8 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Wrong about what?

Atom bombs that never were.

Vaccines being 'safe n effective'.

9/11 an inside job.

The London bombing deception.

Covid hoax.

Moonwalkers.

Reckon I'm right on all counts.

My best guess you are an ironic troll

20 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

No one, not even Elvis, has been to the moon.

Not saying a rocket didn't do a journey somewhere. But as for having humans on board!! They re just having a laugh at the sheepoes expense. Everyone's laughing at them.

Was this the last throw of the dice for a dying empire? Trying to show off. Jokers unite.

It did what they all do, which is follow an arc before landing in the Bermuda Triangle.

Delete

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It did what they all do, which is follow an arc before landing in the Bermuda Triangle.

Basics

To get into space, a rocket goes up first to get through the thickest part of the atmosphere, but after that it has to bend over and build speed sideways. That is the whole point. Orbit is not about going endlessly higher, but about going fast enough around the Earth to stay in space instead of falling straight back down.

And if you want to leave Earth’s grip and go farther out, then you need even more speed at the right moment, often using gravity from planets or moons as well. That only makes sense because the Earth is round and because orbit is real movement around a curved body, not some straight line upward.

11 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Basics

To get into space, a rocket goes up first to get through the thickest part of the atmosphere, but after that it has to bend over and build speed sideways. That is the whole point. Orbit is not about going endlessly higher, but about going fast enough around the Earth to stay in space instead of falling straight back down.

And if you want to leave Earth’s grip and go farther out, then you need even more speed at the right moment, often using gravity from planets or moons as well. That only makes sense because the Earth is round and because orbit is real movement around a curved body, not some straight line upward.

Yes, I know what the official explanation is.

50 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You seem to put weight on houses being doubly as large which simply isn't true. Even if they were it is not a factor in affordability unless the buyer is to share ownership somehow. But the fact is they are not doubly as large and the size of land is significantly smaller.

If you lived it you would know it was a lot easier - I was a kid in '76 but I started buying in the early nineties.

Sydney is the biggest city and seems a reasonable guide but lets see for Australian capital cities.

1976 to 2026 Housing: While wages have increased roughly 10-fold house prices in capital cities have risen over 30-fold, with many exceeding $1 million to over $850,000 median. I think those figures are a bit low but still there it is.

Yet roughly the same percentage of people own their own homes, how is that?

The payment on a $1M home at 4% is about the same as a $500K home at 10%

All things the same, a larger home cost more than a small home, yes?

Families getting smaller, homes getting bigger, same in the US.

So, what do you think is driving the cost of housing?

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Property ownership overall has decreased but as you say not by huge margins - say 10 to 20 per cent.

Keep in mind though we have been talking about houses - as against units or apartments.

The ability to buy a house - part of the Australian dream - is significantly harder.

Many owners you are talking about likely have the less satisfactory outcome of owning a small unit. There are many more units now potentially weakening your argument about bigger 'properties'.

But in addition to this is the question of the level of debt from that property ownership i.e. those with paid off properties has dropped by 26 per cent from the 1990's to 2016. This is from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. So people were able to pay them off more easily - which is consistent with my point about the lesser effect of interest rates.

But our main point is about whether it is as easy to enter the market as a young person back in the day compared to now. That's where your overall figures have less meaning. Property ownership has dropped from 61 to 43 per cent between the 70's and now for those aged 25 to 34. This is from the Crawford School of Public Policy.

In terms of comparing size of homes, a larger home costs more than a small home, but as I have said it is the size of the land which is a bigger factor - thus the decision to subdivide. If in the 70's there were average size houses on large blocks as compared to larger houses on smaller blocks now - I think you cannot conclude that that is a significant factor in the price rise - likely the opposite.

Factors that have lead to this is - as far as I know without checking AI - likely relaxed foreign ownership rules, significant immigration, and a fairly healthy economy.

Ah, we're doing AI now. .

So, what do you think is driving the cost of housing?

16 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I gave you a response on that issue and noted it is without checking AI. So don't get your response.

In terms of building costs themselves - a separate issue - since covid timber and other materials has risen dramatically as a part of fairly broad worldwide inflation.

But prices were trending up long before covid, yes?

16 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

There is also a shortage of tradesman who can charge through the roof.

Do you think tradesmen are overpaid?

Median salary for a K-12 teacher in Sydney is ~$110K. A husband and wife both teaching that's $220K a year. Payment on a $1.2M home with 20% down is about $5,150 a month, or $61,800 a year, or 28% of income.

The $1.2M is about 5.5 times household income, yes?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

But prices were trending up long before covid, yes?

