Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Thread

[Jaspa]

Found this a couple of weeks ago on YouTube ...

 

 

 

my favourite part was where she says Leeds was originally known for it's good luck and that they had owl symbolism all over the place, but somehow it got swamped by negative energy and because Jimmy Savile was born there it is now in fact a direct portal to Hell.

 

This bloke is crackers too ...

 

 

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Know its a bit twattish to quote ones own post but just to add, I have a friend of a friend who believes our title win has something iffy about it.

 

Thinks the premier league thought things were getting stale and needed something to blow things open to make people think anyone could win the league albeit with a very small chance, and this was the perfect season as most of the bigger teams were in transition anyway. I thought he was trolling at first but he genuinely believes this and this is a sound, intelligent guy otherwise.

 

He hasnt quite explained how exactly it would work and how you'd get every team in the premier league to play along with it but there you go.

Sounds like every other Arsenal fan to me.

[Tim'llFixIt]

34 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Not offended in he slightest. All of the You Tube clips/podcasts that you are watching will be based upon complete ignorance of the Apollo programme and can be routinely debunked. 

 

Out of curiosity, what software/hardware limitations are you referring to? 

To be fair the more I'm looking into it the less Bull I'm finding it all but it's just the fact that the processing power of the computers was so minescule in comparison to the job they needed to undertake, I'm not saying it's not possible but it feels like from it was half a century ahead of it's time and still to this day is the only successful moon landing seems a shame we did not capitalize on it, although I'm sure money and funding played it's part, I just think the money involved and the difficulties of the task as well as the presitge of success then I'm amazed that it has actually happened, that being said if anyone was to fake it it would have been the soviets and they didn't so who knows

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Always found princess Diana's death a bit too convenient for the royals. 

[Sampson]

4 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Always found princess Diana's death a bit too convenient for the royals. 

Weird way to try and kill her though - in a fairly low speed car crash surrounded by journalists and photographers. I mean it’s got to be one the least fool-proof assassination attempts you can imagine.

Edited 17 April 2022 by Sampson

[urban.spaceman]

Been saving this for a screenplay but I'm 90% sure that it's true anyway and the forces that be will prevent it from being made:

 

The floral industry is behind most terror attacks and natural disaster in order to create demand for their services.

[SpacedX]

23 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

To be fair the more I'm looking into it the less Bull I'm finding it all but it's just the fact that the processing power of the computers was so minescule in comparison to the job they needed to undertake,

But is wasn't though - hence the fact that it was able to undertake it. Of course any contemporary device has vastly more raw computational ability than the computers employed during the moon landings, but they were nonetheless remarkably capable, reliable, and up to the task given. To understand the Apollo system is to appreciate why its tiny amount of raw processing power is irrelevant. 

 

The Apollo Guidance Computer in the command module had two main jobs. First, it calculated the necessary course to the moon, calibrated by astronomical measurements that the astronauts made in flight. No different to the principle of a sextant used by oceanic navigators. Once the moon was lined up, Earth, or the sun was then located in one sight, and it was then necessary to fix the location of a star with the other. The computer would then measure those angles and recalculate its position. Second, it needed to control the many physical components of the spacecraft. The Apollo Guidance Computer could communicate with 150 separate devices within the spacecraft. Conceptually, the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which designed the system used principles derived from the work they’d done for the Polaris guided-missile system. The Apollo computer's hardware was well understood in the world of military avionics. Most of the system’s memory and tasks had been prewritten woven onto rope memory, but some elements could also be written both by the astronauts and remotely from Mission Control. Sceptics focus on 'power' without comprehending that it’s not about the raw number of transistors, but the machine fitting and designed around the mission objectives. So capability, not power. 

 

40 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

 I'm not saying it's not possible but it feels like from it was half a century ahead of it's time 

'Feels like' - therein lies the problem.

 

41 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

and still to this day is the only successful moon landing 

We landed on the moon six times. It would have possibly been ten, were it not for the near disaster of Apollo 13 and the cancellations of Apollos 18, 19 and 20. 

