[Closed] Trying to settle an argument

Well said tim.

Folk just like to believe in conspiracy theories because it gives them a thrill that they are "in on it" and that they are too intelligent to be fooled by "the man" like all those other sheep.

It is pure egotism and self-delusion.

apart from the ones that have been proven to be true

Out of nothing more than idle curiosity, what conspiracy theories have been proven to be true?

I've already mentioned one.

One conspiracy uncovered therefore all conspiracies must be true?
Should we list all the things that have been claimed to have happened that did those that diod not and see which list is the largst?
Whilst it is possible that there is a mass conspiracy to fake this (like it is possible there is a God) all the evidence points to there being no conspiracy or God.
You can’t prove negatives is the basic problem here but you should have some sort of BS filter or else you will believe any old cr@p.

The reason it doesn't flop down is that the flag wasn't just loose cloth- it's stiffened along the top edge

i'll give you that. But it still flaps about pretty freely, and ythere's other footage that shows it moving, although I can't be arsed looking for it.

I KNEW this would get some of you going! 😀 Seems there are plenty of people all to eager to debunk the 'conspiracy theories'; if you're sooo convinced yourselves, why are you going to such lengths arguing the case?

Thing is; we would all like to believe that Man landed on the Moon. What a fantastic adventure!

But the truth is; none of youse can prove Man did land on the moon, and that these vids we see are genuine. Get them into some video editing software, and speed them up slightly. Then notice how everything looks like it does in real life, down on Earth. And one of the first things you'd do, in 1/6th gravity, is jump about a lot! And you'd film it! Ripping their suits? There's other stuff of astronauts falling over, so I don't think that was as big a concern as you might think. They were multi-layered anyway. Of course, jumping cooduv also been faked, with wires and that...

What's inertesting, is that any suggestion that the landings may have been faked, is met with loud shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' Why are you shouting so loud, if you have nowt to fear/hide?

I'll reiterate; I never said that Mankind has never set foot on the Moon. Just that there is the possibility of the footage of the landings being fake. To protect American pride. The Soviets had chalked up all the other Space firsts; the Yanks needed a big score, to stay in the game.

As for 'hundreds of thousands of people' needing to be complicit in any 'conspiracy'; bollocks. Only a few people would really have needed to know. It's relatively easy to dupe large numbers of people. It wooduv been pretty easy to get the astronauts out of any rocket, prior to lunch, as only a handful of people had access to anywhere near the rocket itself. So, maybe something was fired into Space, maybe something did land on't Moon. But quite a few of the images we've been allowed to see, are fake. Part of a publicity stunt. If they did actually land there, which is not completely iplausible, then we probbly din't actually see it.

As for the ridiculous comment about 'WMDS/Iraq- proof no conspiracy'; what you wibbling on about? The Yanks were showing off footage of loads of 'suspected' WMD sites long before the invasion, even though Hans Blixt had said there was nowt there! Come on, get yer head out of the sand!

US: 'There are WMDS in Iraq'
HB: 'Erm, well, actually...'
US: YES THERE ARE LOOK AT THESE EXCITING PICTURES WE'VE GOT OF THEM PROVING THEY ARE BEING PRODUCED'
HB: 'No, hang on...'
US: 'SHOCK AND AWE! IN WE GO! is not THIS EXCITING EVERYONE? WE'RE DOING IT FOR YOU, YOU KNOW. The economy? Oh, don't worry about that... WE WENT TO THE MOON YOU KNOW!'

Anyway; creates a good debate, this one, eh? 😉

Er... I wasn't claiming that that meant all conspiracy theories are true, just that you shouldn't unquestioningly accept the official version of events for everything

Check out the CIAs official records for their actions in places like Chile, Guatemala etc for some more. These were all things that were strenuously denied at the time and the people claiming them were dismissed as nutters and commie stooges etc.

Simon Ralli to the thread please, Simon Ralli to the thread.

Rudeboy needs an ally to support his increasingly desperate attempts to persuade others of the "conspiracy"...

Blimey, someone with thier own mind at last! Nice one Grumm; I'm glad [i]someone[/i] gets it.. 🙄

Anyone remember a book and film called Capricorn One written by Ken Follett (under the name Peter Hyams)?

