|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Why the hell do people make up these stupid conspiracy theories? They are stupid. 51 area conspiracy, (which is just really a secrete project that people are saying it’s an alien ship. They even say that the moan hoax is a conspiracy. Everytime the government dose something they say “it’s a conspiracy, everything the government does is a conspiracy”. What next? They gonna start saying that the Hubbell telescope is really a super giant laser cannon that the government is trying to cover up by saying it’s a telescope and nasas pictures are fake or they gonna say that most major league baseball games are played by aliens?
We should have a bet on what they will point the conspiracy blame at next Ill bet they are gonna say that atlantis exists and its really a alien research base
__________________
<marquee> the guy that has come from mars, for no reason (no reason, or you think for no reason......) </Marquee> |
|
|||
|
Well, Ill bet that next time a shuttle is in orbit there'll be a earth quake in Iraq or Afganistan, that'll surely start the conspiracy theory spinning about how the US military have a quake cannon installed on the shuttle.
Anybody seen the movie 'conspiracy theory' ? Anyway, odd enough, it's already happened twice since Sep 11th, quake in afganistan, and guess what, shuttle in orbit... Cool huh? |
|
|||
|
[quote]
On 2002-04-29 11:34, Martian Jim wrote: They gonna start saying that the Hubbell telescope is really a super giant laser cannon that the government is trying to cover up by saying it’s a telescope... It is, didn't you know? They already got Bin Laden with it... Sadam is next (heh heh) Say hey, with the recent upgrades to the Hubble, will they be able to look at the moon with it? Just curious...
__________________
The most compelling argument for intelligent life elsewhere is that none of it has tried to contact us... -Calvin "Calvin and Hobbes" |
|
|||
|
"They gonna start saying that the Hubbell telescope is really a super giant laser cannon that the government is trying to cover up by saying it’s a telescope and nasas pictures are fake or they gonna say that most major league baseball games are played by aliens? "
Don't forget about the ground based laser cannons that shoot down the manned missions of other nations (oh you didn't hear about those secret missions?) who are trying to muscle in on the US Gov/alien conspiracy. See first pic on the right of the page below. A laser cannon if I ever saw one. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apol...ents_LRRR.html Kizarvexis I couldn't resist [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Astronomers get really cool toys! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] (reformat of a sentence) <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-04-30 21:49 ]</font> |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
While I don't go along with most conspiracy theories and especially the Moon Hoax, I have a question or two.
a) Is there no such thing as a Government conspiracy? b) Do Governments ever keep secrets for their own good and not for the good of the people? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Well in the UK the Government is very rarely "the people" as most people vote against them but because of the multi-party system they win. Our Government has many, many secrets.
But I'll answer my own questions if I may, there are Government Conspiracies and they are not always in the interests of the people. ...which is why conspiracy stories run and run, because sometimes there is something to them. In the case of the Moon Hoax there is so much evidence going against the HB's that they really haven't got a leg to stand on, although on a superficial level it does look like there is something to it. But in the end all you have to ask is "what about the Russians"? As far as other conspiracy theories go I always had my doubts about "the lone gunman". Why? Because Jack Ruby's actions didn't make any sense whatsoever. But maybe that is for another discussion board. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Moonman on 2002-05-01 06:08 ]</font> |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yes, as phrased it really is for another discussion board, but I'll address it anyway as a general why-do-people-believe question. The point I've highlighted in your quote simply leads me to ask: Why do you believe that Ruby's action has to, or ought to, make sense? Why does the senselessness of it make a governmental conspiracy more likely than personal idiotsyncracy or mental instability? This, to me, is a serious question to ask of any conspiracy theorists, whether it's the JFK thingie or the Moon Hoax or whatnot. In any of the popular conspiracy theories, at least one supporting claim is that Event X (and possibly Y and Z and ...) "doesn't make sense" and therefore is prima facie evidence of The Conspiracy. Generally, it seems to me, sufficient investigation shows that Event X does/did make sense to the person(s) involved at the time, even if from a point of view that the CT hasn't considered (perhaps doesn't want to consider). And many things "make sense at the time" even when the person(s) involved might later admit that yes, it was a mistake and he/they should have done something differently. But even if no such rationalisation can be found for Event X, the fact that very human people are involved simply makes the statement "Event X doesn't make sense" irrelevant. Without any disrespect intended, I contend that you yourself have at various points in your life done things that wouldn't make sense to anyone else, and perhaps even to your later self. Certainly, I know that fits me to a T, and everyone that I know personally and have raised this question (in some form or another) with. As a more-or-less native Dallasite (except for less than a year following university, I've always lived in the suburbs rather than Dallas city limits proper), I remember the assassination and the aftermath. In fact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning news photo of Ruby shooting Oswald was taken by a close family friend. Ruby was a fairly well-known Dallas "character"--small-time 'mob' (such as it was in Dallas in those days) connections, beer and strip joint owner, and fond of showing off and shooting off his mouth. And certainly, calling him "eccentric" is stretching the definition only a micron if at all. Given everything known about Ruby hereabouts, the idea that he dropped a neuron or twelve that day, went off on a wild hare and shot Oswald for some deeply personal, and most likely somewhat twisted, reason makes a whole lot more sense than that any person or group serious about committing The Crime of the Century and getting away with it would hire him to off a now-useless and possibly mouthy hit man. Ruby himself was an uncontrollable braggart; why didn't The Conspiracy, if it existed, off him as they purportedly had him off Oswald, who as a loner was likely to be more close-mouthed than the flashy gambler? Yet he sat and rotted (almost literally, with the cancer eating him up) in prison for years. Yes, BA Phil, I know I've gone way off thread on this. But I think my point can be seen to be easily generalised to the Moon Hoax or any other grandiose Conpsiracy Theory. These events that "don't make sense" without postulating some grand cover-up scheme, usually do make at least some sense when we bother to look into them. And not all people, even when rational themselves, are always driven by rational purposes. The (it's part of being human) Curtmudgeon |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Canada, like the UK, has a multi-party system and the "losers" always complain that the winner didn't enjoy the support of the majority of voters therefore has no mandate. Like you, we have three mainstream parties (liberal, conservative and socialist) plus a bunch of fringe parties including the communists. But, like you, we also have a parliamentary democracy wherein the House of Commons debates government policy and the Senate (House of Lords there) provides "sober second thought". I don't share your view that this system spawns conspiracy just because the elected government represents less than 50% of the voters. In fact, it is far easier to be a conspiracist government when there is no effective oppostion. Gaining more than 50% of the popular vote typically means having over 80% of the seats in the House in a multi-party system. It is those governments that are far more likely to be arrogant, aloof and secretive. I think the dynamics of governing in a democracy are somewhat more complex than you imply. The reality is that elected representatives, despite being members of a single party, have a variety of views on various issues. I find the whole process of building and maintaining party concensus fascinating. |
|
|||
|
OK Curtmudgeon, thanks for your reply, but can you answer my original questions?
