Conspiracy Talk 6

 

Use our posting form to send us conspiracy talk.

(single word yields best result)
 

26 Jan 2020 20:20:36
A David Irving talk about his book - Churchill's War

Agree0 Disagree0

28 Jan 2020 10:24:51
Really good video Southern Monkey, thanks for posting.

28 Jan 2020 15:10:20
David Irving - Smear Campaigns To Stifle Truth In History

26 Jan 2020 18:28:11
Tycho Crater shows that the Moon is not 238,900 miles away?

Agree0 Disagree0

26 Jan 2020 14:50:32
Part 1 of Skeletons in the Cupboard series - When the Maori first arrived in New Zealand other people were already there.

Agree0 Disagree0

25 Jan 2020 22:14:38
From Major Jordan's Diary - America gave any and all info, money and resources to the Soviet Union in the 1940s so they could build atomic missiles and rebuild the USSR.

Agree0 Disagree0

25 Jan 2020 13:23:33
Banks don't lend money.

Agree0 Disagree0

26 Jan 2020 09:20:30
Strangely enough I only found out about 'The Crown' of 'The City of London', last week whilst researching Fomenko related 'history'.

I discovered this City of London page.

The thing that has become apparent to me is whenever I look into ANY 'conspiracy' the age old name of Rothschild always appears.

{Ed033's Note - You don't want to be saying that word, look at what happened recently to Port Vale forward, Tom Pope. :)

Pope was asked in a tweet to predict the result of WW3. He replied, "We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds (sic) are crowned champions of every bank on the planet."

26 Jan 2020 16:19:13
Maybe edit that to say Batman instead then, Ed? . Although I was only stating a fact unlike Pope who was predicting the inevitable.

This is why I was (or rather wasn't) saying what I did on another post on here the other day.

Things I'd like to discuss. But can you?

{Ed033's Note - None of us can discuss anything outside of the mainstream narrative.

24 Jan 2020 23:03:51
Just finished the documentary "The greatest story never told"

Had 50+ tabs open in google but they all checked out.

"I can't say its all or if any of it is true for legal purposes" - Southern Monkey 2020.

I don't really know what to say, where my legal parameters lie, online or anywhere anymore.

Maybe they have already won?

Clear as day this world is on a one way trip.

{Ed033's Note - Well done for getting through it, did you want to talk about anything to do with WW2?

Agree0 Disagree0

25 Jan 2020 21:02:07
Still processing, Ed. An already complex subject twisted on its head.
I don't want to portray myself as something I don't want to be, by questioning something that isn't supposed to be questioned. Which is how things appear to be. I don't know what to think really. Shocked.

If there is something in particular from WW2 or the documentary you would like me to share my opinion on, I will do my best to oblige.

{Ed033's Note - I hope you're not regretting, me putting up the video for you to watch?

I asked the question in my above reply as you originally posted; what if FDR, Churchill and Hitler were on the same team.

25 Jan 2020 21:42:19
No, mate not all. Sorry if I gave that impression. Just made me feel sick because watching this version, the video clips from WW2 made a lot more sense. I guess I'm gibbering a bit because I feel an overwhelming sense of hopelessness towards the lack of ability to be able to change anything, if these things are true. And if true, I guess that's the point.

{Ed033's Note - ok thanks.

24 Jan 2020 20:25:35
Geocentrism (All heavenly bodies rotate around the fixed, non rotating Globe Earth) : Galileo was Wrong - Discussion with Robert Sungenis

Agree0 Disagree0

24 Jan 2020 19:19:35
Malcom Bowden on Geocentrism - The Globe Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

Agree0 Disagree0

25 Jan 2020 21:24:23
I haven't listened to the post above this. I will try to later (probably fall asleep to it) .

These are the same "proofs" used for flat earth. I haven't seen any counter arguments disproving these experiments, yet. Are there any? .