Do you think tradesmen are overpaid?

Median salary for a K-12 teacher in Sydney is ~$110K. A husband and wife both teaching that's $220K a year. Payment on a $1.2M home with 20% down is about $5,150 a month, or $61,800 a year, or 28% of income.

The $1.2M is about 5.5 times household income, yes?

Prices always go up but there was a surge during covid. Alot of builders went under when they signed contracts when prices were much lower and got caught out.

I would prefer tradesman were paid less but I guess they get what the market brings. Then there's the cash economy or unidentifiable electronic payments these days adding to available income. Public servants don't benefit from such things as they shouldn't. I guess people get paid what their worth in the long run but in the short term it can seem a bit out of kilter but I am not suggesting some sort of socialist control. It works itself out.

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

Artemis II is a hoax… obviously???

Of course it is. Artemis II—tracked in real time, watched globally, involving thousands of engineers across multiple countries—is clearly fake…

…because someone on the internit thinks it “looks a bit off.”

Let’s just admire the scale of this alleged genius-level conspiracy for a moment:

NASA fakes a mission,

Europe happily joins in (hundreds of companies, thousands of staff),  - independent astronomers track the spacecraft anyway (also in on it, apparently), and not one credible insider leaks anything… ever.

 

But no need to worry—some bloke with a YouTube channel has cracked it.

We’ve even had the 40-minute comms blackout behind the Moon.
Exactly what physics predicts……But no, clearly NASA just thought: “Let’s pretend to lose signal for realism. That’ll fool them.”

Then there’s the distance record—beyond what Apollo 13 achieved—tracked independently.

Also fake, presumably.
Because… reasons.

And the photos of the Moon’s far side? Places you literally cannot see from Earth?

Easy. Must be a secret film set no one has ever found in 50+ years.
Hidden somewhere between Area 51 and Narnia.

Best of all, the mission had real-time technical issues—minor faults, system hiccups, even a dodgy toilet.

Because when you’re staging the most elaborate hoax in human history…
you definitely include plumbing problems for authenticity.

And those viral “gotcha” clips with wires?

AI-generated rubbish. Already exposed.

But of course, now the conspiracy includes AI detection tools too. Why not? At this point you may as well throw in the Tooth Fairy and Bigfoot for backup.

 

And here’s where it gets even better…

This “hoax” supposedly started back in 1969 with the Apollo 11 Moon Landing.

Which means:

Many of the original “conspirators” are now dead.
(Impressive long-term silence from beyond the grave.)

Many of the current engineers and mission staff weren’t even born when this all supposedly began.  - So how exactly were they recruited? - Do they get a secret email at university?
“Congratulations on your engineering degree—welcome to the 60-year-old global lie. Please never tell anyone.” Or …better still, there’s a hidden initiation ceremony somewhere? A handshake? A vow? We knew the Masons had a hand (shake) in it…. Because somehow, across generations, countries, languages, and political systems…
everyone stays perfectly in sync, perfectly silent, forever.

 

What this really comes down to is brutally simple:

“It doesn’t look right to me.” That’s it. That’s the level of analysis. No physics. No engineering. No independently verified tracking data. - Just vibes.

So we’re left with two options:

 

A global, decades-spanning conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, agencies, and observers… all perfectly coordinated, across generations… including people not even born when it started.

Or…

a handful of people on the internet don’t understand what they’re looking at.

 

Tough call, I know

Why does the ISS livestream never capture any of the 10,000-15,000 satellites purportedly orbiting the Earth?

8 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

No one, not even Elvis, has been to the moon.

I suppose you're gonna say you asked him?

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes, I know what the official explanation is.

And scientifically it adds up? Or you have proof it doesnt ?

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

And scientifically it adds up? Or you have proof it doesnt ?

It adds up, yes. Just as J.R.R. Tolkien's or George Lucas' stories add up. If you start from the desired conclusion, there is always a way (there are several ways, even) to produce a story with a logical chain of explanation, especially when invoking abstract notions which the average man can't verify.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Why does the ISS livestream never capture any of the 10,000-15,000 satellites purportedly orbiting the Earth?