 

43 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

 seems a shame we did not capitalize on it, although I'm sure money and funding played it's part, 

We did - in many ways. But yes, funding, political will and the Space Shuttle project all curtailed the Apollo programme prematurely.

 

45 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

 I just think the money involved and the difficulties of the task as well as the presitge of success then I'm amazed that it has actually happened, 

Your personal incredulity is no reason for it not to have.

 

46 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

 that being said if anyone was to fake it it would have been the soviets and they didn't 

No one faked anything - because contrary to what the conspiracy obsessed nutjobs insist, it would have been impossible to do so. Russia tracked each Apollo mission to the moon. 

 

48 minutes ago, Tim'llFixIt said:

 so who knows

Entire fields of science and engineering, all those involved in the programme, the rational world and the informed. 

 

I can tell you who doesn't have a clue though - the con artists and career conspiracy theorists that perpetrate the nonsensical blogs and videos that you have been watching - and their target audience, the impressionable individuals that gullibly lap up and regurgitate their garbage claims who know nothing whatsoever about the subjects that they claim their overnight armchair expertise on. Same can be said of each and every self-proclaimed 'truther'. 

 

 

[Tim'llFixIt]

13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

But is wasn't though - hence the fact that it was able to undertake it. Of course any contemporary device has vastly more raw computational ability than the computers employed during the moon landings, but they were nonetheless remarkably capable, reliable, and up to the task given. To understand the Apollo system is to appreciate why its tiny amount of raw processing power is irrelevant. 

 

The Apollo Guidance Computer in the command module had two main jobs. First, it calculated the necessary course to the moon, calibrated by astronomical measurements that the astronauts made in flight. No different to the principle of a sextant used by oceanic navigators. Once the moon was lined up, Earth, or the sun was then located in one sight, and it was then necessary to fix the location of a star with the other. The computer would then measure those angles and recalculate its position. Second, it needed to control the many physical components of the spacecraft. The Apollo Guidance Computer could communicate with 150 separate devices within the spacecraft. Conceptually, the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which designed the system used principles derived from the work they’d done for the Polaris guided-missile system. The Apollo computer's hardware was well understood in the world of military avionics. Most of the system’s memory and tasks had been prewritten woven onto rope memory, but some elements could also be written both by the astronauts and remotely from Mission Control. Sceptics focus on 'power' without comprehending that it’s not about the raw number of transistors, but the machine fitting and designed around the mission objectives. So capability, not power. 

 

'Feels like' - therein lies the problem.

 

We landed on the moon six times. It would have possibly been ten, were it not for the near disaster of Apollo 13 and the cancellations of Apollos 18, 19 and 20. 

 

We did - in many ways. But yes, funding, political will and the Space Shuttle project all curtailed the Apollo programme prematurely.

 

Your personal incredulity is no reason for it not to have.

 

No one faked anything - because contrary to what the conspiracy obsessed nutjobs insist, it would have been impossible to do so. Russia tracked each Apollo mission to the moon. 

 

Entire fields of science and engineering, all those involved in the programme, the rational world and the informed. 

 

I can tell you who doesn't have a clue though - the con artists and career conspiracy theorists that perpetrate the nonsensical blogs and videos that you have been watching - and their target audience, the impressionable individuals that gullibly lap up and regurgitate their garbage claims who know nothing whatsoever about the subjects that they claim their overnight armchair expertise on. Same can be said of each and every self-proclaimed 'truther'. 

 

 

That's me officially educated, happy to tick this one off the list, honestly appreciate the effort you have put into debunking my half arsed rationale <3

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Line-X said:

But is wasn't though - hence the fact that it was able to undertake it. Of course any contemporary device has vastly more raw computational ability than the computers employed during the moon landings, but they were nonetheless remarkably capable, reliable, and up to the task given. To understand the Apollo system is to appreciate why its tiny amount of raw processing power is irrelevant. 

