Conspiracy theories? [Archive]

View Full Version : Conspiracy theories?

ctt1wbw

Mar 3, 2008, 08:00 AM

scotthayes

Mar 3, 2008, 08:07 AM

Did man land on the moon, is the Queen a lizzard? there are so many that are just dumb I've given up with them.

Oh and tell me the September 11th show you were watching was not loose change. that guy needs a slapping.

ctt1wbw

Mar 3, 2008, 08:25 AM

I've seen bits of that show, and it was so pathetic it was funny. I saw the Popular Mechanics rebuttal to that show. They bitched-slapped these two guys who made that film seven ways from Sunday.

Is the Queen a lizard??? What the...? I haven't heard THAT one before. But I think the woman that Prince Charles married looks likes a horse's a$$. :)

scotthayes

Mar 3, 2008, 08:33 AM

according to david icke she is the lizzard queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptilian_humanoids) but icke also said he was the son of god :rolleyes:

iAlan

Mar 3, 2008, 08:37 AM

Area 51?

Around the corner from Area 50

The JFK thing?

What the airport?

Contrails?

Huh. No idea what that means?

Are aliens at Area 51?

Illegal aliens from Mexico?

Did the Egyptians build the Pyramids?

I though they were built by the Atlantins?

And the X Files are based on true stories, especially the spooky episodes.

ctt1wbw

Mar 3, 2008, 08:38 AM

From the wiki:

"At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati..."

Does that include the Getty's, the Roschilds, and Colonel Sanders? :D

Contrails are the name given to the jet trails in the atmosphere that high flying jets leave behind. Ever notice how some stay in the air for hours and hours, and seem to make weaving patterns in the sky? Some contrails dissapate seconds after, but some stay up there for hours and hours.

Luis

Mar 3, 2008, 08:43 AM

Wait a second while I bring out my tin foil hat.

kwood

Mar 3, 2008, 08:53 AM

Although I believe the Earth is round, many do not.

Flat Earth Society:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

scotthayes

Mar 3, 2008, 12:27 PM

Although I believe the Earth is round, many do not.

Flat Earth Society:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

:eek: really don't know what to say to that...

MarkusFrost

Mar 3, 2008, 12:31 PM

The queen mum could easily have been a lizard and anyone who'se looked at Prince Phillip closely must surely question his humanity (or at least sanity, and who else would want to mate with a lizard?), so I'm in for the Queen being a lizard-woman.

Lyle

Mar 3, 2008, 01:34 PM

I watched a show recently on the 9/11 attacks and was stunned at the number of people that still think that Bush implanted bombs inside the towers to make them explode...It sounds like you might be ready for the MacRumors PRSI forums. :D

Jaffa Cake

Mar 3, 2008, 02:22 PM

If our Royal Family isn't made up of lizard people, we should get shut of them and replace them with some reptoids. It would liven up the Queen's Christmas Day speech no end. :cool:

skunk

Mar 3, 2008, 02:25 PM

Although I believe the Earth is round, many do not.I prefer to believe it's spherical, but that's just me.

bartelby

Mar 3, 2008, 02:25 PM

Worst of all, the "Jaffa Cakes are biscuits" nutters!

Much Ado

Mar 3, 2008, 02:40 PM

I prefer to believe it's spherical, but that's just me.

It's an oblate spheroid, but I'll let you off.

EDIT: gauchogolfer, you are too slow ;)

gauchogolfer

Mar 3, 2008, 02:41 PM

I prefer to believe it's spherical, but that's just me.

An oblate spheroid, but I get your drift. :p

Edit: too slow, though great minds obviously think alike. :D

yellow

Mar 3, 2008, 02:45 PM

I believe that the New England Patriots lost the Superbowl on purpose because NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told them they had to loose because of the Spygate Scandal and the impending Congressional Subcommittee hearings.

Kamera RAWr

Mar 3, 2008, 03:10 PM

Although I believe the Earth is round, many do not.

Flat Earth Society:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I've heard about these folks before. All I can say is "Wow" with amazement and a little pity thrown in :o

smokeyrabbit

Mar 3, 2008, 03:20 PM

Although I believe the Earth is round, many do not.