This is a little bit childish claim, have you ever played with a camera with manual settings? Not seeing satellites all the time on an ISS livestream proves nothing. Camera settings matter, brightness matters, angle matters, and space is huge. You do not stand on a skyscraper and expect to see every ant below, and you do not point a camera at a bright object and expect every faint object nearby to show up. And in this case the claim is flat wrong anyway, because astronauts have in fact filmed satellites from the ISS, including a Starlink train.

https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/gFn00xXu

21 minutes ago, Hummin said:

This is a little bit childish claim, have you ever played with a camera with manual settings? Not seeing satellites all the time on an ISS livestream proves nothing. Camera settings matter, brightness matters, angle matters, and space is huge. You do not stand on a skyscraper and expect to see every ant below, and you do not point a camera at a bright object and expect every faint object nearby to show up. And in this case the claim is flat wrong anyway, because astronauts have in fact filmed satellites from the ISS, including a Starlink train.

https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/gFn00xXu

It isn't a childish claim, it is a very rational question which you would seriously consider at face falue if you were as independent-minded as you claim to be.

Most satellites are purportedly in Low Earth Orbit, as is the ISS. There should be plenty visible in the live footage, yet I have never seen any. I mean the below contraptions:

27 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It isn't a childish claim, it is a very rational question which you would seriously consider at face falue if you were as independent-minded as you claim to be.

Most satellites are purportedly in Low Earth Orbit, as is the ISS. There should be plenty visible in the live footage, yet I have never seen any. I mean the below contraptions:

I do have background in photography and video production, so ?

Low Earth orbit is not a narrow band where the ISS and large numbers of satellites are all flying close enough to be casually visible in live camera footage. It is a very large region of space, with objects spread out over many different altitudes, orbital planes, distances, and lighting conditions.

So even if many satellites are in low orbit, that does not mean they should regularly appear in ISS video as clear, easy-to-recognize objects. Most would be too small, too far away, too briefly visible, or poorly lit to stand out on an ordinary live feed. Camera limits also matter a lot here, especially with exposure, field of view, focus, and contrast between bright Earth and dark space.

So I do not think “I never see satellites in the live footage” is strong evidence against satellites being there. It is more a sign that orbit is much bigger, emptier, and optically more difficult than people often imagine.

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I do have background in photography and video production, so ?

Low Earth orbit is not a narrow band where the ISS and large numbers of satellites are all flying close enough to be casually visible in live camera footage. It is a very large region of space, with objects spread out over many different altitudes, orbital planes, distances, and lighting conditions.

So even if many satellites are in low orbit, that does not mean they should regularly appear in ISS video as clear, easy-to-recognize objects. Most would be too small, too far away, too briefly visible, or poorly lit to stand out on an ordinary live feed. Camera limits also matter a lot here, especially with exposure, field of view, focus, and contrast between bright Earth and dark space.

So I do not think “I never see satellites in the live footage” is strong evidence against satellites being there. It is more a sign that orbit is much bigger, emptier, and optically more difficult than people often imagine.

They should appear once in a while though, shouldn't they? There are, we are told, over 10,000 prototypes orbiting Low Earth Orbit. Do you concur that it is mathematically impossible to never see any appear on a live 24/7 feed?

Here is thing though..

"conspiracy theory" is waved around with a shrill voice when it doesn't match officially handed down "conspiracy theory" - andd there are usually hidden PR hands ensuring you believe their version

For example 12 Egyptian etc, guys who couldn't fly Cesnas someohow managed to comandeer and not just fly modern sophisticated aircraft, but they somehow could pilot them low to the ground into the the 2 WTC (extreme piloting skills required) and even more unlikely into a 2nd floor window at 500km/h of the Pentagon (the same area investigating Rumsfeld's 2 trillion dollars unacounted for).

But that is exactly the 'conspiracy theory' init, that we are asked to believe. You see? "conspiracy theory' depends on whether you agree with the official conspiracy theory - or a different version. Both are "conspiracy theories"

30 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They should appear once in a while though, shouldn't they? There are, we are told, over 10,000 prototypes orbiting Low Earth Orbit. Do you concur that it is mathematically impossible to never see any appear on a live 24/7 feed?

I have showed you evidence, there is more, but you want look them up

26 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Here is thing though..

"conspiracy theory" is waved around with a shrill voice when it doesn't match officially handed down "conspiracy theory" - andd there are usually hidden PR hands ensuring you believe their version

For example 12 Egyptian etc, guys who couldn't fly Cesnas someohow managed to comandeer and not just fly modern sophisticated aircraft, but they somehow could pilot them low to the ground into the the 2 WTC (extreme piloting skills required) and even more unlikely into a 2nd floor window at 500km/h of the Pentagon (the same area investigating Rumsfeld's 2 trillion dollars unacounted for).

But that is exactly the 'conspiracy theory' init, that we are asked to believe. You see? "conspiracy theory' depends on whether you agree with the official conspiracy theory - or a different version. Both are "conspiracy theories"

That is a huge conspiracy to try to pick apart, and I still wonder why so many of these theories are tied to American events.

