Author Topic: Conspiracies Megathread | Now With A Nicer OP  (Read 2783 times)

Conspiracy theories sometimes turn out to be true. This is a very rare occasion, but several actually have. Including the toxicity of Asbestos, the Manhattan Project, and Area 51 ( a more recent one ), and also MK Ultra II, the government has sometimes done some stuff behind the back of its citizens.[4]
[4] - http://www.cnn.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

I don't know why you'd cite a site that promotes insane conspiracy theories for a statement of conspiracy theories that have proven to be true.
I mean, I'm not commenting on the truth of your statement or the article, but you may want to choose some different sites.

Actually, I will comment on the truth of your statement. What do you mean by Area 51? That's very vague. It could range from anything from it existing but the government not acknowledging it to "Area 51 is a testing site for alien technology" or something insane like that.

The moon landing was fake.
There are many theories on whether the moon landing was real or fake. It is infact real. During an Apolo mission, the on-board crew put a mirror on the moon to prove their moon landing. NASA has (or atleast since I've last checked) images of them pointing a laser at that mirror and having it reflect back to Earth. The Big Bang Theory did the exact same thing in one of their episodes.

It is infact real. During an Apolo mission, the on-board crew put a mirror on the moon to prove their moon landing. NASA has (or atleast since I've last checked) images of them pointing a laser at that mirror and having it reflect back to Earth.

Didn't they go there on Mythbusters?
Or some TV show, but I think it was Mythbusters.

I don't know anything about the Dugway Proving Ground, so I'll just ask why you think JFK's assassination wasn't a one-man job.
I think it was a one-man job. I'm just saying it's much less crazier than 99% of other conspiracy theories lol.

If people thought the moon landing was fake they could go up there and find the flag

If people thought the moon landing was fake they could go up there and find the flag
It's easier to find a reflective surface than a flag that's bearly visible with a telescope.

Didn't they go there on Mythbusters?
Or some TV show, but I think it was Mythbusters.
I can't say for certain but I am 100% sure that the mirror is in the NASA's website and in one of TBBT's episodes. My dad told me about it and we watched it together.

If people thought the moon landing was fake they could go up there and find the flag
if people think the moon landing is fake lets just launch them into orbit

Orbit != landing in space. Being in orbit, the atmosphere still protects you from the sun's gamma rays. The main reason why the moon landing was considered bullstuff was because the Russians attempted the same thing but their astronauts returned with brain damage.

Orbit != landing in space. Being in orbit, the atmosphere still protects you from the sun's gamma rays. The main reason why the moon landing was considered bullstuff was because the Russians attempted the same thing but their astronauts returned with brain damage.
plz stop gettign technical on me it was only a joke :'(((


Orbit != landing in space. Being in orbit, the atmosphere still protects you from the sun's gamma rays. The main reason why the moon landing was considered bullstuff was because the Russians attempted the same thing but their astronauts returned with brain damage.
I like how you assume that a massive circulating ball of hydrogen lets off radiation in a nice, organized, and consistent manner. Which is why no one's worried about having the sun suddenly let off a lot of it in Earth's direction, since that would be impossible, right?

I never said anything about organization or consistent. That helium-hydrogen fission/fusion reactor emits radiation everywhere.

That helium-hydrogen fission/fusion reactor emits radiation everywhere.
So astronauts can get different dosages of radiation just based on the solar activity during a given day.

I'd love to continue your argument but sadly, I don't know the topic in depth. AFAIK, that's what happened.

I don't know the topic in depth
So, you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about yet maintain that you are still correct in your unsupported assertions?