RB... what actual evidence do you have that '[i]quite a few of the images we've been allowed to see, are fake[/i]'? Maybe it is just something that you 'know'? Or did someone on the internet tell you? 😀

Funnily enough they tend to place those spy satellites around Earth, not the moon! They are in low earth orbit, most are just a few hundred km above us. The moon, by contrast, is 384,000 km away.

Well wouldn't the atmosphere and polution make it way harder than looking through space, so i'd of thought it's maybe be possible, what would hurt giving it a go, it'd shut people up if they had some footage, maybe they could shoot up a copy copy of the wednesday sport to land near it for authenticity 😆

Also on Rudeboys point about speeding up the footage and it looking the same as on earth, can one of you arm chair experts tell me why things in space fall slower? I know things weigh 1/6 of that on earth, but all objsects on earth accelerate/fall as the same rate at any given mass in earths gravity, so why don't they on the moon?

Er... I wasn't claiming that that meant all conspiracy theories are true, just that you shouldn't unquestioningly accept the official version of events for everything

And you're quite right, but IMO that doesn't stretch to willfully choosing unlikley scenarios over the most objectively likely ones, which is what the moon landing lot are doing. They're unquestionably accepting the [i]un[/i]offical version, which is no better.

I'm not claiming that all conspiracy theories are untrue, but on balance the arguments for the moon stuff pretty heavily outweigh the arguments against it I reckon.

Er... I wasn't claiming that that meant all conspiracy theories are true, just that you shouldn't unquestioningly accept the official version of events for everything

I don't - and I don't think anyone here does.

I have looked at the evidence and I have not found it wanting. I have looked at the conspiracy stuff and found it to be a huge pile of bollocks (like RudeBoys flag objection).

This is exactly what I mean about "conspiracy theorists" having a superiority complex.

They believe that only they, the chosen ones, can see the truth that the unquestioning masses are blind to.

But the masses are NOT unquestioning.

I have questioned it and I'm sure plenty of other people have on here to. But a rational mind can see that the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the landings occurring.

MrSalmon beat me to it. +1 for Occam's Razor!

>Also on Rudeboys point about speeding up the footage and it looking the same as on earth, can one of you arm chair experts tell me why things in space fall slower? I know things weigh 1/6 of that on earth, but all objsects on earth accelerate/fall as the same rate at any given mass in earths gravity, so why don't they on the moon?

Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth so things fall slower.

v squared = u squared + 2 * a * s

v = final velocity
u = initial velocity (which is zero if you're dropping something from stationary)
a = acceleration due to gravity
s = distance the object moves

So as "a" is 1/6th that of the Earth value then you can see that the velocity of a falling object is always going to be much slower on the moon than on Earth.

+1 for Mr Salmon and GrahamS

Well wouldn't the atmosphere and polution make it way harder than looking through space

what would hurt giving it a go, it'd shut people up if they had some footage

Even the Hubble telescope doesn't have sufficient resolution to pick up the detail of the lunar landings. Even if it were possible those who are determined to believe in the conspiracy would only dismiss it as a fake so it wouldn't prove anything.

can one of you arm chair experts tell me why things in space fall slower?

Different gravitational forces.

but all objsects on earth accelerate/fall as the same rate at any given mass in earths gravity, so why don't they on the moon?

They do. I believe they actually did this "experiment" on the moon with a feather and a hammer and filmed it, although I'm sure plenty of people would believe that that was faked as well.

RB... what actual evidence do you have that 'quite a few of the images we've been allowed to see, are fake'?

Read my previous bit on film.

I don't - and I don't think anyone here does.

Apart from the person who said that all conspiracy theories were untrue.

You can never win with conspiracy theorists. Every piece of evidence that comes out in favour of "the event" is immediately dismissed as further evidence of a cover up.

Same with evolution - creationists will always point out the gaps in the fossil record but as soon as a gap is filled by the discovery of an intermediate they will now point out that there are actually 2 gaps!

But a rational mind can see that the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the landings occurring.

Ha ha!

Nice one!

Truth is; you want to believe in them , because you [i]need[/i] to believe in them.

But you don't know, any more than I do, whether they did land on the Moon. You've just chosen to believe what you've been told.