They (the experiments) seem to prove no Earth movement. This still has no preference towards a flat or globe Earth. I still struggle with Airey's failure. I understand what is being said, it's not something I know about so thinking and visualising multiple elements at once, for me, takes time for me to make an opinion, so I know it isn't a parrot-effect.

The problem for me, is that everyone seems to ignore (but still use as proof for a globe) is all the NASA photoshop Earth pictures. I mean build a camera/ satellite/ (balloon? ) specifically for that purpose, a full view of the amazing planet, Earth. I just can't understand why they haven't. unless there is some sort of barrier/ waters/ radiation that is preventing it.

{Ed033's Note - Yes, it seems definite that the Earth is fixed and non rotating, but the exact shape is unknown.

Why don't they turn the Hubble Telescope (347 miles away from Earth) around towards Earth so we can have a look?

25 Jan 2020 21:55:24
It's still below that magic barrier that only 60's tech can get through, Ed. The James Webb telescope is ( I think) supposed to be set in an Earth orbit of 1-1.5 million miles. So a Moon, Earth picture is possible. Maybe their CGI department aren't convincing enough, which is what's causing the delay.

JWT and Artemis are, as I have said before, going to be intriguing.

24 Jan 2020 13:33:00
The absurdity of flying around a globe.

Agree0 Disagree0

24 Jan 2020 18:16:35
So, I still don't know where I sit so trying to prove either way.

Used to listen to this Michelle Thaller "scientist", but won't hold what she says with any weight anymore.

Starts the argument with, "You have all the beautiful pictures of the Earth". Which NASA has, said are photoshopped. But the bit that made me go WTF?!?, was just after 6 mins.

"So the gas right around the Earth is actually millions of degrees hot. That's actually true"

Maybe she's getting confused with the Sun? . Oh no wait, it's a proof the Earth is a globe video.

3 proofs that debunk flat-Earth theory | NASA's Michelle Thaller

{Ed033's Note - There is another option Southern Monkey, If you look at the work of Robert Sungenis, who is a Geocentrist, where i think he thinks, the Earth is a fixed, non moving Globe in space, with all other bodies orbiting the Earth in outer space. There are other Geocentrism thinkers as well. That would give you 3 theories to ponder.

24 Jan 2020 22:24:19
So no comment on the air around the Earth being millions of degrees?

It's not theory's I seek, everyone has one of them, It's proof I look for.

{Ed033's Note - How can anyone comment on gas right around the Earth is actually millions of degrees hot, that's crazy talk.

Proof would be great, but where is it, it seems to be all lies from the mainstream.

24 Jan 2020 01:04:09
This is who and what we're up against?:

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Jan 2020 13:19:25
How many times has the truth community heard that all these conspiracies can't be real because there are too many people involved. How many people are involved in the Commercial Airline business, they could never keep it a secret that planes fly using compressed air.

i.e. NASA can't be faking or lying about anything because so many people work at NASA.

More on commercial jets use compressed air not jet fuel:

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Jan 2020 21:32:50
Does this video show Commercial Jet Planes hovering in mid air?

24 Jan 2020 12:55:30
An intriguing one this, Ed. Does really look like they are hardly moving.

Could this have been faked?
Possible, but expensive due to foreground running across view of plane. Less likely as a lot of seemingly individual cases of seeing this independently and on different occasions. And why would you fake so many different occasions (expense again) .

Could it be an optical illusion?
Possible. But for a plane to appear stationary? at a few hundred feet? hmmm.
The inside view of this happening on a high altitude flight is probably more likely to come across as an illusion, as air speed is not related to the Earth. It is the speed of air passing across/ over the wings.

But I thought these planes travel between 350-550mph, so you would need the equivalent windspeed in the opposite direction the plane is travelling to be at the planes speed. 350-550 mph jet stream I doubt it! . (without delving a little more, I am not sure how altitude effects airspeed as the air is thinner. My thinking right now is that it just allows the plane to travel faster as less resistance. The air still travels ( although less air as thinner) across the wings the same speed.