I agree that the phrase “conspiracy theory” is often used too casually to dismiss questions. But that does not make every alternative explanation equally credible. There is still a major difference between asking hard questions and building a whole alternative narrative on suspicion, coincidence, and selective details.

For me, it comes down to evidence, not tone or labels. The fact that an event is shocking, complicated, or politically useful does not by itself prove hidden control behind every part of it.

I also think education, mental health, and critical thinking can influence how vulnerable people are to conspiracy thinking, especially when the theories become very large, complex, and all-encompassing. In a forum setting, that can sometimes show up as a readiness to connect almost everything to hidden agendas while giving too little weight to ordinary explanations and solid evidence.

So perhaps the better question is not only whether official stories deserve scrutiny, but whether we are equally willing to examine our own assumptions. That, to me, is where genuine skepticism begins.

I honestly wish some of the bigger conspiracies were true, and I might even find life more entertaining if they were. But in the end, I just cannot convince myself that the world is quite that crazy, even if believing it might sometimes make things feel easier to explain.

That is probably why the simulation idea appeals more to me. If I ever need to comfort myself, I can simply think: relax, this is just a simulation, tomorrow I will do better, because that is still my choice.

58 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I have showed you evidence, there is more, but you want look them up

You have not showed me evidence of satellites captured by the 'ISS livestream'. As the video below explains, Earth's lower orbit is purportedly saturated with satellites, so one would expect, when streaming the ISS feed as I have done for the past couple of hours, to see some regularly, but I have seen none. Of course, I am not equipped or educated enough to understand Science, but you guys are, which is why I eagerly wait for you to authoritatively enlighten me.

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You have not showed me evidence of satellites captured by the 'ISS livestream'. As the video below explains, Earth's lower orbit is purportedly saturated with satellites, so one would expect, when streaming the ISS feed as I have done for the past couple of hours, to see some regularly, but I have seen none. Of course, I am not equipped or educated enough to understand Science, but you guys are, which is why I eagerly wait for you to authoritatively enlighten me.

Then I think the problem is not really science, but a misunderstanding of basic video and photography conditions.

19 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Then I think the problem is not really science, but a misunderstanding of basic video and photography conditions.

Okay… You're probably going to get a couple of thumbs up from like-minded posters. The phenomenon is saved, there is an explanation: the ISS livestream never captures satellites because of basic video and photograohy conditions.

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

Basics

To get into space, a rocket goes up first to get through the thickest part of the atmosphere, but after that it has to bend over and build speed sideways. That is the whole point. Orbit is not about going endlessly higher, but about going fast enough around the Earth to stay in space instead of falling straight back down.

And if you want to leave Earth’s grip and go farther out, then you need even more speed at the right moment, often using gravity from planets or moons as well. That only makes sense because the Earth is round and because orbit is real movement around a curved body, not some straight line upward.

Wernher von Braun - the 'father' of the Apollo space program - seems not to agree on your Basics...

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon [1953]

17 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

No one, not even Elvis, has been to the moon.

Not saying a rocket didn't do a journey somewhere. But as for having humans on board!! They re just having a laugh at the sheepoes expense. Everyone's laughing at them.

Was this the last throw of the dice for a dying empire? Trying to show off. Jokers unite.

Someone needs to go Buzz Aldrin on you for posting this.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

They should appear once in a while though, shouldn't they? There are, we are told, over 10,000 prototypes orbiting Low Earth Orbit. Do you concur that it is mathematically impossible to never see any appear on a live 24/7 feed?

They do appear in the ISS feeds once in a while.

If it were fake, they'd have cr*p flying through all the time.

Never is an infante number of years, yet you watch for ten minutes and call it proof.

Low Earth orbit has an approximate volume 275 billion cubic kilometers.

3 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Someone needs to go Buzz Aldrin on you for posting this.

Well that's the way it is Sir.

Some can see right through it all. Other are blind sheep.

None so blind as those who will not see.

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Wernher von Braun - the 'father' of the Apollo space program - seems not to agree on your Basics...

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon [1953]

To me, todays science have proved they are able to go to space, so if that is wrong, close your eyes, and enjoy every moment you got on this journey, no time to waste ;-)

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

They do appear in the ISS feeds once in a while.

Is that a certainty or an assumption?

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Never is an infante number of years, yet you watch for ten minutes and call it proof.

Not ten minutes. As I said, I let it run for two hours (on a second screen placed at the side of my desk). I never mentioned the word 'proof', I raised a question, which an open and independent mind will pursue honestly in search of the truth (as opposed to looking for an angle to prove me wrong).

Beyond what time frame does it become mathematically impossible to not see a single satellite? 12 hours? 24?