new conspiracy site check it out for me

Conspiracy Cam · #1 (**permalink**) 09-March-2005, 02:48 PM

Hi.

Iv'e got a new conspiracy site, could you all check it out for me, it's in my sig.

Iv'e got three questons i need answering.

1. How's the content?

2. Does the disscution zone work? (You may need to sign in)

3. How's does it look on different browsers? Hows the speed?

Note: If you wish to link to my site, then feel free to do so. If you contact me and do this, i'll return the favour and give you a link back.

Thanks in advance.

ToSeek · #2 (**permalink**) 09-March-2005, 03:20 PM

Apollo 11 launched on July 16, not July 17 (at least in most time zones).

Skyfire · #3 (**permalink**) 09-March-2005, 03:32 PM

"More details" (bottom left) gives "Not Found", some other liks give this right now, how about pointing any such links to an "Under construction" page?

Nit pick - It would be nice if Neil Armstrong's name was capitalised properly

Anyway, a good start, I think at least some here will keep a watch and help out as and when required.

Tom Ames · #4 (**permalink**) 09-March-2005, 03:48 PM

Edits for spelling and grammar would help with the site's credibility.

Conspiracy Cam · #5 (**permalink**) 10-March-2005, 01:26 PM

Thanks for all of your suggestions. I'll try to follow has many has i can.

Note: The spelling problem could be due to the fact, i'm situated in England (eg: color, colour)

Bad Dr Galaxy · #6 (**permalink**) 10-March-2005, 04:52 PM

Well, at least he came to a reasonable conclusion. 8)

Jigsaw · #7 (**permalink**) 10-March-2005, 11:59 PM

Your definition of "hoax" as "a cover up that has been made by the general public" doesn't make sense to me.

Also:

"Spelling mistakes" as in "spelling mistakes".

Make your main page read as follows and we Spelling And Punctuation Mavens will be happy:

Quote:

: a cover up that has been made by the general public. Example: crop circle (coming soon)

Both mean the same thing: a lie; a diversion of the truth. Conspiracies and hoaxes are everywhere, and it is quite easy to be led into believing some conspiracy-filled rubbish.

But there is no need to worry, as there is a lighthouse of truth in the dark swirling pool of hoaxes and conspiracy. Let us be your lighthouse. Search through our extensive conspiracy and hoax-related articles sorted by topic and a-z designed so you can find the conspiracy or hoax that you're looking for.

In the Discussion Zone, find out about the latest up-to-date arguments for all of the conspiracy and hoax-related articles in our conspiracy and hoax forum.

And remember: search for the truth.

You don't need to name your website in "Let http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/ be your lighthouse", because the reader is already there, they don't need the URL repeated.

You need to rename "Discussion" link as "Discussion Zone", if that's what you're going to call it.

Over on the right-hand side, the plural of "hoax" is spelled "hoaxes", not "hoaxs". And "Articals" should be spelled "articles".

" Did America fake it all!" should be a question: "Did America fake it all?"

Do you mean to say that "Conspiracies and hoaxes are everywhere", or do you mean to say that "Conspiracy theories and hoaxes are everywhere"? There's a difference.

Skyfire · #8 (**permalink**) 11-March-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conspiracy Cam

Thanks for all of your suggestions. I'll try to follow has many has i can.

Note: The spelling problem could be due to the fact, i'm situated in England (eg: color, colour)

Well so am I! I am also all for keeping the english spellings: colour (color), centre (center), gaol (jail), aluminium (aluminum), football (soccer), pavement (sidewalk), boot (trunk), bonnet (hood), petrol (gas), gas (gas, CH4, or possibly propane or even butane .... depending....)

It keeps our english identity just a little longer..... and maybe looks quaint to those across the pond ....

Oh yes, I'm sure we can all come up with loads more of these....

Skyfire · #9 (**permalink**) 11-March-2005, 01:08 AM

Sorry I must be bored, I have more!

aeroplane (airplane), neighbour (neighbor), tyre (tire), honour (honor) .... oh dear, I am sure I could go on ..... but I need to sleep....!

ignorant_ape · #10 (**permalink**) 11-March-2005, 01:22 PM

ok , here goes :

1 ) - are conspiracies the exclusive domain of governments as you seem to imply ?

2 ) the top banner is too big [ height ] , it could be cropped to remove 30~40% from the top

3 ) - navigation buttons , i expect the "last page " button to take me to the FINAL page not the previous , would using a " previous page " button instead not be better ?

4)- font size , toop big - there is too little info / page

5)- white on black colour scheme - i like it but i have bad eyes so i find it easier to read - but i know many people hate such schemes

just my .002 cent

YMMV

YRS - APE

Skyfire · #11 (**permalink**) 11-March-2005, 11:45 PM

How about this, instead of talking about Conspiracies and hoaxes, why not suggest that there are some conspiracy theories and people who believe certain events were hoaxed? (maybe word it better though....) That way, to my way of thinking, it suggests these are theories and ideas, rather than seeming statements of fact.

At least it may get those undecided readers to consider that they are still only theories and have not yet been proved (and which I think we have generally fully debunked for the Apollo missions at least!). I always think talking about "conspiracies and hoaxes" immeadiately implies them to have an element of truth and the little bit of inquisitive nature the reader may still have is psychologically quelled at the outset.

