/ufo/ - Paranormal and Conspiracies

Also mods do NOT move this to ufo, i actually want some responses

Trying to associate 9/11 being inside job with likes of moon landing crank shit is a fed psyop.

>like the moon landing being fake
It would've been easier to just actually land on the moon that to try faking it, so they did. Anyone that has attempted to prove that it was fake failed miserably.
>9/11 being an inside job
That isn't controversial at all. My highschool history class taught it as such. That's not even a conspiracy theory anymore, that's just a known conspiracy that happened.
>don't move this to /ufo/
There's nothing paranormal about either of those. Not every mention of conspiracy is /ufo/ worthy. Conspiracy is a normal thing in politics.

>>1425
Its controversial because so many on the left are just establishment shills. The moon landing was obviously fake.
>>1429
>It would've been easier to just actually land on the moon that to try faking it, so they did.
They can't even land on the moon today, anon…
How is using a movie set more expensive?

>>1427
How? They're both conspiracies relating to the usa doing things for it's own gain: faking the moon landing to "win" the space race and orchestrating 9/11 to manufacture consent for invading iraq

>>1431
Were all the subsequent moon missions fake too? Was everyone in NASA on it? And most importantly, why do you think it was faked? Where are the proofs? Dont have to be conclusive of course, but if you hold a belief it should be based on something more than random neuron misfire. And dont even try to post some 2 hour tinfoil youtube video, I am not watching it.

>>1432
idk, probably, i don't believe any american is smart enough to build a vehicle capable of flying to space

>>1432
The reasoning can be entirely deductive; why hasn't any country in the world landed on the moon since the 1970s? Even the Artemis mission was never a landing mission. So, 50 years later, we can't do it? Mystery surrounds the whole thing, since people just say its a matter of funds. The computer used in 1969 was operating on kilobites. Advances in computing haven't cheapened space travel? The spacesuits and rockets tinfoil craft haven't been easier to manufacture. Nothing adds up.

>>1434
There have been in fact many more missions done since by multiple countries and agencies.

9/11 conspiracy theories are american exceptionalism because it all relies on the assumptions that the US is actually invulnerable to foreign actors and that the glowies are competent enough to pull that sort of scheme.

>the moon landing being fake
THE SOVIETS WOULD HAVE NOTICED YOU ABSOLUTE MONG. THE YANKS LEFT RETROREFLECTORS ON THE MOON THAT WE STILL USE FOR LASER RANGING TO THIS DAY. THERE'S IMAGERY FROM MULTIPLE NATIONS' SATELLITES OF THE LANDING SITES. THEN THERE'S THE ROCK SAMPLES. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ROCK SAMPLES, OP? HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE MOON DUST ON THE SPACESUITS?
sorry for being so loud but as a space nerd this kind of stupidity sets me off
>9/11 being an inside job
oh yeah this is 100% the case. maybe not Bush himself, but the CIA almost certainly knew

>>1435
>missions
But no moon landing missions
There is only the US flag on the moon (supposedly).
>>1437
Why hasn't anyone been back?

>>1434
you don't even need computers to navigate to the moon. Apollo astronauts were trained to navigate by sextant and slide rule. doing precision burns without computer help is difficult however, so you'd need more fuel to compensate
>>1438
>Why hasn't anyone been back?
why should they? sending people is dumb. send robots instead
one thing that's important to understand about Apollo is that it existed as a beard for the NRO and for the ICBM program

>>1439
>you don't even need computers to navigate to the moon.
Okay, so computers should make it even easier and cheaper.
>why should they?
You are the space enthusiast, right…?
>send robots
In another 50 years? You don't see the pyramid scheme?

