Conspiracy Talk Archive May 24 2012

 

Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

24 May 2012 00:54:58
Theres lots of questions about the trip to the moon, eg why they when up there what they got from it ect, all im asking is what really happend? ed's your thoughts?

{Ed033's Note - There is a secret space program that uses non rocket type black technology to propel the spacecraft. In order to get to the moon, the NASA Apollo program used black technology. Apollo astronauts saw other craft on the moon that could have been the secret space program craft.

They can't show us what the moon is really like so the Apollo video that we were shown was faked on Earth by Stanley Kubrick using the front projection system as shown in Jay Weidner's documentary, kubrick's odyssey I. Also the colour pictures of Apollo astronauts on the moon in the glossy magazines were faked on Earth.

Believable4 Unbelievable1

There's also an abundance of Helium 3(energy source) and allegedly structures on the moon.
As for the Helium 3, this has been superseded by other energy sources(zero point energy and the like).
Regards to the film made by Kubrick it was then leaked by the American government about the moon landing being hoax. Reason being it debunks conspiracy theorists such as ourselves because the masses want to believe that thoses moon landings were real.
NoneTheWiser

Agree0 Disagree0

There is a lot of evidence to fuel the debate about the fake moon landings, the best evidence Ive seen to throw doubt over it was the pictures of the moon-buggy, as the dust gets kicked out from under the tyres it falls down just like you would see all the time, if it were on the moon it would carry on rising up due to it being just dust with apparently very little gravity apart from the earths gravitational pull. Have you seen the lunar rover ? $38 million and it looks like I could have made a better job with a Tesco trolly and some tin foil.

Matt_RFC

{Ed033's Note - Exactly. Also, astronauts certainly wouldn't be moving about at half speed. If anything they would be moving slightly quicker.

Agree2 Disagree0

Why exactly would the astronauts be moving quicker? You do realise of course, that they are carrying all that extra weight around? Or is it because you are 'awake' that you know better? What a ridiculous statement. {Ed001's Note - but the thinner atmosphere and lower gravity would mean that they would in fact feel like they were carrying less weight, because in effect they were. It is because he is not an idiot that he knows that, nothing to do with being awake, it is simple basic science. Perhaps you need to rethink your attempts to attack others? Because all you have done is made a ridiculous comment proving your lack of understanding. Typical of those who only know what they are told and are incapable of thinking for themselves.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Well done ed you really are giving the gonads
a hammering just lately {Ed001's Note - it is not difficult, they are not that bright and don't actually have any idea what they are talking about. It would help if they actually took the time to do a little research, then they might do the simple maths to understand that a lower force of gravity = effective reduction in weight. It is not like it is difficult to understand that what we call weight is not a set amount, it is affected by the force of gravity. If gravity is halved, then the effective weight carried would be halved, so they could carry twice as much and it would feel the same. Well actually that isn't taking into account their effective body weight would also be halved, so they would also have more spare muscle capacity in their body from not having to fight the extra gravitational force to move. Sorry, I started rambling on then.}

Agree1 Disagree0

Well next time one crawls out from under a rock they might just read some of the information that gets posted on here and on other places and formats process it and maybe just maybe start trying to use a part of their being they were born with {Ed001's Note - I very much doubt it, they only seem to come on to belittle everyone.}

Agree0 Disagree0

In principal the astronauts could technically move faster but it's not as simple as that. It's not just a case of lower gravity, mass etc must mean they can move faster. You also have to counter in that our bodies are evolved to working in our own gravity environment and also that running fast involves traction and friction on the ground. These points would effect how the astronauts could move and so they would have to do so in leaps rather than running. The reason they didn't try and move fast was that moving around in that fashion would disorient them and they may lose their bearings and also if they fell over they could damage their suits. So yes they could move faster but in a different way that was not suited to their needs. {Ed001's Note - are you for real? Hahahaha, that is a class, and completely inept, attempt at coming up with an explanation.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Ed what is your problem? I was not disagreeing with you just pointing out the science behind their movement. If the posters on this board are so close minded and will not accept any other views then this is not a forum ( look up the meaning in the dictionary). My point was valid and put across with no view given on others comments, there is no reason for you to be so rude and if you don't agree with the science behind it, then please state why. I have no proof whether we have been to the moon and frankly couldnt care, however, a physics degree does provide a knowledge of how and why we would move in a low gravity environment should we go there. {Ed001's Note - because it was not an explanation but a complete repeat of the pseudo-science nonsense they used at the time. It was not your theory, it was simply repeating the lies told by the government with no basis in fact. By the way, having a physics degree means nothing, you wouldn't have any greater knowledge, that has been proven time and time again. That is why science constantly gets proven wrong and has to change its theories over time. We know virtually nothing about the world and even less about space and other worlds.}

Agree1 Disagree0

Ed frankly either you just enjoy winding people up or have a complete disregard for everything. Science does not constantly get it wrong and to say we no virtually nothing is ridiculous. Science is why I am able to type this on my iPad whilst watching tv. Why my mobile works and why I can fly around the world. It's how we have nuclear power stations and basically behind most things in our lives. Yes we learn more and theories change and evolve but look where we are now compared to a hundred, ten or even five years ago. As for no basis in fact, again that is simply not true. Aside from the basic laws of nature etc, low gravity can be duplicated in underwater or high altitude conditions. There are many mysteries in life but just because science can explain some of them does not mean science must be wrong. If you don't accept this then that's your decision but to just say no you are wrong because science is wrong is not a proper argument. {Ed001's Note - erm no, you are still missing the point, just because we know (notice the spelling, it is basic English, shouldn't be difficult to know the difference between know and no if you have a degree!) some things, doesn't mean we know a lot. We know very little, it is not difficult to understand that, if you really do have a degree I am sure your tutors would have stressed the point to you many many times. Low gravity can not be replicated under water! That is a high drag environment, high pressure, while low gravity is low drag and low pressure. High altitude experiments are still not ideal, the variance in gravitational pull is simply not enough to make for useful data. But of course you would know all that wouldn't you?}

Agree0 Disagree0

24 May 2012 13:21:01
Not really a conspiracy, more a long term concern. My wife is a staff nurse & in the hospital she works,they've had a recent meeting where it has been announced that many antibiotics will be withdrawn from use leaving maybe only two very soon inluding intravenous. This is down to their growing ineffectiveness. There are and have been for some time now increasing strains of resistent infection's like TB, syphillis even E.Coli apparently to name just a few. Many people will have in-built immunities to these and alot of our immune systems will mutate and become resistent I presume. Many people have been aware for some time that we are not able to produce different antibiotics at a quick enough rate any more but it's concerning when you start to hear that some are being now withdrawn. It's never been helped by some countries that just sell them over the counter & over-use by GP's wher it's been subscribed or demanded for use on viruses, people become better but do not finish the course correctly then the strain they have can grow immunity.
This does'nt explain all of it I know but here's hoping that myself and my children have good strong immune system's for the potential of increasing nasties out there, certainly as my wife is working around people who are likely to come in carrying.

Supasub

Believable1 Unbelievable2

It is a concern, also diseases that were on the decline or defeated are coming back largely because of migrants, with weaker immune systems, coming in living and working in poor conditions and are at more risk to certain diseases.

Agree0 Disagree0

That's right, there is even growing amounts of resistent Polio in se parts of the world.

Supasub

Agree0 Disagree0

Or maybe the chemtrails are taking effect, just saying lol

clt

Agree0 Disagree1

{Ed033's Note - 6 minute silver solution

Agree0 Disagree0