavern when someone came in saying there was smuggled French cheeses tossed in the village pond to evade the customs men. Apparently the whole village spent hours trying to rake the cheese in until an outside told them it was the reflection of the moon. The good Wiltshire lot were then known as moonrakers.

I have no idea if that is true but I was told that story by Dorset and Hampshire folk so perhaps a bit of rivalry. kind of like the English make out the Irish and the French make out the Belgians as being a bit backwards.

Anyway, if that is the case Manc33 will come along with the "evidence" to back it up. All gleaned from youtube and dodgy spoof websites.

ai_1

Tangled Metal wrote:

Except Cameron never dived deep into the sea anywhere, they faked the deep sea stuff in space. Noone can go down that deep but space is a doddle really. I mean they don't have to worry about such high pressures and the like. Easy peasy is space.

Conspiracy deepens unlike Cameron's dive depth.

This of course throws up some interesting analogies for the troll. He's been going on about some imagined issue with the atmosphere interacting with a vacuum. I think he imagines there's a definitive boundary where air suddenly stops and complete vacuum starts. Even if did (it doesn't), then besides being confusing and inconsistent with physics what's to stop a spacecraft crossing the boundary? He talks like it's obvious and I admit I don't understand his imaginary universe any better than he does but how would his nonsense differ from simply getting out of the water? One is denser than the other but doesn't have a problem co-existing and doesn't spontaneously vanish simply because it's in contact with air. Admittedly water in contact with a vacuum would evaporate but air is already composed of gas so what's the problem?

Oh on a slightly different but related topic, the troll claimed in earlier posts that rockets couldn't work in space because they have nothing to push on. Put simply, he just misunderstands how rockets (or jets) work. Unlike many of his false ideas, this one's a pretty common misunderstanding. Jets and Rockets are simply reaction drives. They move material at high speed one direction to propel the craft in the other direction. The only reason a turbojet, RAM jet, SCRAMjet etc won't work in space is because they only carry the fuel to heat the air they expel. They don't carry the air itself which is needed as the main propellant as well as the oxidant for combustion. Rockets expel only the products of combustion and carry the oxidant with them. In other words a jet won't work for the simple reason that it runs on air.
If you insist on thinking a reaction drive needs something to push on then consider a waterjet. This too is a reaction drive. If you run one so that it expels the jet of water into air it generates thrust, stick it in the water and it still produces thrust. Water is 1000 times denser than air, so surely if these drives were dependent on a material to push on they'd work 1000 times better in the denser material? Waterjets work just fine in air. I suspect you've seen a jetski in action?

Manc33

People talk as though they personally sent rockets into space.

You "know" rockets get pushed along in space because some official sounding website says so.

You don't know but just choose to believe they can work.

That's all very well if you're completely oblivious to the dozens of other times NASA has been caught faking stuff. If you have no idea about that, you're never going to think a rocket couldn't work in space, you're hooked into the lie that it isn't all fakery.

Knowing it is being faked, being told a rocket can't push anywhere in space because there isn't anything to push against makes perfect sense. If you don't agree with that then other parts of science must be wrong, it contradicts itself because they tell us there is nothing there.

So you keep believing this stupid contradictory stuff if you want. Why do you think its alright for science on the one hand to say "there's nothing in space" but when it suits them there is something to push on?! Why would anyone carry on taking it seriously?

Why doesn't anyone care if science makes mistakes, contradicts itself and turns concepts into absolute facts? Why would you carry on thinking that way when the thing is held together on a wing and a prayer?

There's nothing in space when it suits AND there is something in space when it suits, at the same time.

People actually get sucked into this crap lol. A soon as something contradicts itself in that way you should just walk away from it, not carry on defending it. Why would anyone do that? You're subscribing to a bunch of contradictions.

There's some comical answers to the rocket pushing thing...

"the rocket doesn't push against empty space, but against its exhaust gas"
Then you've just got a rocket floating in space blasting, not moving anywhere.

People will come up with anything as long as it appears something is answered... sad, moronic, but above all - unscientific.

"Newton's third law is pretty near to the mark."
He tested the blast capabilities of rockets in space in the late seventeenth century?
SURE HE DID.

This one talks about balloons:
"Now open the neck. What makes the balloon fly around isn't actually the air escaping through the neck -- it's the fact that there's no longer pressure backward against the balloon at that point, so the pressure on the opposite side is unbalanced and there's a net force pushing the balloon forward."

Facepalm.

1. This is done on Earth in a non-vacuum.
2. It uses air pushing out of something, it is not a rocket blasting.

So he takes that and applies it to space.

There's nothing to push on in space, all this "answer" does is re-affirm the original question, because it doesn't even apply to space, he is talking about air (that doesn't exist in space) pushing a balloon made of a rubber skin (not solid like a rocket), working here where there's supposedly gravity acting on it, the air acting on it, plus the fact that it isn't even a rocket blast.

