egafd.com

Conspiracy theories are exciting because there's an air of mystery behind them. A cover up.........underhand tactics or motivations..........it runs through peoples' heads like a good hollywood movie, and they're in on it.

I think you can work out how boring and dull someone's life is by the amount of conspiracy theories they believe in. Anyway, must dash as Elvis is downstairs and needs helping to the toilet.

So who's the bloke round at the chip shop?

Obviously not Elvis as he lives in my house. And his private doctor has told me he's to stay away from greasy foods and young girls. It's a nightmare in the school holidays.

Lizard wrote:

> All bollocks, never happened, just created to boost the
> careers of DiCaprio and Winslet,
>
>

Funnily enough, there is a conspiracy theory regarding the Titanic - that she was swapped and it was her sister ship, Olympic, that hit the iceberg.

Q. How do we know that the CIA had nothing to do with the Kennedy Assassination?

A. He's dead.

Flat_Eric wrote:

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

No, I read it, they used standard Hasselblad cameras painted silver, and standard film. If any of the practice shots from the simulator were used to make up for any spoiled film it would account for some of the anomalies seen on some of the Moon photos, but that does not mean that the moon landings were faked.

Essex Lad wrote:


>
>
> 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.
>

The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the JFK assassination was as a result of conspiracy, and CIA man (and Watergate conspirator) E Howard Hunt confessed on tape before his death that he knew of the plot but did not take part. But whatever. The thing about the JFK assassination is that people say that someone would have talked, and then if someone like Howard Hunt does admit he knew of the plot, they dismiss it as unreliable. Seems like you just can't win.

Robches wrote:


>
> The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the JFK
> assassination was as a result of conspiracy,

And the Warren Commission found that there wasn't. Read "Reclaiming History" by Vince Bugliosi and then try to argue for a conspiracy. Every theory is comprehensively rubbished.

Robches wrote:

> E Howard Hunt confessed on tape before
> his death that he knew of the plot but did not take part.


Well I could to confess on my death bed to shagging Cheryl Cole and half the Danish women's Olympic beach volleyball team.

Wouldn't necessarily make it true though would it?!

- Eric

Robches wrote:

> No, I read it, they used standard Hasselblad cameras painted
> silver, and standard film. If any of the practice shots from
> the simulator were used to make up for any spoiled film it
> would account for some of the anomalies seen on some of the
> Moon photos, but that does not mean that the moon landings were
> faked.


Well quite clearly you didn't read it properly if that's all you managed to cherry-pick out. But no matter.

And no doubt you also missed the bit where it explained how a total of 1407 photos were taken on the Apollo 11 mission.

Now I consider myself a pretty poor photographer compared to some, but I'm quite confident that even I could manage to take at least a few half-decent shots out of 1400+ in pretty much any any environment. Especially if I'd been practicing with the set-up beforehand as these guys had been.

It's not really such a wild stretch of the imagination Robches.

- Eric