Ah, whassamatter, you can't possibly accept your dreams might not be true?

Diddums.

[b]shoefiti said:[/b] Well wouldn't the atmosphere and polution make it way harder than looking through space, so i'd of thought it's maybe be possible, what would hurt giving it a go, it'd shut people up if they had some footage

As carefully explained on the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations ]Moon Hoax Wikipedia article[/url] I linked to earlier, Hubble has a 2.4 metre mirror and can see an object that is about 86 metres across on the surface of the moon.

To adequately see and identify the rover on the moon we'd need a new space telescope that has perfect mirror roughly 25 kilometres in diameter.

Feel free to check the maths.

Wunundred!

Read my previous bit on film.

I did. You said it was too cold on the moon for film.

Actually the main issue facing Kodak and Hasselblad was keeping it COOL enough in the intense HEAT of the moon.

Ok then; too hot for film.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Standard Blad with the leather peeled off. I don't see any extreme heat or cold insulation, do you?

Those cams never took any pics on the Moon.

Thanks andywhit, that kind of makes sence to a bad o-level physics grade slacker. I was wondering if the lack of atmosphere would have made the things fall quicker, even given the lack of gravity. My biggest problem with it all, and i'm sure someone will put me straight on this is:

When they take off again they do so in a pod thing yeh? it gets blasted off the top of the lander, yet it doesn't seem to have any thrusters, just the intial one, I know everything weighs 1/6 gravity etc, but this thing must weigh quite a bit, especially weighed down with all that cheese and moon rock, so given the tiny amount of thrust needed to bump this thing off the moon, and how light the buggy must of been wouldn't it of been at risk of getting some SERIOUS air, it looks like they are doing some hooning in the footage.

Feel free to check the maths

hahahaha - can't see how that would help, i can hardly work out how old my kids are! That's a shame about the hubble, i didn't realise it was so shonky, I guess we'll just have to wait for the chinese to verify all this for the non-believers.

(havent read all the above)

thats one of the conspiracy theorists ideas though, they knew it would be years before a telescope powerful enough could look at the remains of the landing.

the classic aswell, there is no wind on the moon so how can the flag be flying like in the wind? because it had a plastic rod in the top section to 'make it look like it was flying in the wind'

the whole 911 set-up is another classic, watch the video 911 'short change' on youtube, very interesting!

Standard Blad with the leather peeled off. I don't see any extreme heat or cold insulation, do you?

Indeed a [url= http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html ]modified Hasselblad 500EL[/url].

And no there is no extreme insulation. When you have no atmosphere you have no air to transmit the warmth. All you have is radiative heat. So as long as you keep things suitably reflective and shiny, they don't get too hot.

Here's a nice explanation of heat transfer for you to completely ignore:
http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

That's a shame about the hubble, i didn't realise it was so shonky

It's no so much that the Hubble is "shonky" - it is just a basic physical property of optics and lenses that even RudeBoy can confirm. Y'cannae change the laws o'physics Jim.

RudeBoy - Member

RB... what actual evidence do you have that 'quite a few of the images we've been allowed to see, are fake'?

Read my previous bit on film.

So, you read it somewhere on t'internerd then?

Or do you have actual experience/knowledge of the camera design and film stock?

I'm losing the thread of this, but I think the Rude One is claiming that they actually went to the moon, but then as a separate and unrelated exercise they also produced deliberately fake-looking pictures of themselves pretending to be on the moon while they were actually in America.

As long as the objective was to baffle people as to their motives, this was a success. 😯

""It's no so much that the Hubble is "shonky" ""

As i remember it aome guy cocked up the calculations on the mirror, then quit his job and went off to work in tescos deli or something before anyone found out, and it's been a bit crap ever since? (maybe he did it on purpose, ask rudeboy!)

Well it was a long time ago and I don't like to boast about it, but here I am on a trip to the moon. Look you can even see the craters, it was like South Bedfordshire District Councils car park up there I tell ya.
[img] [/img]

Or do you have actual experience/knowledge of the camera design and film stock?

Yes! 😀

Given the fact that there were two nations on the earth capable of tracking each others space flights, and that they were in competition, nay even conflict with each other, Do you think the other party might have just said something about the fact that it didn't actually happen?