Flat Earth Society:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

So one of their principal arguments is that if you pour water onto a globe it runs off, therefore since water doesn't drain out of the oceans we must live on a flat earth. What fabulous logic!

stevegmu

Mar 3, 2008, 05:06 PM

This is the best lefty conspiracy site I've come across.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

Queso

Mar 3, 2008, 05:09 PM

If our Royal Family isn't made up of lizard people, we should get shut of them and replace them with some reptoids. It would liven up the Queen's Christmas Day speech no end. :cool:
I was rather disappointed they weren't featured in David Attenborough's latest myself, but oh well....

IJ Reilly

Mar 3, 2008, 05:14 PM

An oblate spheroid, but I get your drift.

Would that be a continental drift?

gauchogolfer

Mar 3, 2008, 05:20 PM

Would that be a continental drift?

Oh, no, I'm about to get sucked in to another pun-athon.

Can I resist? No, I cannot.

TEG

Mar 3, 2008, 05:30 PM

It depends on the temperature as to how long a contrail (condensation trail) lasts. Many conspiracy theories state that the are used to drug the population or kill insects. Some of that has weight, since there is a pesticite and fugicide in some jet fuel, because with out it, microbes would grow in it and ruin the engines.

As for Area 51, its not really a theory, it does exist. What is there is the mystery. Probabily nothing more than top secret aircraft.

As for JFK, if anyone has seen the stabilized Zapruter Film, they know he was killed by a shot from in front of him. http://youtube.com/watch?v=XmE6A7TGhiM

Some conspiracy theories are completely off the wall, then again some make you question what you see (like why did WTC 7 collapse? or Why does no one talk about the abandonded town in PA?). Just food for thought.

TEG

IJ Reilly

Mar 3, 2008, 05:32 PM

Can I resist? No, I cannot.

You have no capacity for resistance? Ohm my!

skunk

Mar 3, 2008, 05:37 PM

Oh, no, I'm about to get sucked in to another pun-athon.

Can I resist? No, I cannot.That was a bit of a volte-face.

kuebby

Mar 3, 2008, 05:43 PM

As for JFK, if anyone has seen the stabilized Zapruter Film, they know he was killed by a shot from in front of him. http://youtube.com/watch?v=XmE6A7TGhiM

Exactly. Some conspiracy theories I'm willing to brush off as bunk
(like Loose Change or the Federal Reserve conspiracy), but some have weight to them, JFK's assassination being on the top of that list.

I believe that JFK's death was a conspiracy, at least in definition (meaning an agreement between 2+ people to commit a criminal act. After looking at quite a bit of evidence it just seems impossible to me that Lee Harvey Oswald could possibly have killed JFK alone, certainly not how the Warren Commission said it happened.

gauchogolfer

Mar 3, 2008, 05:57 PM

You have no capacity for resistance? Ohm my!

Watt are you talking about? Of course I can.

IJ Reilly

Mar 3, 2008, 05:58 PM

That was a bit of a volte-face.

This discussion is becoming highly charged. Why, it's almost assault and battery!

skunk

Mar 3, 2008, 06:23 PM

This discussion is becoming highly charged. Why, it's almost assault and battery!Are you positive? I think you've allowed emotion to ampère your judgment.

Roger1

Mar 3, 2008, 07:37 PM

Are you positive? I think you've allowed emotion to ampère your judgment.

Like, watt-ever, dude.

BTW, I'm watching Discovery right now, and they have on a show called (I kid you not) Area 51...AREA 51!! HOW DID THEY KNOW!!?! Yep, spaceships, etc. right now.

IJ Reilly

Mar 3, 2008, 09:29 PM

Are you positive? I think you've allowed emotion to ampère your judgment.

How revolting. I'm keeping my ion you.

gauchogolfer

Mar 3, 2008, 11:18 PM

How revolting. I'm keeping my ion you.

I'll hazard a gauss that you're not very trusting.

kainjow

Mar 3, 2008, 11:31 PM

I always love a good conspiracy story.

I read and watched everything on the 9/11 inside job stuff. There are a lot of wacky people out there, but I do think the government was aware that it was going to happen to catapult us into the middle east, but I don't go more into because it's too much to think about.

JFK? All I know is JFK: Reloaded is a fun/creepy game.