 

The Apollo Guidance Computer in the command module had two main jobs. First, it calculated the necessary course to the moon, calibrated by astronomical measurements that the astronauts made in flight. No different to the principle of a sextant used by oceanic navigators. Once the moon was lined up, Earth, or the sun was then located in one sight, and it was then necessary to fix the location of a star with the other. The computer would then measure those angles and recalculate its position. Second, it needed to control the many physical components of the spacecraft. The Apollo Guidance Computer could communicate with 150 separate devices within the spacecraft. Conceptually, the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which designed the system used principles derived from the work they’d done for the Polaris guided-missile system. The Apollo computer's hardware was well understood in the world of military avionics. Most of the system’s memory and tasks had been prewritten woven onto rope memory, but some elements could also be written both by the astronauts and remotely from Mission Control. Sceptics focus on 'power' without comprehending that it’s not about the raw number of transistors, but the machine fitting and designed around the mission objectives. So capability, not power. 

 

'Feels like' - therein lies the problem.

 

We landed on the moon six times. It would have possibly been ten, were it not for the near disaster of Apollo 13 and the cancellations of Apollos 18, 19 and 20. 

 

We did - in many ways. But yes, funding, political will and the Space Shuttle project all curtailed the Apollo programme prematurely.

 

Your personal incredulity is no reason for it not to have.

 

No one faked anything - because contrary to what the conspiracy obsessed nutjobs insist, it would have been impossible to do so. Russia tracked each Apollo mission to the moon. 

 

Entire fields of science and engineering, all those involved in the programme, the rational world and the informed. 

 

I can tell you who doesn't have a clue though - the con artists and career conspiracy theorists that perpetrate the nonsensical blogs and videos that you have been watching - and their target audience, the impressionable individuals that gullibly lap up and regurgitate their garbage claims who know nothing whatsoever about the subjects that they claim their overnight armchair expertise on. Same can be said of each and every self-proclaimed 'truther'. 

 

 

...what you're saying here is accurate, but please, simmer down a little bit in terms of tone. Please, mate - it's better that way.

 

Just now, Tim&#x27;llFixIt said:

That's me officially educated, happy to tick this one off the list, honestly appreciate the effort you have put into debunking my half arsed rationale <3

Thank you for saying that - sincerely. The change of heart based on the evidence presented is truly nice to see.

 

If you want to know anything more about space-based conspiracy theories, I'm sure either Line-X or myself will be able to have a go at answering.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Tim&#x27;llFixIt said:

That's me officially educated, happy to tick this one off the list, honestly appreciate the effort you have put into debunking my half arsed rationale <3

Not aimed at you - and thanks for being so gracious all the same. 

 

All of the same old predictable moonfakery claims can be easily debunked by independently verifiable science. One of the biggest misconceptions concerns radiation and the Van Allen Belts. 

[Tim'llFixIt]

1 hour ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Always found princess Diana's death a bit too convenient for the royals. 

I'm not sure in this one, of all the ways to have someone killed this is a hard one to pull off, I think it does highlight the desperate lengths the powers at be will In the media will go to sell us a story for us to fawn and debate over whislt over looking actual news and achievements and yet we still have not learnt a thing

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...what you're saying here is accurate, but please, simmer down a little bit in terms of tone. Please, mate - it's better that way.

As we have discussed before, you are a far more diplomatic and able communicator than myself - but I'm not worked up in the slightest. Forums often do not bring the best out in people - frequently, least of all me. I vent at online conspiracy theory because I detest the deception for personal gain.

 

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you for saying that - sincerely. The change of heart based on the evidence presented is truly nice to see.

+1

 

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you want to know anything more about space-based conspiracy theories, I'm sure either Line-X or myself will be able to have a go at answering.

Absolutely, but you are likely best placed to reply in terms of knowledge and civility. Unless of course a full blown conspiracy addled clown comes storming in - in which case, stand aside. 

[LiberalFox]

Stalin poisoned Lenin.  

 

 

[Jattdogg]

The dinosaur at Leicester games past is not actually a dinosaur but rather a green kangaroo. Hello, dinosaurs have been extinct for how long now?

[MPH]

3 hours ago, NorthWalesFox said:

Flat earthers - how are there so many of them?