Clever... answering something by making the reply appear as though it is an answer, but just re-affirms the original question again. All you would need to say to his "answer" is that's a balloon not a rocket, thats air not a blast, thats on Earth not in space... I mean is the guy sure he read the question about how rockets push in space because he is bringing all sorts of unrelated stuff into the answer here that doesn't even apply.

It isn't acceptable to answer these things in this way.

tangled_metal

You know I would take you more seriously if you just posted more Gillian Anderson pics.;)

Manc33

Tangled Metal wrote:

You know I would take you more seriously if you just posted more Gillian Anderson pics.;)

I'm too busy laughing at how a balloon pushing out air under pressure on Earth is identical to a solid tube in the vacuum of space with a blaster on the underneath.

If that is the same thing, then a blancmange must be a kangaroo. Just take the legs off the kangaroo, paint it pink, put it on a plate, same thing.

Same guy later on in that same answer:

"A rocket engine is, essentially, a rigid balloon with an open neck which continuously re-inflates itself."

It is essentially the same thing because it has to be for this wrong answer to have any semblance of logic. Telling us it is essentially the same thing doesn't make it so. The answer is pathetic.

Imagine if I asked "How does a cheetah run at 60 MPH?" and the answer is "Well you get this handle and attach it to this cog..." you'd think no, tell me how a cheetah runs so fast! Answering stuff by bringing in other stuff to make it work is just silly and avoids answering it.

The answer even tries to make out the atmosphere on Earth and the vacuum of space are the same thing and objects will behave the same way in both instances. I hope these people are still at school that's all I can say.

It gets pretty juicy lol:

"(Yes, I know this is an oversimplification. But it's an explanation which is so straightforward that a third-grader, which I was at the time, could look at it and say "Of course, that's obvious!" Unfortunately my teacher at the time didn't take well to having her wrong explanation corrected by a third-grader, but that's a separate story.)"

Oh aren't we the genius.

So this guy was in third grade and fobbed off some teacher with his balloon answer and the teacher couldn't come up with something fast enough, namely that space and Earth are different.

Imagine how clever this guy must think he is now lol. :roll:

He shows off about making a teacher look stupid when the answer he gives, itself, makes no sense. The teacher probably thought "I can't be bothered with this, OK you're right, balloons and rockets are identical, the vacuum of space and the atmosphere of Earth are also identical, top marks".

davis

Manc33 wrote:

"the rocket doesn't push against empty space, but against its exhaust gas"
Then you've just got a rocket floating in space blasting, not moving anywhere.

You really are a gem. Will you be my dad?

You do realise that if your proposition is true, then the exhaust gas wouldn't go anywhere in space either, don't you?

It's like shooting fish in a barrel this. With a punt gun. Dead fish. In a small barrel. Just brilliant.

Manc33

How can gas be "created" in space if nothing can be combusted up there?

They have magic "internal only" engines that take in nothing, but expel something?

So you're saying now space does have air and things can be combusted?

Or aren't you saying that?

If you're not saying that, its back to the magic internal engine again isn't it. :roll:

You can't have it both ways - but always need to so the answers appear logical.

davis

Awww now you're just switching arguments; if you're going to troll could you at least try a little harder?

Manc33

Switching from what?

The last 5 or 6 posts are about rockets being able to blast along in a void, weightless vacuum.

"All jet engines, which are also called gas turbines, work on the same principle. The engine sucks air in at the front with a fan."

Source: NASA.gov (the irony).
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/UEET/S ... gines.html

I better use them as a source since people tend to believe it if NASA say it.

So where in space are these magic rocket thrusters sucking in air from if air doesn't exist in space?

You also have an added problem - if air cannot be sucked into the front in space (that is, a plane on Earth can just fly forwards and plenty of air blows through) you're going to require some other powered motor to do that, since there's zero air friction. So that's even more fuel it needs and it just gets silly.

The ridiculous mind bending that has to take place to "explain" how rockets work in space is laughable and easily dismissed against all the evidence we currently have that NASA is faking it all, not just the moon landing - but everything, including going into space at all, ever. You can conclude from this that there isn't even a vacuum there - which is how rockets work up there, they are only ever at a high altitude as opposed to in orbit, once they get near 20 miles up they are going horizontal to Earth, not vertical.

You can't store the air inside the rocket (in canisters) to feed the combustion, you'd need a gas canister thats the size of the rocket itself. Its the same thing with the lead shielding, you can't pass through the Van Allen radiation belt, it would take lead shielding so thick that current rocket technology couldn't lift the lead off the Earth to lift it into space.

So they aren't going into space, it doesn't even exist if you look for proof (you won't find any proof).

You might as well believe David Copperfield can do literal magic.