I guess I'm of the belief that most governments are just corrupt and out to make money and control people and resources, so anything could be a possibility in my book. But I like to stay in my little bubble and only worry about tomorrow's traffic, instead of whether the CIA helped assassinate Bhutto...

stevegmu

Mar 4, 2008, 01:05 AM

I guess I'm of the belief that most governments are just corrupt and out to make money and control people and resources, so anything could be a possibility in my book. But I like to stay in my little bubble and only worry about tomorrow's traffic, instead of whether the CIA helped assassinate Bhutto...

How can you possibly stand to live in a country where you feel that way about the government?

What many outside the beltway fail to understand, is that the federal government is made of regular, everyday people. All religions. 'races' and political preferences. Most in the federal government are career civil servants, who don't change jobs based on who is in the White House. The government is the people.

EricNau

Mar 4, 2008, 01:20 AM

Conspiracy theories annoy me to no end. Then again, what does it matter considering the world is ending in 2012 when the magnetic poles switch and Earth stops rotating. ...But if I give them all my money maybe I'll survive!

The 9/11 conspiracy theory is especially disturbing to me. Not only do the conspiracists exonerate those who are truly responsible, but in the process of trying to discredit our government they give them far more credit by making them capable of very complex, intricate, and ultimately unrealistic abilities.

I have yet to hear a conspiracy theory that wasn't easily discredited by a little logic and a lot of common sense.

When in doubt, I always look to Occam's razor which states, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

skunk

Mar 4, 2008, 02:16 AM

What many outside the beltway fail to understand, is that the federal government is made of regular, everyday people. All religions. 'races' and political preferences. Most in the federal government are career civil servants, who don't change jobs based on who is in the White House. The government is the people.Do you take sugar with that? The beltway evidently has its own RDF.

Apemanblues

Mar 4, 2008, 02:36 AM

Worst of all, the "Jaffa Cakes are biscuits" nutters!

I know. The clues In the name.

scotthayes

Mar 4, 2008, 03:03 AM

I know. The clues In the name.

And it was proven in a court... Some people :rolleyes:

stevento

Mar 4, 2008, 03:41 AM

Here's my conspiracy. its rediculous i know

all those stories about kids getting kidnapped were fabricated by communication companies to push cell phones on younger kids

evidence: my step mom will not let her daughter (12 yo) leave the house without a phone. no matter how irresponsible she is and how many phones she loses they just keep buying her more
if she wants to go anywhere without either her or the dad my stepmom will just lend her her blackberry

my solution is make her pay for her own phone and if she doesnt have one she cant go any damn where but you know how parents can be about things

Queso

Mar 4, 2008, 04:20 AM

all those stories about kids getting kidnapped were fabricated by communication companies to push cell phones on younger kids
Errrr, much more likely is that at any one time there are an unknown number of serial killers hiding bodies all over the country. How long was Fred West killing before he was discovered? And that Steve Wright guy, don't tell me he suddenly woke up one say two years ago and went out to kill several women. He was doing that ever so often for years before anybody noticed.

Unless you're saying Vodafone are secretly hypnotising them, which really does go off the tin-foil-hat scale.

Cromulent

Mar 4, 2008, 04:26 AM

Conspiracy theories are started by the government in order to hide the real conspiracies.

Hows that for a conspiracy theory? :)

Kamera RAWr

Mar 4, 2008, 04:28 AM

Conspiracy theories are started by the government in order to hide the real conspiracies.

Hows that for a conspiracy theory? :)

Pfff! Everyone knows that conspiracy theories are the truth masquerading as lunacy :p

scotthayes

Mar 4, 2008, 04:39 AM

Quick run down the most popular ones and my (short) feelings

1. Man didn't land on the moon - Yes he did.

2. September 11th was an inside job - No, it was 19 blokes in 4 planes.

3. Area 51 and Roswell - No men from outerspace and it's an Air Force test base

4. Oswald Didn't kill JFK - Maybe not on his own but had some thing to do with it.

kainjow

Mar 4, 2008, 05:10 AM

How can you possibly stand to live in a country where you feel that way about the government?

What many outside the beltway fail to understand, is that the federal government is made of regular, everyday people. All religions. 'races' and political preferences. Most in the federal government are career civil servants, who don't change jobs based on who is in the White House. The government is the people.