 

I love looking into it just to cheer myself up sometimes 

 

 This is one of the most bizarre to me. There literally could  not be any more evidence to the contrary.  I sat and listened to someone who was a flat earthier and they even showed me a map of how the earth supposedly looks…  I said two things to them.. one was if the earth is flat why do we have time zones? And more importantly why when I talk on FaceTime to my family in England will it be dark there and yet be light where I am? If there’s a flat earth wouldn’t we all have light at the same time? He literally had no answer to it. I also offered to look up flight times two the two most furthest points on his flat earth map but he said that’s all part of lies involved.

 

 

in short, for people who believe this stuff, the problems they have run a lot more deeper that  just believing in a flat earth..

[Samilktray]

I’ve always been sceptical of Santa 

[Jaspa]

Here's the most well put together moon landing hoax video you can practically find out there.

 

 

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 This is one of the most bizarre to me. There literally could  not be any more evidence to the contrary.  I sat and listened to someone who was a flat earthier and they even showed me a map of how the earth supposedly looks…  I said two things to them.. one was if the earth is flat why do we have time zones? And more importantly why when I talk on FaceTime to my family in England will it be dark there and yet be light where I am? If there’s a flat earth wouldn’t we all have light at the same time? He literally had no answer to it. I also offered to look up flight times two the two most furthest points on his flat earth map but he said that’s all part of lies involved.

 

 

in short, for people who believe this stuff, the problems they have run a lot more deeper that  just believing in a flat earth..

The thing with the flat Earth theory is I don't even get the reason for it?

 

Like the moon landings, or Diana being murdered or JFK or 9/11 - even if I think those conspiracy theories they are bull, the people who believe them at least give some kind of reason as they think it's done so the government can get rid of "undesirables" or win a propganda war against a rival, or create a false flag for a war, so they give a reason for who gains from doing the conspiracy (even though the Diana one is especially weird as Diana's reputation was always going to be way more enhanced by her death).

 

But the flat Earth one - just... why? Who has something to gain from saying the Earth isn't flat? What does the government or some money making businesses have to gain simply by saying the earth isn't flat? I don't get why anyone would bother even making such a conspiracy that the Earth was spherical and what they'd have to gain from doing so.

[MPH]

12 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The thing with the flat Earth theory is I don't even get the reason for it?

 

Like the moon landings, or Diana being murdered or JFK or 9/11 - even if I think those conspiracy theories they are bull, the people who believe them at least give some kind of reason as they think it's done so the government can get rid of "undesirables" or win a propganda war against a rival, or create a false flag for a war, so they give a reason for who gains from doing the conspiracy (even though the Diana one is especially weird as Diana's reputation was always going to be way more enhanced by her death).

 

But the flat Earth one - just... why? Who has something to gain from saying the Earth isn't flat? What does the government or some money making businesses have to gain simply by saying the earth isn't flat? I don't get why anyone would bother even making such a conspiracy that the Earth was spherical and what they'd have to gain from doing so.

 

haha funny guy

[Sampson]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

haha funny guy

Sorry, you got me. I'm a complete shill for the high school physics textbook industry. And how we make up calculations with "proof" of how we know the world is spherical to fill up more pages so we can sell our books to schools for more money. 

Edited 17 April 2022 by Sampson

[Sir Shep]

I dont think the loch ness monster is real, i think its just a damaged pallet with half a roll of shrink wrap on it. Happy to be proved wrong though.

[Sir Shep]

I think Santa is dead now as well, stopped visiting me after 1983, the bastard. 

[whoareyaaa]

I still don't understand how Dinosaurs lived here then we somehow popped up through evolution off the back of a meteorite.

 

Roswell is another one I find interesting along with the whole Alien/UFO stuff.

Edited 17 April 2022 by whoareyaaa

[Parafox]

This topic is reminiscent of the poster from a few years back who had loads of conspiracy theories. He hasn't posted for a couple of years now and I can't remember his monicker. I'm sure there's FT members who'll know who I mean.

[Izzy]

11 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

I still don't understand how Dinosaurs lived here then we somehow popped up through evolution off the back of a meteorite 

Cos Adam and Eve innit