The A380 flights from Dubai to London fly directly over my house multiple times a day. They always appear slow and lethargic in the sky, and seem to fly oddly (not how you would expect, maybe because of there size?! ) but I haven't witnessed anything like what this video shows. And I do make a point of watching for odd things happening in the sky. Seen a few, but not relevant to this thread.

Is it possible, plane engineers are mistaking a mix of liquid helium and avgas as just avgas? . I know helium is only light as a gas, not a liquid, but releasing a pressurised gas (liquid) into a space where it would not be pressurised (just release the equivalent volume of uncompressed gas as a liquid), it would still become a float-able gas mixed with avgas.

I am just spit-balling to take my mind off my potentially anger inducing day. Thanks.

{Ed033's Note - it's really well done if it's fake. I'll go with fake video for the time being.

24 Jan 2020 13:17:46
Just for my inner peace. I didn't say it WAS fake. But agreed if it is, really well done. And expensive. Why waste that sort of money?

{Ed033's Note - Some of these videos on youtube are faked in Adobe After Affects. If someone is a whizz with Adobe After Affects and other applications, they download some video online such as youtube and add in audio and the visual effect.

24 Jan 2020 15:39:36
I thought it would be a lot harder passing behind foreground objects, but maybe not? . I not that familiar with AAA or programs like that. So I don't know.

{Ed033's Note - Would probably take a long time to do.

24 Jan 2020 20:58:50
This is completely fake.

They are all recorded from a moving car going in an opposite direction from a handheld camera. Say the car is going at 50 - 60 mph, and the aircraft in the opposite direction is travelling at about 140kts, it would be easy to think the aircraft is static even though it's moving.

As for the single piston towing the banner, that proves to me what fakery this is. It's a poster or photo and they are trying to convince the viewer that it is real.

It is technically possible (and has been done many times) for a small aircraft to go backwards if the indicated airspeed is less than the the oncoming windspeed. Banner towing pilots would never go up in those type of conditions though. But that's not what's going on here. This whole video is just taking the you know what.

{Ed033's Note - Thanks Rian.

23 Jan 2020 10:03:00
Planes Fly Using Compressed Air not Jet Fuel (mirrored video from Mr Truth channel):

Agree0 Disagree0

23 Jan 2020 15:40:29
Within the last hour this guys YT account [Mr Truth] has been terminated.

{Ed033's Note - He was putting out a lot of truth and they can't allow it?

23 Jan 2020 16:14:26
It possible. I was trying to do some calculations on what he was saying and I am not sure what he was saying was right. Was just going to run through some bit again and now its gone, so I guess I won't be sure, now.

I was confused over one part of his statement.

2,500,000 (litres in Olympic pool) / 323,525 (fuel capacity A380 litres) = "7,727 litres"?

The answer is 7.727 . As in the Olympic pool holds 7.727 times the amount of fuel on board an A380. Not seven thousand seven hundred and twenty seven litres.

Or did I miss something here?

I did get to figure out that the pumps work out to be around 1000 litres a minute. Fuelling time (standard) is about 2 hours, so 120,000 litres of fuel. Not a full tank, but it depends on the destination. Full tank is about 8,500 miles. and would weight about 90,000kg I think (6lb per gallon is the standard pilots use).

It would have been nice to re-watch and go over things again.

{Ed033's Note - You can watch again as someone else mirrored the video. The whole idea being there isn't enough room in the wings to store all the fuel for the commercial jet journeys unless something else is going on, which makes sense to me. Jet fuel in the wings only makes sense to me if they don't use much jet fuel.

23 Jan 2020 17:16:39
Not all of the fuel is stored in the wings. There are 6 other tanks in the main body of the A380 not including the wing tanks.

I get that the video was displaying it was too much fuel to fit, it was just his calculations seemed weird.