a) Is there no such thing as a Government Conspiracy? b) Do Governments ever keep secrets for their own good and not for the good of the people? I can't believe that you believe that every single conspiracy theory must be false because it is a conspiracy theory. When I said Jack Ruby's actions didn't make sense, it obviously made sense to him. What doesn't make sense is the explanations by other people and even his own explanation in front of the Warren Commission. I didn't say that the conspiracy was necessarily a Government one, but I just don't believe the "accepted" lone gunman theory for many reasons. There is no harm in asking questions, I for one believe it is right to question accepted truth, if we didn't we'd all still be living on a flat earth. I did question the Apollo Moon Hoax for a long time and found no evidence in favour of the HB's. I have also questioned the Kennedy Assasination over a long period and found there are still many things still unanswered. So can you tell me that there is no such thing as a Government Conspiracy. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Moonman on 2002-05-01 17:03 ]</font> |
|
|||
|
...and as a final point, if you can't tell me 100% there is no such thing as a Government Conspiracy then that is the very reason we have "stupid conspiracy theroists".
Deep down, we don't really trust our Governments. (I certainly don't trust mine in the UK with good reason over the last 25 years since I was able to vote) |
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Ask yourself: Can you really, in all seriousness, believe that the same governmental system--and in many cases, the exact same governmental politicians, that were unable to keep a lid on Watergate, the My Lei massacre, the invasion of Cambodia, the Clinton Whitewater and sex scandals, (and going back a bit) Teapot Dome, the various scandals of the Grant and Harding administrations, etc., actually pose such an effective, not to say efficient, conspiracy as is required by JFK, MLK, Area 51, Apollo Moon Hoax, Roswell/UFOs, et-bloody-cetera theories? I simply can't. The mental image of Government-as-Super-Criminal-Cartel is too bloody hard to hold onto in the face of Government-as-Laurel-and-Hardy-slapstick that we see on a day-to-day basis. Quote:
But as those papers are becoming available, do they reveal any massive against-the-good-of-the-people conspiracies similar to what the CTs of today are all on about? No. Certainly not yet, at any rate. No behind-the-scenery deals with Hitler, no Patton-assassination plots to keep the Americans from controlling post-war Germany, no exchanging-British-Jews-for-RAF-POWs plots. Just the dirty little details of day-to-day politics, especially in wartime, that we've all come to know and love from the evening news since at least the Vietnam War (or maybe the Falklands War in the UK--I don't know how much coverage you got at the time of our little Southeast Asian carnival). Quote:
Quote:
As for the Warren Commission itself, I won't argue that there are quite a few things that they bobbled. Was it because they were covering something up, or because they were simply trying too hard to put to rest something that they really thought should be cut-and-dried and so they approached it that way? It seems fairly evident that the Commission made mistakes. Does that make them criminal, or merely human? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The (but then, there's always the IRS [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] ) Curtmudgeon |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hell, if those idiots in Washington could learn to keep a secret or two, I'd probably like them a whole lot better. Or at least trust them, as having little choice. The (familiarity breeds contempt, especially with politicians) Curtmudgeon |
|
|||
|
Folks
If you're interested in a discussion of the Kennedy assassination, have a look at the forum on James Randi's web-site (randi.org). There's a thread on the topic that's been running hot over the last few weeks. That might be a better place to discuss such things. |
|
|||
|
The discussion isn't as off topic as it appears. The possibility of Apollo being hoaxed rests on an assumption that the government is able to, and does, routinely pull off large conspiracies. The Curtmudgeon and I seem to share the view that there is no such thing as a conspiracy (of the type being discussed) in a western democracy - therefore no basis to conclude the government could or would hoax Apollo. The references to JFK, area 51 etc, are, in my view, contextual and very much related to the topic. We do need to avoid getting into detailed discussions of the JFK assassination here, but showing it is more |