Conspiracy Theories

[Peter]

andy at handiwork wrote:

> Trouble is Jim, some people think that film was a dramatised
> documentary.


I saw a post from someone (perhaps a newborn conspiracy theorist now) who thought 'Apollo 18' was an actual documentary, and wondered why the government hadn't informed the people about the dangers of moon rocks.

[Flat_Eric]

jimslip wrote:

> It's funny how readily people are quite happy to blindly accept
> the version of events concerning 9/11 handed down by a Right
> wing warmonger, George W Bush, but laugh at "conspiracy
> theorists" like the peolple below:


It's not a matter of "blindly accepting" anything Jim. This is where the CT crowd have it all wrong (again). In fact I have as little time for George Dubya as you do.

It's a matter of examining the CTs objectively and with an open mind, and THEN deciding they're bollocks.

And about controlled demolitions specifically (are you paying attention, Arginald?), you do realise don't you that it takes months to prep a large building for a controlled demolition. Basically you have to rip its guts out (including non load-bearing walls etc.) so that it will fall straight down in the way you want it to fall.

It is a massive, complex operation. And the bigger the building, the more difficult and complex it becomes. A couple of blokes can't just stroll in disguised in "Bug Busters" overalls and shades, drill a few holes while no-one is looking and plant a few sticks of jelly. It doesn't work like that.

This might help explain it:



- Eric

[Robches]

I'm sure the moon landings were real, but I have a feeling that some of the photos might be fakes. They were using ordinary Hasselblads with standard film, fixed to their chests so they couldn't be focussed. Having spent so much money, NASA may well have thought that the American public would want to see some decent snaps.

[Flat_Eric]

Robches wrote:

> I'm sure the moon landings were real, but I have a feeling that
> some of the photos might be fakes. They were using ordinary
> Hasselblads with standard film, fixed to their chests so they
> couldn't be focussed. Having spent so much money, NASA may well
> have thought that the American public would want to see some
> decent snaps.


This might help explain how they did it (so no need to "fake" anything).



- Eric

[Robches]

An interesting article, but it seems that the only modification to the Hasselblads to enable them to cope with the extreme heat and cold of space was to paint them silver! I've got a feeling that a lot of poor quality film must have come back from space, and it would have made sense to sex it up a bit with photos from the training areas they had. It's just a thought, but when you look into it, there do seem to be quite a few anomalies on the photos supposedly taken on the moon.

[Essex Lad]

Peter wrote:
>
> And the big problem with all these big CTs is, you need
> thousands of people involved to make it happen, yet no one ever
> breaks the silence they've supposed to be sworn to. No secrecy
> clause is that good.
>
>


Got it in one. Take, for example, the shooting (by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone) of President Kennedy. It happened on 22 November 1963 and so far we have been told it was the mafia, the CIA, the Secret Service, Castro, the FBI, even President Johnson who was behind the assassination. We have been told that there was a second gunman (and possibly a third) on the grassy knoll; we have been told that there were several other gunmen in Dallas that day in case the "official" assassin missed. Yet in nearly 50 years not one credible witness has come forward to "reveal" the dead hand of the mafia, the CIA, the Secret Service, Castro, the FBI or President Johnson behind the killing. I have seen documentaries with President Kennedy's Secret Service detail revealing how they covered his womanising yet not one, not one, person has come forward with definitive proof that there was a second gunman in Dealey Plaza that day (because there wasn't). No one - governments, corporations, companies, individuals - can keep secrets for that long without someone leaking.

Another quick example - for three or four years, News International stuck to the rogue reporter defence. With all the resources of the Murdoch empire, politicians (of all hues) and even the police disgracefully in their pocket, the company could not prevent the truth coming out.

[Flat_Eric]

You obviously didn't read it properly Robches. Try again old chap.

- Eric

[Lizard]

All bollock's, never happened, just created to boost the career's of Di-Caprio and Winslet,

[Arginald Valleywater]

A lifelong CIA stooge became Pm of Britain....no hang on Blair happened!!

[andy at handiwork]

There are no 'anomalies' that haven't been explained perfectly well over the years.