Ten Biggest World Conspiracy Theories

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a paper on the lunar soil.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/surface/carrier_lunar_soils.pdf

Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_dust

Towards the end it talks about how cohesive the dust is.

Wow, dust with those properties must have been thrown up everywhere when the lunar lander boosters were activated during landing and takeoff.


Oh wait. There were no dust clouds.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

It wasn't actual moondust as far as I remember, it was a mixture that NASA made up for 'the team' which supposedly had the same properties... ridiculous!

Yea because there is a very limited amount of moon dust available.

But you do argue that a dust can exhibit those behaviors in a vacuum and with no other components?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Yea because there is a very limited amount of moon dust available.

But you do argue that a dust can exhibit those behaviors in a vacuum and with no other components?

So you believe that the dust given by NASA, who the conspiracies are aimed against, exhibits all the properties of moon dust? Very trusting of you eh?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Wow, dust with those properties must have been thrown up everywhere when the lunar lander boosters were activated during landing and takeoff.


Oh wait. There were no dust clouds.

Not really.
It probably been gone over with you more than once but the force of the booster wouldn't necessarily throw up a cloud of dust.
Might have something to do with the cohesion of moondust.

Maybe we should stick to the experiments on Mythbusters.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

It wasn't actual moondust as far as I remember, it was a mixture that NASA made up for 'the team' which supposedly had the same properties... ridiculous!

Hang on but only a couple of months back you seemed almost convinced that NASA went to the moon. Now you seemed convinced that it's all faked again and now Mythbusters are in on it.

So what about the flag? Mythbusters made that themselves.
What about the light experiments? What about the fact dust only falls straight down in a vacuum? I could go on.

Again that's another major problem I have with most CT's you have to ignore completely evidence for no CT to believe there was a CT.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

So you believe that the dust given by NASA, who the conspiracies are aimed against, exhibits all the properties of moon dust? Very trusting of you eh?

All I'm pointing out is that it is possible for moon dust to behave that way.
Nasa supplied a dust that does behave that way, so it is possible.

How do you know that moon dust wouldn't behave that way?

humanji

So I think we can safely say that the moon landings belong on the list. We can all move on now.

thecommander

Kernel wrote: »

I'd imagine the whingeing from many on here if I referenced Alex Jones to prove an Alex Jones theory.

I agree 100% with you. While I dont think the moon landing was a hoax, I had to laugh at them going to NASA to do the tests. The very people that were accused were helping them with tests. I do believe that the tests were done correctly and weren't tampered with.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

All I'm pointing out is that it is possible for moon dust to behave that way.
Nasa supplied a dust that does behave that way, so it is possible.

How do you know that moon dust wouldn't behave that way?

It's possible that a big unicorn flying spaghetti monster... etc. etc. you know the drill. Mythbusters made the claim, you backed it up, you prove that the dust used in the experiment had the same properties as actual lunar dust.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Hang on but only a couple of months back you seemed almost convinced that NASA went to the moon. Now you seemed convinced that it's all faked again and now Mythbusters are in on it.

No, I always said I was on the fence with regard to the moon landings. The things that don't seem right to me are the silence of the astronauts themselves. Still on the fence however. All I'm doing here is pointing out the poor job done on mythbusters with regard to impartiality. You guys dispute every source related to conspiracies, but if it's on mythbusters then it must be true. lol.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

It's possible that a big unicorn flying spaghetti monster... etc. etc. you know the drill. Mythbusters made the claim, you backed it up, you prove that the dust used in the experiment had the same properties as actual lunar dust.

I showed a paper on the properties of moon dust.

But now we've actually established that is is possible for moon dust to behave like that, the argument "It's impossible for the astronauts to leave such well defined foot prints" in not valid.
It is very much possible that the astronauts could leave well defined boot prints.

Myth busted as it were.

Kernel

thecommander wrote: »

I agree 100% with you. While I dont think the moon landing was a hoax, I had to laugh at them going to NASA to do the tests. The very people that were accused were helping them with tests.

For once we are in agreement then.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

I showed a paper on the properties of moon dust.

But now we've actually established that is is possible for moon dust to behave like that, the argument "It's impossible for the astronauts to leave such well defined foot prints" in not valid.
It is very much possible that the astronauts could leave well defined boot prints.

Myth busted as it were.

Incorrect. You showed properties of moon dust, but you cannot prove that the substance used as a moon-dust replica on mythbusters, a substance provided by Nasa themselves, exhibits the same properties as the real thing.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

It wasn't actual moondust as far as I remember, it was a mixture that NASA made up for 'the team' which supposedly had the same properties... ridiculous!

Ridiculous... hmm.

I suppose they should go to a CT site, to people who have never even seen moondust and ask them about it's properties, rather than experts like NASA, right?

And besides the properties of Moondust are known and documented so we'd have to assume the Mythbusters guys were fooled or in on it.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Incorrect. You showed properties of moon dust, but you cannot prove that the substance used as a moon-dust replica on mythbusters, a substance provided by Nasa themselves, exhibits the same properties as the real thing.

And the paper shows that moon dust is very cohesive. The fake moon dust on MythBusters is also very cohesive.

Are you saying moon dust isn't cohesive or what?

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Ridiculous... hmm.

I suppose they should go to a CT site, to people who have never even seen moondust and ask them about it's properties, rather than experts like NASA, right?

And besides the properties of Moondust are known and documented so we'd have to assume the Mythbusters guys were fooled or in on it.

All mythbusters do is use guesstimates and pseudo-science to attempt to debunk things. It's an entertainment show. Get over it, it's like the holy grail of skeptics or something. But it doesn't hold up to scientific method, and going to NASA to help with the experiments is akin to me going to Stormfront to mythbust the holocaust!

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

And the paper shows that moon dust is very cohesive. The fake moon dust on MythBusters is also very cohesive.

Are you saying moon dust isn't cohesive or what?

How do you know that the substance used by Mythbusters has the same properties as actual moon dust from the lunar surface? Are you going to prove this claim?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

All mythbusters do is use guesstimates and pseudo-science to attempt to debunk things. It's an entertainment show. Get over it, it's like the holy grail of skeptics or something. But it doesn't hold up to scientific method, and going to NASA to help with the experiments is akin to me going to Stormfront to mythbust the holocaust!

Putting claims to controlled tests is pseudo science?
News to me.

And for all these claims of bad science on MythBusters part you haven't really been able to show a single problem with the experiments other than NASA was in on it.

bonkey

Folks - this is not a thread about moon-landings.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

And for all these claims of bad science on MythBusters part you haven't really been able to show a single problem with the experiments other than NASA was in on it.

I've just pointed one out that you cannot refute. They used a substance provided by NASA and were assured by NASA that it exhibited the same characteristics as actual moon dust. Thats bollocks, unless you can prove it, which evidently you can't. Another farce was going up in a NASA plane to simulate zero-gravity. That simulated the gravity and conditions of the moon? No it didn't.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

How do you know that the substance used by Mythbusters has the same properties as actual moon dust from the lunar surface? Are you going to prove this claim?

Nope don't have the knowledge to actually test it.

But it showed it was very cohesive.
The paper showed that moon dust is cohesive.

Do you believe moon dust is not cohesive.

Do you believe that it is impossible to leave clearly defined boot prints in dust in a vacuum?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Nope don't have the knowledge to actually test it.

QED mythbusters is not the definitive explanation.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I've just pointed one out that you cannot refute. They used a substance provided by NASA and were assured by NASA that it exhibited the same characteristics as actual moon dust. Thats bollocks, unless you can prove it, which evidently you can't. Another farce was going up in a NASA plane to simulate zero-gravity. That simulated the gravity and conditions of the moon? No it didn't.

Actually thats not true they went up with a private company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landing.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Gravity_Corporation

So how do you know that it didn't simulate moon gravity?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

QED mythbusters is not the definitive explanation.

You missed the point.

Myth: It is impossible to leave well defined boot print in dust in a vacuum.

They showed that you could indeed leave a boot print in dust in a vacuum if the dust had the right properties. (Angular and jagged not weathered etc.)

The paper I link shows that moon dust has these properties and that it is very cohesive.

So is the argument "that it is impossible for astronauts to have left such clear footprints in the moon dust " still valid?

Undergod

In fairness, I think using NASA-supplied moondust is a bit dodgy- most of the stuff they do is independently verifiable, assuming you have an SFX workshop at your disposal, this however isn't. There's some other good points on the moon-landing front, but that's for a different thread I think.

On a different note, I used to have a boss who was convinced that Jamie was an ex-spy. He does have a very broad and interesting skill set. Expert shot, fluency in Russian, qualified to handle explosives.

blackgold>> wrote:

Is that yur way of saying i'm young and don't know my history?
Or are you genuinely interested?

No wasn't taking a dig at you, just didn't see why it shouldn't be on the list, but then you edited and I saw what your point was. Besides, I doubt I'm vastly older than you...

King Mob

Undergod wrote: »

On a different note, I used to have a boss who was convinced that Jamie was an ex-spy. He does have a very broad and interesting skill set. Expert shot, fluency in Russian, qualified to handle explosives.

He's a simple robotics engineer/ex UN employee/ex-exotic animal dealer .......and nothing else.

Undergod

King Mob wrote: »

He's a simple robotics engineer/ex UN employee/ex-exotic animal dealer .......and nothing else.

Mob, look at the evidence.

Wikpedia wrote:

A variety of careers fill his resume, including scuba diver, wilderness survival expert, boat captain, linguist, pet shop owner, animal wrangler, machinist, concrete inspector, and chef.
...

[Jamie] owned a sailboat diving charter business in the Virgin Islands

Unless you're covering something up?

King Mob

It's scary the amount of jobs that guy has had.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

You missed the point.

Myth: It is impossible to leave well defined boot print in dust in a vacuum.

Negative, the point was about humidity actually. Moisture in the soil, so the sample has everything to do with it.

Cookie_Monster

What about the switching of the Olympic and Titanic.

I would have thought that's a pretty good one, don't believe it but is one of my favourite CTs