What if the lunar landing are a HOAX if so than how far would it go? What if the 10 ASTROGNAUTS that DIED were going to reveal what really happened and what if JFK's ASSINATION was some how linked to the FALSE lunar landings? What if JFK was going to blow the plug on the whole thing and go public? The USA would have looked a FOOL and the SOVIETS would have won the space race. Well I have done some thought on this and I have another THEORY to JFK's ASSASINATION. That it was all a hoax(lunar landings) and that JFK WAS going to pull the plug on it all. However his own government found that the results would have been to embarrasing for him to go along with it. So they KILLED him and what if he told someone? Like his BROTHER the government finds out and pop there goes his brother. And what about the recent death of a Kennedy family member may be he got left some evidence of found some? pop there he goes too. Of course i have nothing to base this on except coincidence. Think about it looks moe likely after some thought than at first glance.

Of course, the big problem with this theory is that at that stage (1963) a hoaxed mission wasn't planned. It was only from about the mid-sixties when they discovered that they couldn't get to the moon that they began planning to fake it (according to the HBers) and by then, of course, Kennedy was already dead. But, hey, maybe that IS why his brother was killed later, or one of the reasons anyway.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-08-11 09:07 ]</font>

Which 10 astronauts were these? Do they include the astronauts who died in accidents?

Well, speculation is fine, but what about evidence?

So why would JFK, a strong anti-communist, want the Soviet Union to win the race to the Moon and make the USA look foolish?

As before, do you have a single piece of evidence to support this theory?

Well, light planes DO crash without CIA intervention.

No, it looks very haphazard. Why assume JFK told only RFK? JFK could've told anyone. Does that mean that ANY person who knew JFK and subsequently dies could've been the victim of CIA intervention?

How about we try to keep theories to manageable levels.

Well...now we know why Marilyn Monroe got it as well. Its was not the sex with the Jack and Bobby but it was because she was going to blow the whistle on the Apollo program.

<a name="20020811.6:04"> page 20020811.6:04 aka My 2
On 2002-08-11 08:49, infocusinc wrote: To: 2-8-11 HUb'
Well...now we know why Marilyn Monroe got it as well. Its was not the sex with the Jack and Bobby but it was because she was going to blow the whistle on the Apollo program.
[/quote]
I was going to include M.M. to the thread
I see you know how to spell it so i'll just
Quote and be on my Way!
2 M.M. 2

I love extreme speculation.

I'd say about five feet, four and two-thirds inches.

[b]What if ... the lunar landing are a HOAX if so than how far would it go? What if the 10 ASTROGNAUTS that DIED were going to reveal what really happened and what if JFK's ASSINATION was some how linked to the FALSE lunar landings? What if JFK was going to blow the plug on the whole thing and go public? The USA would have looked a FOOL and the SOVIETS would have won the space race. Well I have done some thought on this and I have another THEORY to JFK's ASSASINATION. That it was all a hoax(lunar landings) and that JFK WAS going to pull the plug on it all. However his own government found that the results would have been to embarrasing for him to go along with it. So they KILLED him and what if he told someone? Like his BROTHER the government finds out and pop there goes his brother. And what about the recent death of a Kennedy family member may be he got left some evidence of found some? pop there he goes too. Of course i have nothing to base this on except coincidence. Think about it looks moe likely after some thought than at first glance.
[/quote]

What if ...

Talk is cheap. There is a lot of conjecture that can be attached to -- well, to just about anything. This is why, for serious research, we obey the laws of parsimony. I mean, if you want to just sit around the saloon and shoot the bull over what might or might not be the case, much as Monday-morning quarterbacks rewrite the previous day's games, then why not talk about hoaxing the moon landings? But if you're serious about proposing something that you believe may have happened, it takes a lot more than just conjecture.

if so than how far would it go?

It depends on whether one subscribes to the the Grand Unified Conspiracy theory. That is, those who are conspiracy enthusiasts seem to want that conspiracy to go as far as it can possibly be conjectured to go. The bigger the conspiracy the better.