.....waits for next addition to the conspiracy.....

as i remember it aome guy cocked up the calculations on the mirror, then quit his job and went off to work in tescos deli or something before anyone found out, and it's been a bit crap ever since?

Erm.. not quite.

One of the "null correctors" used in the assembly of the mirror was improperly aligned so the mirror ended up being ground to be 2.2 micrometres out of shape.

They later fixed it though:

[img] [/img]
(Before and After)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Flawed_mirror

I'm a bit disappointed that nobody's said 'sheeple' yet!

RudeBoy, I think you're really struggling now.

Ha ha!

Nice one!

Truth is; you want to believe in them , because you need to believe in them.

But you don't know, any more than I do, whether they did land on the Moon. You've just chosen to believe what you've been told.

Ah, whassamatter, you can't possibly accept your dreams might not be true?

Diddums.

Saying that nobody knows, which I guess is true if taken to the extreme view that anybody 'knows' anything about anything, isn't an argument about anything, even when it's chucking out time at the pub.

It's not a question about believing what you've been told- if it were your arguments are just as susceptible to it.

Now I'm just as willing as you to believe that Governments will go to any lengths to further their aims and will happily lie, manipulate and distort if they can get away with it. I expect we'd all be amazed by some of the stuff that's gone on and is probably going on right now.

But that doesn't mean that all rational and objective thought should be suspended. I can easily believe that the Americans would have given serious thought to faking the landings if they couldn't do it for real and they thought they could pull it off.

But looking at the evidence for and against it just seems overwhelmingly more likley that they actually did it.

Or do you have actual experience/knowledge of the camera design and film stock?

Yes! 😀

Wow! You've actually had access to the extra-thin polyester-based thin-emulsion double-perforated film stock that Kodak specially designed for the missions? And the modified Hasselblads? And you have knowledge of design for cameras to be used in extreme situations?

Or do you just mean that you once used a Hasselblad and you can develop your own film?

Yes! 😀

I see.

"""They later fixed it though:"""

just had a look at that, shame about the initial screw up, to be fair, and if your correct then i'm glad he's not working on the deli counter, some of that parma ham has to be cut pretty thin, and like a space telecope, it ain't cheap.

[i]Truth is; you want to believe in them , because you need to believe in them.
But you don't know, any more than I do, whether they did land on the Moon. You've just chosen to believe what you've been told. [/i]

Whilst not wishing to be drawn into Ruby's onanistic web of obstreperous BS, I must say that 'the everyday person' takes an awful lot of 'facts' on the basis of 'what they've been told'
I would guess that very few of 'us' have either the technical, financial or intellectual resources to 'prove' almost any of the everyday 'facts' we take for granted.
It's not about [i]wanting to believe[/i] more about getting on with your life and focussing your energy/resources on the things you can actually change and that make a diference to [i]you[/i]

It wooduv been pretty easy to get the astronauts out of any rocket, [b]prior to lunch[/b], as only a handful of people had access to anywhere near the rocket itself.

Quite RB - don't want to make a fake landing video on a full stomach do we..... 😀

I reckon going to the moon would be easier than faking it. Too many people involved for a start.

Kev

What I think Rudeboy is saying is that those films of Police brutality taken during the recent G20 summit were faked by anti-"The System" revolutionaries and the media was in on it to overthrow the dictatorship bullies running the country. Or something. 😉

As for questions about things looking the same as they do on Earth when sped up.....well, the laws of physics still apply on the moon so for something moving under the influence of gravity the same rules will apply just with different constants. If you speed up the film you are just artificially adjusting this constant.

And the whole camera thing......I am sure that if NASA can afford to do all that research into getting someone up there, they can chuck a fair amount of cash at the camera industry and say make us a camera that will work under X/Y/Z conditions.
If Scott was able to take pics in the antarctic & you can get camera systems that work inside nuclear reactors on robots for decommissioning, then someone can develop (pun) a camera that would work on the moon.