What I meant by government is the high level people in each of the agencies. Those that call the shots on everything. Of course most of the government is just normal people. They don't want to bother anyone and just do as they're told so they can get their paycheck and go home happy.

Desertrat

Mar 4, 2008, 10:00 AM

Anybody ever hear a talk-radio show called "For The People"? Broadcast from near Lake City, Florida. The host was a big ol' fat boy, who for a while had a TV show back when big-dish satellite TV was the deal. Real sincere sort of fella.

The host had Ralph Nader on for an hour or so, one day. The whole time was spent in talking about how the whole idea of GATT was to wreck the US economy and wipe out the American consumer. "They", "they", "they" were gonna do all manner of sneaky things to ruin us. Bilderbergs, Tri-lateral Cmmission, New World Order and on and on...

My question: If it's all these rich folks doing that, who own all these giant corporations, why would they wreck their own largest market? Why would they want to lessen their own incomes, if greed is their prime motivator?

Shiny side out.

'Rat

ghall

Mar 5, 2008, 09:28 PM

Did the Egyptians build the Pyramids?

Didn't they? How is that a conspiracy theory?

Conspiracy theories are started by the government in order to hide the real conspiracies.

Hows that for a conspiracy theory? :)

Head go boom.

jb60606

Mar 5, 2008, 10:20 PM

stevegmu

Mar 5, 2008, 10:42 PM

I'd like to do more research on it before I officially declare it a conspiracy theory I'd believe, but I'd like to learn more about the reported ties between the CIA & Jonestown Massacre.

A 900+ participant mass suicide. Unbelievable.

Why would the CIA want to kill a bunch of nutjobs in Guyana led by a drug addict?

There was a good film about Jonestown that came out a couple years ago.

jb60606

Mar 5, 2008, 11:34 PM

Why would the CIA want to kill a bunch of nutjobs in Guyana led by a drug addict?

There was a good film about Jonestown that came out a couple years ago.

Well the common theory is that there was CIA involvement, and Jonestown was a mass mind control experiment. Again, as I said before, I'm not saying I buy it, I just want to read more about it. I don't care how persuasive Jim Jones (or his abusive tactics) was - 900 suicides was quite an unbelievable feat.

stevegmu

Mar 5, 2008, 11:41 PM

Well the common theory is that there was CIA involvement, and Jonestown was a mass mind control experiment. Again, as I said before, I'm not saying I buy it, I just want to read more about it. I don't care how persuasive Jim Jones (or his abusive tactics) was - 900 suicides was quite an unbelievable feat.

Many of the 'suicides' were actually murders. People who refused to drink the flavor-aid, or tried to escape were shot.

jb60606

Mar 5, 2008, 11:47 PM

Many of the 'suicides' were actually murders. People who refused to drink the flavor-aid, or tried to escape were shot.

not that many, but some yes. Apparently as many as 20-30 that were trying to catch a flight out of there or refused to drink the magic kool-aid.

stevegmu

Mar 5, 2008, 11:54 PM

not that many, but some yes. Apparently as many as 20-30 that were trying to catch a flight out of there or refused to drink the magic kool-aid.

Have you seen the film? It was either drink, get injected, or shot. Apparently they practiced these suicide drills on a regular basis. He had them convinced the evil US government was going to invade their utopian camp, and either arrest them or force them to go home.

jb60606

Mar 6, 2008, 12:00 AM

Have you seen the film? It was either drink, get injected, or shot. Apparently they practiced these suicide drills on a regular basis. He had them convinced the evil US government was going to invade their utopian camp, and either arrest them or force them to go home.

I saw the film. That doesn't disprove the theory, does it?

stevegmu

Mar 6, 2008, 12:02 AM

I saw the film. That doesn't disprove the theory, does it?

Sure it does. The film is considered historically accurate, and doesn't mention the CIA.

jb60606

Mar 6, 2008, 12:14 AM

Sure it does. The film is considered historically accurate, and doesn't mention the CIA.

so then it must not be a conspiracy. :)

Silly me.

solvs

Mar 6, 2008, 04:59 AM

This is the best lefty conspiracy site I've come across.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
What sad is that you actually think everyone who hates Bush, let alone the actual lefties, believe this stuff don't you?

