Conspiracy theories

[Dylan]

Are there are any popular conspiracy theories that you think are true or are likely to be true?

Call me a lunatic, but I am sceptical as to the veracity of the moon landings. If NASA was able to put men on the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, why hasn't it (or any other organisation, for that matter) done so at any time over the course of the last 40 years?

Jeez, you realize that Russia, China and India have all had satellites orbit and take pictures of the Apollo landings? In addition to the newer higher res pics from NASA of the landing sites from their LRO satellite?

As mentioned before, the main driving factor to not going back to the moon is $$$ and politics.

 

[Dylan]

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

No, you are right it certainly doesn't. However, steel loses over 60% of its strength by 800 degrees (well in the realm of jet fuel) and add in weight of the floors above, a structural failure really isn't all that far out of the realm of believably.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Religion is a man made method of control.

I don't think it started that way.

It started as the original 'science'. A way to explain things that had no explanation. 'Why does the sun rise?' 'Because Helios pulls it behind a great chariot'. And in many ancient cultures these god were fickle and needed to be pleased. So here's where the control came in. People realized that sufficient charisma could manipulate people into doing what you want via their faith.

So if you mean churches and organized religion, then yeah, it probably started with a few clever snake-oil salesmen figuring out how to best manipulate the populace into giving them a measure of control (though we cannot leave out actual fanatical faith to a dream or something similar giving them the original idea). But I don't think it really started out as fully formed as the simple sentence indicates.

 

[Dylan]

Well, this was kind of my point, I just made it very flippantly.

Back in The Day (a.k.a when the Soviet's worried us) we spent a huge amount of money on what amounted to propaganda spending. So we did things like landed on the moon to prove how much better the American Way was over the Dirty Communist Way (or whatever). That was the real value in landing on the moon. And as this generation still remembered WWII and hadn't gotten entirely fed up with Vietnam and realpolitik, it was bought and lapped up. So we spent vast sums on R&D sorts of projects, like the space race. It also helped that we could toss in Fear of the Big Bad as a selling point. If we don't make it to the moon, those dirty Ruskies will go there and build a super base with nuclear missile launching capabilities, etc. etc. (I'm exaggerating wildly for effect).

Then 1980 came with Reagan and 'tax cuts'. The money got diverted into more purely military purposes - like the Star Wars Missile Defense program (and illegal wars in Central America). And we really did cut the hell out of taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. But things like Social Security and Medicare are untouchable, and were getting used more frequently. This led to us continuing our biggest expenditures (welfare and military spending) while decreasing the amount of money coming in. So things DID get cut, relatively. Things like NASA.

When the Soviet Union fell, the propaganda and fear elements lost their luster, and we were headed in the wrong directional fiscally. Rather than institute new taxes, we've basically been riding the private sector's ability to generate new wealth to keep our heads above water while slowly slipping further into debt.

Going to space is necessary for the long term survival of the human race. It is absolutely mandatory. But it is not something that matters in my lifetime, so we ignore it and hope it'll all be ok (hell, we'll be dead anyway, right?). That doesn't sell voters though, and we can't start spending money on NASA when so many other important and worthy causes are also underfunded and raising taxes is political suicide. Which is basically why we haven't been back.

An addendum: Going to the moon probably isn't the best thing for NASA to be doing anyway. There are things that would yield far more important findings and research than something we did 40+ years ago and aren't ready (technologically) to colonize yet (if it's ever possible given the moon's particulars).

That's a great post!

Just want to add, the Space Shuttle helped kill Apollo as well. NASA was promising hundreds of launches per year with the Shuttle, meaning the applications for Apollo outside of lunar activity was wrapped up by the Shuttle. Of course, over the STS programs life, they managed just 135 flights.

 

[tadao]

I'm becoming increasingly suspicious about the theory of a big bang, there's probably science and that, but on my very basic level of thinking: how can matter come from nothing. I'm more likely to believe the universe has existed forever.

My only question I ask about the 'big bang' is, what was before that?
If there was another 'big bang' type event, then what was before that?

Religion is a man made method of control.