More points on layout, I would suggest sticking to one font type, rather than changing it part way through the text. Highlighting quotes or certain phrases with italics seems ok to me. Yas, and more text per page is probably good.

Try putting a little bit of border around frames, especially adjacent ones both with text in them.

Generally though, good work, wish I had more time to do more of that type of thing. I'm too busy with what I have now!

Edited to change wording to read "fully debunked" above - brain fade problem when written at first!

W.F. Tomba · #12 (**permalink**) 12-March-2005, 12:29 AM

Pretty nice layout.

Your definition of conspiracy is overly narrow and simplistic.

Dictionary definition of conspiracy

Also, grammarians would say that it should be "whom do you trust?", not "who".

Conspiracy Cam · #13 (**permalink**) 12-March-2005, 02:02 PM

Anyone got any ideas on the next conspiracy to look into?

So far iv'e done: Id Cards and Moon Hoax.

I'm considering either Rosswell or 9/11.

Conspiracy Cam · #14 (**permalink**) 13-March-2005, 12:10 PM

Does anyone here own other ways to connect to the internet, other than a computer? (eg: TV Moblie Phone .... ect)

If you do, how does the site look on it?

BTW: Sorry about all of the questions, i just need info i can't get myself.

Iapetus · #15 (**permalink**) 17-March-2005, 12:11 AM

Hi,

I'm new to the BABB forums, so I don't know if this is the proper topic to post in, but.....

Some person named Cy has put up an ad on www.msn.com, saying to do an internet search with the words: "nasa backlot", claining incontrevertible proof that the landings were faked.

I had a quick look, and the first bit of evidence for the Hoax is a poor quality video of the "One small step for man..." part of the mission, which is interrupted when a stage lighting girder collapses into the picture. People appear on camera, fixing it up. Another shot supposedly shows Armstrong with his faceplate open, on the 'moon', while leaning against the LM, smoking a cigarette.

Anyone know if this is "new" evidence or "old" evidence in a new suit? :P

Thanks

ToSeek · #16 (**permalink**) 17-March-2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iapetus

Hi,

I'm new to the BABB forums, so I don't know if this is the proper topic to post in, but.....

Some person named Cy has put up an ad on www.msn.com, saying to do an internet search with the words: "nasa backlot", claining incontrevertible proof that the landings were faked.

I had a quick look, and the first bit of evidence for the Hoax is a poor quality video of the "One small step for man..." part of the mission, which is interrupted when a stage lighting girder collapses into the picture. People appear on camera, fixing it up. Another shot supposedly shows Armstrong with his faceplate open, on the 'moon', while leaning against the LM, smoking a cigarette.

Anyone know if this is "new" evidence or "old" evidence in a new suit? :P

Thanks

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=41066

die Nullte · #17 (**permalink**) 17-March-2005, 02:13 AM

It's a hilarious gag.

mirsante · #18 (**permalink**) 17-March-2005, 05:10 PM

What about these? Where are these from? They appear to be showing moon sets.

Conspiracy Cam · #19 (**permalink**) 24-March-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirsante

What about these? Where are these from? They appear to be showing moon sets.

The problem is, you can't tell if these photos have been photoshoped.

JayUtah · #20 (**permalink**) 24-March-2005, 05:46 PM

I can frequently tell when a photo has been subjected to digital manipulation. The certificate of achievement is unquestionably a digital forgery. The original name on the scanned image has been blanked out with a white rectangle and Lochner's name added in a digital font.

The picture of the man standing next to the Saturn V model could be anyone. The file name is "1982apollosatjohn.jpg", leading me to believe the photo is really of John Duncan, famed Saturn V modeler and webmaster of apollosaturn.com. On his site he describes building a Saturn V model complete with launcher and LUT that looks very suspiciously like the one in the photo.

The news article is obviously fabricated. It is not written in a journalist's style.

The photos showing construction of the "sets" are well-known to Apollo historians and are not secret in any way. They are photos of the materials used to provide visuals for Apollo training simulations. The man's face in the photo alleged to be of "Albert Lochner" painting a moon set is only ten pixels tall, thereby removing any possibility of verifying his identity.

Conspiracists want you to believe the creation of faithful replicas for training purposes is suspicious because such materials "could" be used for fakery. However, it would have been suspicious for NASA not to have made every effort to train its astronauts effectively for a real mission, including creating the best possible stand-ins for the real thing. Thus the mere creation of those materials is not per se suspicious. If the conspiracists want to argue that they were also used for fakery, then they have the burden of proof for that additional purpose. It cannot be inferred merely from the existence of the materials.

Finally, the photographs of the materials in which Lochner is alleged to be mentioned are irrelevant. We must have the material itself in order to verify the claim.

mathyou9 · #21 (**permalink**) 25-March-2005, 10:04 AM

In addition to Jay's observance of the non-journalistic style of the news article, there is no author or newspaper name below the headline. My guess is, the author of the "article" did not want to put a fake newspaper name (as that would be discovered easily) and putting a real newspaper name would only cause skeptics to go to that newspaper to verify to lear