What if the 10 ASTROGNAUTS that DIED were going to reveal what really happened

Well, if you state that as an axiom and then examine the circumstances under which the individuals died, you run into lots of problems. Either it would have been extremely foolish to "murder" men under the given circumstances (i.e., because it would have drawn unnecessary attention, when it could have been accomplished differently without that attention), or it would have been nie unto impossible to bring those circumstances about.

The parsimonious conclusion is that these men perished in accidents.

what if JFK's ASSINATION was some how linked to the FALSE lunar landings?

Interesting, but without fleshing out that "somehow" all you have is a good movie script.

Well I have done some thought on this and I have another THEORY to JFK's ASSASINATION. That it was all a hoax(lunar landings) and that JFK WAS going to pull the plug on it all.

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have a plan to prove it?

Of course i have nothing to base this on except coincidence.

Right, and that's why it doesn't really have any value as a historical theory unless you can provide evidence that your "what-ifs" actually happened that way.

The funny thing about coincidence is that it's entirely a matter of perception and opinion. Really. A coincidence is "suspicious" only because we make it so. We believe, for whatever reason, that mere chance can't have explained a coincidence. Therefore we just assume that some underlying cause exists. It is that assumption which shoots us in the foot every time.

This is related to confirmation bias. In short, we go about convincing ourselves that some unifying, underlying cause exists. And then we go about looking for it. And because we're convinced it exists, the inability to find it right away is explained by the supposition that we're just not looking hard enough. And so we lower our standards and keep lowering them until we ultimately find some far-fetched possibility that satisfies our search for the underlying cause.

Then at this point we invoke Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle and say that it doesn't matter how stupid, irrational, unfounded, or just plain incredible our theory is. If it's the only possibility, it must be true. But the "only possibility" proposition rests on the premise, above, that the underlying common circumstance exists -- and we just assumed that; we never actually proved it.

Parsimony requires us to leave Doyle's maxim back in deductive logic, where it belongs, and to rely on the principles of inductive logic. In that realm, we are not compelled to accept a conclusion for which there is little or no evidence, when there are other conclusions which have more evidence in favor of them.

So let's revisit your theory.

First, the "suspicious" astronaut deaths. They aren't suspicious in the circumstances which led to them. They aren't suspicious in their frequency, considering that the test pilot pool from which these astronauts were taken have a higher mortality rate. There is no evidence that any of them was about to reveal anything about a hoax.

Second, the assassinations of the Kennedys. A more plausible theory is that these were powerful men who each served in government and had each made very powerful enemies. They also served during very turbulent and unstable political situations. It is actually more plausible to suppose their assassinations were unrelated. It actually requires less explanation.

Now the biggest problem with your theory is that it requires as a premise the notion that the Apollo landings were indeed hoaxed. And that hasn't been proven. And so your theory dies a very quick death from the logical principle known as subverted support. That is, you are trying to explain something you say happened. But if it never happened, there is no need to explain it.

So it's okay to keep that theory in the wings, but you can't drag it out onstage until you have first proven that the moon landings were hoaxed. And that is best proven without reference to who might have done it, or why. That is, first prove it was done. Then prove who did, and why.

Marvin, you had better WATCH OUT or otherwise the far more REASONABLE Martian Jim is gonna get ANNOYED with you bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood.

Otherwise, you write a pretty good comedy script.

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

Marilyn Monroe blow the entire Apollo program? Just think, we wouldn't have Tang.

That just begs for an assortment of rejoinders, of the sort the BA would not approve of. We'll just have to supply them mentally.

LOL!

*snork!* (sophomoric giggle)

Think about it looks moe likely after some thought than at first glance.

It looks Moe likely all the time. "Oh, a wise guy, huh?" (Eye poke)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-08-12 14:36 ]</font>

Gosh, I'm glad someone else thought the same thing I did...I'd hate to think I was the only one here who made that connection!

Does this mean I now qualify as a "dirty old man"? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarveixs
34, but my wife accuses me of this periodically. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Guess so...I've been that way for years.

it could happen

__________________
Marvin Martian
Your Friendly Neigbour

What could happen, O Martian?

I'd say "too muchó x-files", but they are soo good [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]