Religion and science are the same beast, unproven and semi-realistic.
Until there is 'data' to (dis)prove a theory then.....

 

[gorgeousgeorgeEFC]

Getting myself back on topic George Bush Sr. (The CIA) definitely orchestrated the introduction of crack cocaine into the black community specifically.

Why would they do that? Hasn't addiction in the African American community cost America a fortune?

 

[RaleighBlue]

Religion and science are the same beast, unproven and semi-realistic.
Until there is 'data' to (dis)prove a theory then.....

Erm.

No. Science, by definition, tests its axioms and is willing to admit when they have been disproven. Religion, by definition, takes its axioms on faith

 

[summerisle]

Anything proposed by David Icke. For example :

 

[VentureBrosEFC]

Why would they do that? Hasn't addiction in the African American community cost America a fortune?

They would buy the coke from S America to sell to the black community to buy guns to arm militias to overthrow S American governments they didn't like. Look up the "Iran-Contra" controversy and Rick Ross. It was more than about money though. It wasn't just a coincidence that the laws regarding the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of crack are infinitely more strict than its powder cousin. Also you have to look at who was making the money from the fall out of it all (i.e. Prison industrial complex etc.) not just take the situation as a whole.

 

[canuckblue]

My only question I ask about the 'big bang' is, what was before that?
If there was another 'big bang' type event, then what was before that?

Some pretty serious foreplay, I would hope.

 

[VentureBrosEFC]

Erm.

No. Science, by definition, tests its axioms and is willing to admit when they have been disproven. Religion, by definition, takes its axioms on faith

Kinda but kinda not. That's why there was Luther, reforms of all kinds, gnostic Christianity, sufism in Islam. Just because a prevailing system becomes dogmatic and resistant to change doesn't mean there aren't subversions. It's actually quite like science in some respects i.e. having the audacity to question a prevailing theory which "mainstream" science can be very resistant to with the necessities of research such as university positions, grant money, etc. More or less same thing just different mechanisms.

 

[gorgeousgeorgeEFC]

Princess Diana was murdered.

It's possible, but orchestrating an RTA is not the most reliable way of killing someone.

 

[Huyton Layne]

Some wacky wacky yanks on Facebook. I'll have to find it again but it involves the government purposely stating hurricane Matthew would be more intense to destroy liberty or something.

 

[McBain]

Jeez, you realize that Russia, China and India have all had satellites orbit and take pictures of the Apollo landings? In addition to the newer higher res pics from NASA of the landing sites from their LRO satellite?

As mentioned before, the main driving factor to not going back to the moon is $$$ and politics.

You mean this?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

http://www.space.com/12030-moon-photos-nasa-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter.html

This is the flag still standing?

Apollo 11?

and this

http://www.sagenews.com/article.asp?id=3380

If you can actually spot anything in there point it out because I can't and here it says they found no evidence at all.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/chinese-lunar-rover-finds-no-evidence-of-american-moon-landings/

Looking into it a little further - looks like any actual evidence is also going missing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html

It's no wonder there's a conspiracy theory about the whole thing.

 

[Dylan]

You mean this?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

http://www.space.com/12030-moon-photos-nasa-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter.html

This is the flag still standing?

Apollo 11?

and this

http://www.sagenews.com/article.asp?id=3380

If you can actually spot anything in there point it out because I can't and here it says they found no evidence at all.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/chinese-lunar-rover-finds-no-evidence-of-american-moon-landings/

Looking into it a little further - looks like any actual evidence is also going missing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html

It's no wonder there's a conspiracy theory about the whole thing.

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

I would much rather trust that as a source, rather than the crackpot World News Daily Report you are citing. I mean come on, just look at their Hot Topics right now:

'Kanye West Prime Suspect in Kim K mugging'
'Mother sues hospital after flu turns her son gay'
'Man left toothless after explosion of his Samsung toothbrush'
'Police shoot white coal miner 5 times - the thought he was black'

You may as well have just cited the National Enquirer.

Regarding the pictures, just because you don't know what you are looking at, doesn't make the evidence presented invalid.