And after lunch presumably they launched an unmanned rocket that was entirely operated by remote control and secret sophisticated on-board computers that none of the thousands of designers, engineers, manufacturers, technicians, safety guys, etc knew anything about.

no GrahamS they all knew about the con but no one said anything ...keep up at the back will you. 😉

patrick moore says it happened and ill take his word over anyone on here!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/moonlandings/ ]sky at night[/url]

i watched this on tv the other night and loved it

"What's inertesting, is that any suggestion that the landings may have been faked, is met with loud shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' Why are you shouting so loud, if you have nowt to fear/hide?"

What a terrible piece of argument! Poor show...

GrahamS - Member

And after lunch presumably they launched an unmanned rocket that was entirely operated by remote control and secret sophisticated on-board computers that none of the thousands of designers, engineers, manufacturers, technicians, safety guys, etc knew anything about.

Hold on... wouldn't that actually end up being more complicated and harder to achieve than putting a few blokes on a rocket?

Especially after a good lunch... 😀

He is a conspiracist Kimbers he helped to produce the maps for the landings as he was the leading moon expert at the time so he would say that wouldn't he.

I like this game no matter what logical well reasoned argument youcome up with it is so eay to counter it any fool could do it 😆

I would guess that very few of 'us' have either the technical, financial or intellectual resources to 'prove' almost any of the everyday 'facts' we take for granted.

any fool could do it

Where is RudeBoy anyway...?

[i]Where is RudeBoy anyway...[/i]

Taking a rather large portion from [i]'The Man'[/i] by the looks of it 😆

Ah he's walked away without comment when people have pointed the gaping flaws in his "theories", thus allowing him to protect his feeble "facts" from scrutiny and preserve the superiority complex.

Another gravity question for the boffins. How did they work out the gravitational forces of the moon prior to landing, to work out the amount of thrust they would need to get off again, if they didn't know exactly what the moon was made of? If the middle was iron, would it have more pull than just rock? Sorry i'm a bit of a physics moron, but i do find it all facinating.

Apollo 10 flew to the moon but didn`t land and orbited close to the surface in lunar module.
The dry run for the next one.

How did they work out the gravitational forces of the moon prior to landing, to work out the amount of thrust they would need to get off again

An adjustable/variable throttle no doubt.

When you drive a car up a hill you don't necessarily know/have the time to work out the 'gravitational forces' involved.

So more wellie = more gas = more power, until you have sufficient power for your requirements.

It's not rocket science ffs.

.

😕

So like some scales or some such on board would of done it then, i see........ good job they didn't borrow Pinches scales or when they went to take off again they'd of been screwed!

An adjustable/variable throttle no doubt.

When you drive a car up a hill you don't necessarily know/have the time to work out the 'gravitational forces' involved.

So more wellie = more gas = more power, until you have sufficient power for your requirements.

It' not rocket science ffs.

I asked, as when you look at the footage of it taking off it just blasts off with one big thrusts from the base ejecting the pod thing into space (which doesn't have thrusters on it as such (from the look of it)

But yes i'm seeing what your saying, maybe they could of controlled the primary force needed to send it up.

I do believe they went there, but the footage of Apollo 17 taking off from the moon make Plan 9 from out of Space look like a hollywood blockbuster!

So like some scales or some such on board .......

I'm sorry - you've lost me mate 😕

I was thinking more of an 'accelerator pedal' 💡

Well they don't actually need the initial blast to be that precise. A [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module ]little bit of research[/url] though reveals that 2/3 of the mass was in the descent bit, and that the ascent bit had plenty enough thrust all on it's own. Meanwhile they would have had a very good idea of the actual gravity on the moon from measurements taken when in lunar orbit on previous missions - that or it's perfectly feasible to measure it to the required accuracy from Earth.

ISTM it wasn't actually the getting off the moon which was the tricky bit, but the docking with the command module.

Earnie - i was refering to how they calculted how much force was required to get them up again, to do this they would have to know the 'weight' and atmosphere (if any) so get it right, i don't think a heavy right foot would of cut it, brakes arn't that good in space, and super star pads are just plain shit in zero gravity situations - or mud.

[i]It's not rocket science ffs.[/i]

😆

Most 10 year olds know this stuff. 😯 I did. Some of you are seriously delusional and kidding yourselves on.