How can you possibly stand to live in a country where you feel that way about the government?
Maybe they should stop giving us reasons to think this.

As for me, I don't know if I go into the whole conspiracy thing when a mixture of greed and incompetence is a much more reasonable excuse for what happens.

Unless that's what they want us to think. :eek: :p

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 02:09 PM

My opinions

9/11 - inside job - I've seen visual proof that shows the WTC were brought down by human means. (not the two jets)

JFK assassination - undetermined - could've been LHO or an inside job - I wasn't around then so I can't say anything.

Area 51 - true (to a degree) - I (kinda) doubt there are alien bodies but I don't doubt there is alien technology at A-51.

ucfgrad93

Mar 6, 2008, 02:23 PM

My opinions

9/11 - inside job - I've seen visual proof that shows the WTC were brought down by human means. (not the two jets)

What proof is that?

Jaffa Cake

Mar 6, 2008, 02:33 PM

Area 51 - true (to a degree) - I (kinda) doubt there are alien bodies but I don't doubt there is alien technology at A-51.If the US government does have captured alien technology (and taht's apretty big if), I'd bet a shiny Pound that it's no where near Area 51 – I doubt that there's anything really that special there.

More likely that it's a cunning bit of misdirection... think of a conjurer doing a bit of sleight of hand magic – he doesn't focus your attention onto the hand he's using to perform the sneaky stuff. Whether it's a new experimental plane or ET's pranged motor, the authorities will be quite happy for all the conspiracy buffs to focus their attention on an out-of-the-way base while all the really juicy secret things go on elsewhere, well away from prying eyes.

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 02:42 PM

What proof is that?
The i-Beams in the basement of the WTC were cut in a way that is only done during a controlled demolition. There was also smoke coming from one of the lower levels of the WTC which came form a explosion that occurred seven seconds before the first plane hit. Also, there is no record in modern history of a building collapsing cause of fire. The WTC was designed to take an impact of a fully fueled jumbo jet.

Furthermore, there are dozens of civilian testimonies from ppl that were inside the WTC at the time of attack that said there was a loud explosion in the basement five to ten seconds before the first plane hit.

The ultimate conspiracy is that the US gov't attacked its own people so that we, the people, would support going to war. I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

I can go on and on but I'm gonna stop cause some of you are going to peg me as crazy. We all know that the US gov't doesn't lie to us, right? :rolleyes:

BoyBach

Mar 6, 2008, 02:51 PM

Much Ado

Mar 6, 2008, 02:54 PM

This is my favourite (if that's the correct word) of all the conspiracy theories. Why is it that certain people find it so difficult to accept that the atrocity was the work of a small group of determined vicious individuals?

To be fair, the WTC-7 collapse is intriguing. You could kill of the 911 conspiracy theories immediately if you could show how that building collapsed.

As for the people who think the world is flat- do they have satellite TV? If so...

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 03:00 PM

This is my favourite (if that's the correct word) of all the conspiracy theories. Why is it that certain people find it so difficult to accept that the atrocity was the work of a small group of determined vicious individuals?
Why is it so hard for certain ppl to believe that the gov't lies to us and that they are capable of commiting such heinous acts.?:rolleyes:

ucfgrad93

Mar 6, 2008, 03:08 PM

Why is it so hard for certain ppl to believe that the gov't lies to us and that they are capable of commiting such heinous acts.?:rolleyes:

Agreed that the government lies to us, doesn't matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in power. No doubt about it.

What I find really amusing is that in one breath some people state that President Bush is one step lower than the village idiot, and in the next breath say that he masterminded the whole 9/11 attack.

BoyBach

Mar 6, 2008, 03:08 PM

Why is it so hard for certain ppl to believe that the gov't lies to us and that they are capable of commiting such heinous acts.?:rolleyes:

If believing that the government was responsible helps you sleep soundly at night... ;)

bartelby

Mar 6, 2008, 03:11 PM

Stuff

I think ucfgrad93 asked for proof.

Your say so doesn't qualify as proof I'm afraid.

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 03:13 PM

If believing that the government was responsible helps you sleep soundly at night... ;)
It doesn't affect my sleep patterns but it makes me wonder what else the gov't is capable of.:eek:
Agreed that the government lies to us, doesn't matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in power. No doubt about it.