I don't remember him mentioning the other fuel tanks either?

I'm not writing off his theory. Just figuring out the if he is right.

Always thought Tesla's turbine has been very underused considering, on his deathbed, Tesla said it was his favourite invention. Maybe because it doesn't run on million year old squashed plant juice?

{Ed033's Note - Is it likely that when cruising at high altitude, the commercial jet uses a lot less fuel than they're saying, but pricing tickets based on more fuel being used? If that is the case, then can a case be made that the passengers are being charged for fuel that isn't being used?

23 Jan 2020 21:19:09
I'm going to look in to this more. As I don't know enough about the subject to think it through properly. (I don't think being 4 hours in to " the greatest story never told" is helping my mental state right now. )

I know avgas is denser at colder temperatures maybe this could somehow effect the amount used?

This being said, Though. Prices for anything are set as high as they can in relation to what people are willing to pay. And I doubt anything would stand up in a court of law even if they were using no fuel.

{Ed033's Note - ok thanks. This mirrored video has been taken down now!

23 Jan 2020 21:33:57
Just a thought. I may have missed something.

If you hold a hair drier in you face, its hot and will burn, Yes?

An airliners jet engines are going to be a lot hotter?

But those people on that beach, next to the airport, that get blown over by the jets. Not even singed hair?

{Ed033's Note - Is a hair drier going to burn? Probably not much.

But jet engines you would think would burn people yes, sounds correct.

24 Jan 2020 06:24:54
OK, Burn maybe poetic license when it comes to the hair dryer, But it would feel hot and uncomfortable directly in your face. :)

{Ed033's Note - yes

22 Jan 2020 21:05:29
Prof. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn explains his theory on the missing 700 years of the first millennium AD. He also states there was a catastrophe that caused mud floods!

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Jan 2020 16:13:03
So, I’ve read the replies and watched the videos but I find it all completely unbelievable. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. I’ve flown all over the world and from what I have seen, the horizon curves away from us.
2. The Flat Earth models are theoretical and I guess you can create any theoretical model to justify your argument.
3. Some of the videos state things as fact that are clearly not fact or irrelevant to the discussion.

However, there are a few more gripping reasons:

4. It denies over 500 years of science from Copernicus onwards.
5. The theory isn’t just that the Earth is flat, it suggests that the agreed view of the universe, stars, and planets is all wrong too. That’s something of a stretch.
6. The size of this conspiracy theory is immense, all airline pilots across the lifetime of air travel, all astronauts, pretty much everyone at NASA, an enormous number of scientists, and so on and so on.

There are some conspiracy theories that are believable but this isn’t one of them.

{Ed033's Note - Thanks for the responses.

This site doesn't just concentrate on the Fixed, Enclosed, Flat Earth model.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Jan 2020 17:45:18
I get that Ed, I'm going to keep popping on here.

{Ed033's Note - That would be great.

22 Jan 2020 18:27:52
I can completely understand how you feel on the FE theory, AJH. I struggle with, what it would mean if true, too. Something is not right though. And I'm trying to find out with my own research. I'd be happy to admit I was wrong about something if I was proved to be so.

Its the fact that there are no real photos of the Earth in full view. They are all photoshopped and made to look how we would expect it to look. Why is that? . They send probes and robotic machines to even the farthest planets to take photographs, yet they have none of the planet we live on?

If you were on a spacecraft going to the Moon. Would the first thing you look at and photograph be the Earth? This just doesn't add up to me.

As for the 500 years of science being denied. I am just about to start, probably a life's work, to try and understand the works of A. T. Fomenko. Someone that believes "consensual history is a finely woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the XVI century".

That will be after I have read: Isaac Newton - The chronology of ancient kingdoms. Who believes the same. I will share my thoughts as and when.