>>1439
>sending people is dumb. send robots instead
It's not necesseraily, robots can't do a lot of the work humans can and there's the time delay. With good laboratory and engineering infrastructure it's smart to send humans which is what the US and China are aiming to do in addition to the cold war dick size competition

>>1434
there's basically no short/medium term benefit to manned space flight except that people are more invested when people are involved. if you want scientific data about the moon, you can send a probe that's a fraction of the weight and which doesn't require complicated safety procedures for every step of the way because it isn't really a PR disaster if a probe crashes into the moon but nobody wants the award for "first space agency to kill a guy on the moon"

and they're still sending people back anyway! the reason they did a flypast is because they're going back! Apollo 8, 9, 10 and (accidentally) 13 flew to - but did not land on - the moon as well!

>>1438
there have been lots of unmanned moon landing missions by countries other than the US. The USSR, China, India and Japan have all landed robots or probes on the moon. (or are they all lying too?)

>>1440
this is like asking why we don't have supersonic cars when "computers would make it easier"
>in another 50 years?
what're you talking about? the last unmanned probe landed on the moon last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM-2

the underlying principle of landing a person is precisely the same as the one for landing a probe, you just have to be more careful and use a much bigger rocket and a much bigger lander.

>>1440
>You are the space enthusiast, right…?
yes but I also think we shouldn't send people on highly risky missions if we don't need to. so far the only deaths in space are Soyuz 11. I bet if we have a death on the moon there'd be backlash
>In another 50 years? You don't see the pyramid scheme?
please elaborate on this supposed pyramid scheme
>>1441
>It's not necesseraily, robots can't do a lot of the work humans can and there's the time delay.
of course, there are limits to robots. but I don't think we're anywhere close to the limit of the science that can be done remotely. remember that there's immense cost, complexities and risk with sending people. it's difficult enough to send say a machine with moving parts to the moon

>>1444
Sending people is obviously very risky and expensive but it is at a good interesction between researching interesting science and doing cool state vanity projects, this makes the funding and feasibility realistic for the big states who can afford it.

>>1431
India, South Korea, and probably several other countries' space programs have all independently captured photos of the Apollo landing site, the idea that they're all coordinating to fake those photos just to perpetuate an American Cold War myth for no discernible gain is retarded.

Bush did do 9/11 tho

>>1431
One (the moon landing being fake) is a mixture of twitter users and feds misinterpreting how technology works, and the other (9/11 being an inside job) is taught in history books.

They’re not controversial. They’re overdone
If I had a dollar for eveytime I heard about the moon landing being fake, I would have enough to pay my family’s house mortgage

There’s no evidence for the moon landing being faked. All evidence that’s presented is easily debunked. It’s just mainly people who look down on space exploration

>like the moon landing being fake […] are so controversial on the left
Because it implies the Soviets were in on it. Imagine if it was fake AND soviets would call a bluff. There is too much to lose.

was there even anything to "win" in the space race? like what did the US even get out of landing on the moon. If the space race was simply a pretense for the development of long range missiles then the moon landing was rather tangential and didn't achieve anything beyond legitimate scientific curiosity.

>>1425
>Is it really implausible that the usa, the worlds biggest imperialist power, would be willing to do these things for the sake of personal gain?
It's not about plausibility it's about EVIDENCE.
We're supposed to be materialists.

>>1425
Moon landing happened.

9/11 was an inside job.

>>1427
This 100%
>>1428
This 200%
>>1431
>faking the moon landing to "win" the space race
they didn't win though
>orchestrating 9/11 to manufacture consent for invading iraq
Americans are just retarded. Even the official story makes no sense as a pretext for doing GWOT. The hijackers were Saudi, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon. Zero Afghans. Zero Iraqis, Zero Syrians. Zero Palestinians. The leader of the hijackers, Osama Bin Laden, was the son of a millionaire real estate developer, and helped the CIA overthrow socialism in Afghanistan.

reposted because I accidentally pasted the wrong post numbers from the siberia thread before it got moved

>>1454
You’re forgetting that Osama Bin Ladens family were business associates of George Bush’s family.
The whole 9/11 theory about it being a military operation is a common open discussion and there’s been televised specials about it.
I think it’s copium about being assailed by a foreign entity especially since the 1990s was marked by terrorist acts from domestic people.