Here is a picture for you all to colour in. Later on we will go to the library and learn stuff. 🙄

[img] [/img]

......I am sure that if NASA can afford to do all that research into getting someone up there, they can chuck a fair amount of cash at the camera industry and say make us a camera that will work under X/Y/Z conditions.

Well, the cameras were Hasselblads - the best of the best back then (and perhaps now?). The chap who was in charge of supplying the cameras, one of Hasselblad's chief techie guys, was on telly a few years back, very reluctantly pointing out a few flaws in the photographs.

There was one glaringly obvious flaw - there are crosshairs at the corners of the viewing screen (they are printed '+' shapes on the ground glass sceen) and one of these was obscured by an object [i]in the photo[/i], which is impossible. This leads me to believe that if nothing else, the photos were certainly extensively doctored, or worst case, completely faked...

Most 10 year olds know this stuff

My son's nearly 10, i'll ask him how he'd calculate the thrust needed to take off from the moon and not over shoot luner orbit. 🙄

Or maybe instead i'll summon up some patronising quip to put him down instead - yes that'll make me feel better.

Shoefiti - the Moon's gravity is determined by its mass, which can be calculated from information we already have about its orbit around Earth. Or, strictly, the moon's and the Earth's orbit around each other.

And if anyone's interested in why we haven't been back to the moon, it's because it turned out to be incredibly boring. The earth is differentiated into core, mantle, crust and atmosphere, and has enough heat energy within that it is constantly moving, so structurally dynamic and interesting. If you melted the earth down into a homogenous mixture, took only a small fraction of the material and then cooled it down into a single small sphere, you'd get the moon. It's just a cold dead blob, and sits there not doing anything.

Moons like Io and Europa are far more interesting. Look up the findings of the Voyager missons sometime - those are places worth visiting!

There was one glaringly obvious flaw - there are crosshairs at the corners of the viewing screen (they are printed '+' shapes on the ground glass sceen) and one of these was obscured by an object in the photo, which is impossible.

So the alternative is they set up a GIANT glass screen BEHIND the faked moon landings with the + shapes on. The logical extension of that is that during the elaborate and ultra secret events of the faked landing, nobody spotted the difference between a huge screen behind the object and a small one in the camera in front of it? 😛

user-removed: ah yes that old one. For reference the image in question looked like this:

[img] [/img]

And this (Magnified and highlighted):
[img] [/img]
[size=1](Images from [url= http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html ]www.ufos-aliens.co.uk[/url])[/size]

There are two possibilities here:

- either they faked the pictures in a studio and painstakingly added the crosshairs in manually using Photoshop 1969 edition, presumably because using the readily-available Reseau crosshair backplate accessory was impossible for some reason.

- Or... the object in the picture is simply very brightly lit and overexposed. (Why not get out your own camera and take a picture of a thin wire against a bright light then report back?)

They must have really messed up this one where they only remembered to photoshop'69 in the crosshairs on the darker areas and missed them out on all the bright white bits...

[img] [/img]
[size=1](Image from [url= http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html ]clavius.org[/url])[/size]

🙄

Thank you 🙂

[url] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8157368.stm [/url]

WTF ? Someone draws two white circles on a photo of the moon's surface, and you accept that as proof ?

😯

You will let us know what your mate's response to that is?

Yeah will do!

Excellent. I would be particularly interested to know whether two white circles provide more evidence of the Moon landings, than all those previous pictures and films.

Hey ernie, I've just finished reading a book called One Point Safe by Andrew Cockburn - would like to know your take on this author as he's written some interesting books

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cockburn [/url]

I'm sorry tyger I can't comment, as I don't do 'reading books'. I restrict my reading to news items, articles, pamphlets, etc. I only use books if at all, for reference purposes. I also try to pay attention to what is happening around me, which reduces my need to read books on political issues.

Not that I think there's anything wrong with reading books of course, it just doesn't float my boat. In fact I believe that those who derive pleasure from reading books are indeed lucky, as it must be for them an enjoyable pastime which can only broaden their knowledge.

I also try to pay attention to what is happening around me, which reduces my need to read books on political issues.

Through which media? Reading a book might just show more sides to an argument.

Stop trying to be a supercilious tw4t, and realise that you're just one of the sheep