Just to add a little more to your responses. I don't believe everyone at Nasa knows much at all with, what is going on. It's all compartmentalised, so no one knows what anyone else is doing. And there are a lot of ex nasa people who are now flat Earthers which generates questions. It would be possible for the elite few at the top of these organisations to be the only ones in the know.

I'm not a flat earther (yet), but I am open to the possibility to it being true. You can see my journey down the rabbit hole from about 2 months ago on here. I actually said to Ed recently that, if you told me a few months ago I'd be researching the FE theory, I would have told you, you were insane!

22 Jan 2020 10:23:57
When we can see Moon and clouds in the sky, only the few clouds nearest to the Moon are lit up by the Moon.

You certainly got me thinking with that line Ed033. Even though I've seen that thousands of times, I never thought about it in that way.

Are there any videos you know of that explore this phenomenon?

{Ed033's Note - Difficult to find videos on this. Has Southern Monkey come across any?

Another thing with the Moon is that with a full moon, if the Moon was a sphere and lit up by the Sun, then there would have to be a hotspot (reflected sunlight) observed on the Moon, which we don't see. This is why they add a hotspot to the Photoshopped Blue Marble - to simulate Sunlight reflecting off the Globe.

So it's likely that the Moon is luminescent, giving off it's own light.

With the Moon being much closer than 325,000 miles away (maybe hundreds of miles away at most?), it should be easy to get there if it was a rock (petrified flora or fauna see hangman1128 yt channel) floating in space.

We have to ask ourselves, what's up with the Moon as it has been portrayed to us by the mainstream.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Jan 2020 16:15:46
Ok, the moon is bright as it is reflecting the Sun's light but as we all know, it is nothing like sunlight, it is a lot fainter, that’s why it doesn’t light up the whole sky. But in a similar vein, on a sunny day you can look into the distance and see dark clouds.

You can find an argument in everything.

{Ed033's Note - This is why there should be definitive answers, but there aren't in my opinion and other people's as well.

22 Jan 2020 20:54:56
To me, the clouds immediately around the Moon appear extremely bright, but the clouds not too far away appear extremely dark. If the Moon was 325,000 miles away, we wouldn't see such a contrast. In fact the clouds immediately around the Moon wouldn't be that bright.

But it's all subjective and we probably can't devise an experiment, because all the World can't agree on the Moon's luminosity or agree on the fall off of luminosity the further away from the clouds the Moon is, can't agree on the size of the Moon and can't agree on how far away the Moon is from the clouds. Also there are different clouds at different heights from the Earth.

22 Jan 2020 21:15:54
I haven't seen any conspiracy-type videos on this at all that I can remember. I am however aware of some visual effects of light interacting with particles either larger or smaller than the wavelength of the light called "Mie" and "Rayleigh" scattering. I think its "Mie scattering" that has an explanation. This doesn't really fit this site though. But I will add, it doesn't mean the Moon is where we are told it is. And the distance we are told is measure using mirrors put on the Moon by astronauts from the apollo missions who travelled through the Van Allen belts even though we still don't have the tech to take a human past 350 miles of low Earth orbit. If only we had the tech from back then.

{Ed033's Note - Bizarre how NASA have lost the knowledge of how they allegedly got to the Moon in the early 1970s.

22 Jan 2020 22:06:24
It boggles the mind that original data from arguably the most amazing achievement the human race has ever accomplished, has been erased from history. Either lost of written over. You would imagine it being under lock and key somewhere safe. Maybe Mr Kubrick had it stashed somewhere?

{Ed033's Note - Or maybe it was all a hoax and then it would make perfect sense.

22 Jan 2020 22:29:10
You heretic, you. It's in all the textbooks I remember from school, so it must be true! :)



Conspiracy Talk


Conspiracy Talk 2


Conspiracy Talk 3


Conspiracy Talk 4


Conspiracy Talk 5


Conspiracy Talk 7


Conspiracy Talk 8


Conspiracy Talk 9



Posting Form

Please Log In or Register

 

 

 

 

 

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass