Conspiracy theory poll, percentage of Britains who believe in:

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27897
  • Start date
Lexingtongue said:
They've been there 100%. That lander was designed for a completely different environment from earth.

Staggering that people believe that it's a hoax, in truth. The logistics of perpetrating and maintaining a lie would be far more difficult.
Click to expand...
Ha'way man, this is @parm you're responding to.
DaftGet said:
Pedos are in high places all around the world, Hollywood, parliament, the media etc. That one I actually believe.
Click to expand...
similarly, they're in 'low' places all around the world.....schools, banks, social care, car factories, offices. It's not a 'conspiracy theory', it's a twisted fact.
 
Last edited:


scallyban said:
I'm part of the 15%. A visit to the space centre last summer made me doubt it even more. Early 1960's, JFK promised a nation that they would put man on the moon by the end of the decade. In 1967 Apollo 1 killed all 3 astronauts and a complete rethink of the program was required. Then miraculously, 18 months later, they successfully completed their mission. Just managing to keep his promise...
Click to expand...
The Apollo 1 fire didn’t require ‘a complete rethink’. They changed the hatch opening and rerouted some wiring but the basics design of the launch vehicle, the moon landing module and the middle section (I forget the name) were unchanged.
There’s a cracking podcast on BBC Sounds called ‘13 Minutes to the Moon‘ about the whole process.
 
PhilY said:
The Apollo 1 fire didn’t require ‘a complete rethink’. They changed the hatch opening and rerouted some wiring but the basics design of the launch vehicle, the moon landing module and the middle section (I forget the name) were unchanged.
There’s a cracking podcast on BBC Sounds called ‘13 Minutes to the Moon‘ about the whole process.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean a rethink of the module design, I meant of the overall process and maybe complete rethink was a slight exaggeration. They still had a thorough investigation to undertake, finalise and action all while manned missions were grounded. For the scale of the task, 18 months was a very quick turnaround for something of such magnitude. Fortunately the technical aspects were a quick fix!
 
Lexingtongue said:
They've been there 100%. That lander was designed for a completely different environment from earth.

Staggering that people believe that it's a hoax, in truth. The logistics of perpetrating and maintaining a lie would be far more difficult.
Click to expand...
It’s almost as though there’s basically no atmosphere on the moon and therefor no frictional forces to stress the lander during ascent/descent
pinewaves1868 said:
No. I don’t perform on demand for many people, certainly not for you. What makes you think things have to be proved to your satisfaction?

You are the one who claimed the capsule atmosphere “atop” the bomb was irrelevant, not me, so it’s whatever you want not whatever I want.

Again using oxygen they weren’t shaving but adding. So the saving is non-existent not insignificant.

Wait as long as you want it’s not a condition of posting to prove anything to your satisfaction, no matter how impressive a deluge you have at your disposal.

Although, with the benefit of hindsight, dismissive and deluded smart arses like me don’t react to petty name-calling in an attempt to diminish others or their opinions. However you crack on.
Click to expand...
The moon landings are something which are commonly accepted as having happened due to the wealth of evidence available. Video footage, moon samples, astronaut accounts and obviously the list goes on.

Scientifically speaking, if you dispute something which is commonly taken as fact, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. I could just say gravity doesn’t exist and then end my conversation there, but people wouldn’t take me seriously, just like they aren’t taking you seriously.
 
Last edited:
pillars of hercules said:
I have an autistic son. There was a profound change in him after the MMR. Shortly after this the report came out. I thought fuck. Later it is discredited, but no real link to another cause. 11 years to the day my son to a 2nd marriage was born. I still obviously worried about a possible link. It would make sense for the government to want all children vaccinated whether there was a link or not. We can see the effects of an epidemic today.

We decided to get our son vaccinated, although it was a hard decision. You wouldn't understand unless you were in that position yourself. I didn't resent those that chose not to vaccinate.

Today after a lot of research it seems obvious that the link is not there and it is likely to be genetic (my fault which makes sense).

The bottom line is these parents aren't ignorant. There was a deception and some people decided not to trust the science because of this, although I can't see why they would still have that opinion.

What was that song about a man without a cent, growing up to be president. It doesn't happen does it? Most are very wealthy from powerful families.
Click to expand...
More and more research is actually linking gut microbiome to autism as well as many auto immune diseases. When we fully understand gut bacteria and the way it works we will find cures to many diseases IMHO
 
scraff said:
More and more research is actually linking gut microbiome to autism as well as many auto immune diseases. When we fully understand gut bacteria and the way it works we will find cures to many diseases IMHO
Click to expand...
I do think there is an hereditary genetic link to this as well. My oldest daughter has been diagnosed as an adult along with her son (my grandson) and my youngest son is in the process of being assessed. Only my oldest son has learning difficulties with the others being 'a bit odd' :D.

The kids are over 2 marriages so I'm seeing a common denominator and the older i get, that becomes more obvious :D
 
Doeboy said:
The moon landings are something which are commonly accepted as having happened due to the wealth of evidence available. Video footage, moon samples, astronaut accounts and obviously the list goes on.

Scientifically speaking, if you dispute something which is commonly taken as fact, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. I could just say gravity doesn’t exist and then end my conversation there, but people wouldn’t take me seriously, just like they aren’t taking you seriously.
Click to expand...
With the greatest of respect, despite a rather facile argument, I'll respond in kind. You know where you can stick your "onus", don't you?
 
Doeboy said:
How is the argument facile? If it’s so greatly complex and not open-close then present an argument which uses evidence to show that the moon landings were faked?
Click to expand...
Please, stop making demands. It is the way of deflection and is the most base type of debate. The facile point referred to the use of gravity as an example.
’Scientifically speaking’ somebody using one or two words on a public message board would not be considered as ‘disputing something which is commonly taken as fact’. Speaking scientifically that would take a much more involved, reasoned and referenced work. If we were to speak scientifically. But we’re not. We are communicating on a football message board. It’s not the Royal Institution, or even the Oxford Union, so even further removed from the realms of scientific or mathematical proof than those two examples. (Far, further, furthest).
I fail to see (no surprise there then) how claiming that oxygen is slightly heavier than air, or that an atmosphere consisting of 100% oxygen is dangerous, or that NASA boffins would be aware of these facts can be viewed as ‘disputing something which is commonly taken as fact’.
Just to keep things ticking along what happened to the absolute deluge of evidence?
Shirley if one is making the argument the someone else must provide evidence contrary to what one claims is commonly accepted it is not enough to say the evidence exists. That sounds a bit bullying to me.
CT? Me? Couldn’t be further from the truth son. Don't make assumptions. (Like I did there - in case you missed it, son)
 
Last edited:
pinewaves1868 said:
Please, stop making demands. It is the way of deflection and is the most base type of debate. The facile point referred to the use of gravity as an example.
’Scientifically speaking’ somebody using one or two words on a public message board would not be considered as ‘disputing something which is commonly taken as fact’. Speaking scientifically that would take a much more involved, reasoned and referenced work. If we were to speak scientifically. But we’re not. We are communicating on a football message board. It’s not the Royal Institution, or even the Oxford Union, so even further removed from the realms of scientific or mathematical proof than those two examples. (Far, further, furthest).
I fail to see (no surprise there then) how claiming that oxygen is slightly heavier than air, or that an atmosphere consisting of 100% oxygen is dangerous, or that NASA boffins would be aware of these facts can be viewed as ‘disputing something which is commonly taken as fact’.
Just to keep things ticking along what happened to the absolute deluge of evidence?
Shirley if one is making the argument the someone else must provide evidence contrary to what one claims is commonly accepted it is not enough to say the evidence exists. That sounds a bit bullying to me.
CT? Me? Couldn’t be further from the truth son. Don't make assumptions. (Like I did there - in case you missed it, son)
Click to expand...
Have you read the explanation why using a 100% oxygen atmosphere can actually save weight? Did you accept it?

Has there been any personal testimony from somebody involved who knew that the landings were faked?
 
Last edited:
Falconhoof said:
There was a huge number of ignorant people who went through a phase of not vaccinating their bairns mind!
Click to expand...


In France, I think the govt says if you aren't vaccinated you can't go to (state) school.
As for the moon landings. The easiest argument that they happened is that you could track the spacecraft and the Russians, who were in race with the Americans would have liked and still would love to be able to show that the USA faked it. That they discontinued their efforts to get to the moon and have never bothered since shows that they absolutely knew beyond any doubt that the USA got there.
 
Last edited:
pinewaves1868 said:
Please, stop making demands. It is the way of deflection and is the most base type of debate. The facile point referred to the use of gravity as an example.
’Scientifically speaking’ somebody using one or two words on a public message board would not be considered as ‘disputing something which is commonly taken as fact’. Speaking scientifically that would take a much more involved, reasoned and referenced work. If we were to speak scientifically. But we’re not. We are communicating on a football message board. It’s not the Royal Institution, or even the Oxford Union, so even further removed from the realms of scientific or mathematical proof than those two examples. (Far, further, furthest).
I fail to see (no surprise there then) how claiming that oxygen is slightly heavier than air, or that an atmosphere consisting of 100% oxygen is dangerous, or that NASA boffins would be aware of these facts can be viewed as ‘disputing something which is commonly taken as fact’.
Just to keep things ticking along what happened to the absolute deluge of evidence?
Shirley if one is making the argument the someone else must provide evidence contrary to what one claims is commonly accepted it is not enough to say the evidence exists. That sounds a bit bullying to me.
CT? Me? Couldn’t be further from the truth son. Don't make assumptions. (Like I did there - in case you missed it, son)
Click to expand...
You managed to compose a large and well structured argument full of absolutely nothing. Good job!
 
Doeboy said:
You managed to compose a large and well structured argument full of absolutely nothing. Good job!
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that something, anything, can be full of nothing? So, not a scientific approach after all.
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
Have you read the explanation why using a 100% oxygen atmosphere can actually save weight? Did you accept it?

Has there been any personal testimony from somebody involved who knew that the landings were faked?
Click to expand...
So actual questions which require answers. Is this a new technique to extract information instead of ridiculous reactions and name-calling (not by you)? This approach might have a future in sensible communication.
No - because I don’t care.
I don’t know - because I don’t care.

Once more for the cheap seats the only claims I made were that Oxygen is a bit heavier than air and a 100% oxygen atmosphere is dangerous, especially if combustion is possible. In other words apparently, absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
pinewaves1868 said:
Do you really believe that something, anything, can be full of nothing? So, not a scientific approach after all.

So actual questions which require answers. Is this a new technique to extract information instead of ridiculous reactions and name-calling (not by you)? This approach might have a future in sensible communication.
No - because I don’t care.
I don’t know - because I don’t care.

Once more for the cheap seats the only claims I made were that Oxygen is a bit heavier than air and a 100% oxygen atmosphere is dangerous, especially if combustion is possible. In other words apparently, absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
You don't half go on a bit for somebody who doesn't care ;)
 

Back
Top