What I find really amusing is that in one breath some people state that President Bush is one step lower than the village idiot, and in the next breath say that he masterminded the whole 9/11 attack.
There are some things that the gov't does that the president isn't aware of.

TEG

Mar 6, 2008, 03:21 PM

Also, there is no record in modern history of a building collapsing cause of fire. The WTC was designed to take an impact of a fully fueled jumbo jet.

First of all, no other steel building was build like the WTC towers. Unlike most buildings, the outer walls and center structure were the only supports. Other buildings have columns spread across the whole structure. Also, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Both the 757 and 767 are larger planes, and they never thought about fires caused by the fuel. If there had not been a fire, the towers would have probabily survived. But the fire, along with the severing of 18% of the support structure caused the tensile strength of steel to decrease, and it reached a point where the steel could no longer support the weight above the fire and it just collapsed.

It also didn't help that even though the center column was suppossed to be reinforced with concrete, it was instead just covered in drywall, further reducing the strength of the central core.

TEG

Eric Piercey

Mar 6, 2008, 03:23 PM

The i-Beams in the basement of the WTC were cut in a way that is only done during a controlled demolition. There was also smoke coming from one of the lower levels of the WTC which came form a explosion that occurred seven seconds before the first plane hit. Also, there is no record in modern history of a building collapsing cause of fire. The WTC was designed to take an impact of a fully fueled jumbo jet.

Furthermore, there are dozens of civilian testimonies from ppl that were inside the WTC at the time of attack that said there was a loud explosion in the basement five to ten seconds before the first plane hit.

The ultimate conspiracy is that the US gov't attacked its own people so that we, the people, would support going to war. I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

I can go on an d on but I'm gonna stop cause some of you are going to peg me as crazy. We all know that the US gov't doesn't lie to us, right? :rolleyes:

I'm 100% in agreement, but what's the point- especially in a "calling all nujobs so we can laugh at them" thread.

I think it's a lot more preposterous that some highly motivated dudes with box cutters did all that than a well financed group of individuals with connections. Watch "Loose Change the Final Cut." Who gained from 911? Some gained quite a bit and I can promise you it wasn't some terrorist organization. Follow the money.

Agreed that the government lies to us, doesn't matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in power. No doubt about it.

What I find really amusing is that in one breath some people state that President Bush is one step lower than the village idiot, and in the next breath say that he masterminded the whole 9/11 attack.

Bush didn't mastermind 9/11. Not by a long shot. I've never heard anyone even semi-articulate say that. "Bush" is often a euphemism for "they- the corrupt skull and bones, bilderberg illuminati, industrial military oil baron child raping elite"

And the "Federal Reserve consipiracy?" What's that? Read the history books as to how the Fed came into it's position of power. It doesn't take an economics rocket scientist to understand what happens when an organization comprised of private banks can make FIAT (based on nothing) currency by typing digits into a computer. Most common people believe the Federal Reserve is part of the US Government.

How do I live in a place where I feel this way about the gov't? "The Government" didn't do 9/11. "The Government" doesn't cover-up alien technology. "The Government" didn't murder JFK. It's elements within. The Bush administration has done more to erode civil liberty than any administration in history all in the shadow of 9/11. The American people are for the most part entertainment junkies, pacified to the point where uncle sam can reach right up their bum before they even cough. As long as football is on and McDonald's is open who cares??! Here stick RFIDs in our hands so we don't have to reach into our wallets anymore. I live here just like everyone else, only I question things that don't make sense.

It's real easy to sit there waving Occam's Razor and believing what you're spoon fed by the media. Why think, right? Why question, that's for crazy people. And tell me.. just what's the matter with being a little paranoid? Nothing if you're functional. I'd rather be paranoid than complacent. Sure there's a boundary where things get "out there," I understand, but at the same time there's a boundary where you have to be an idiot not to know you're being had. I think the wise man keeps an open mind and hopes he's somewhere in the middle rather than stuck on either side.

BoyBach

Mar 6, 2008, 03:25 PM

First of all...

Tsk! Coming in here with your facts and logic... :p

I'd rather be paranoid than complacent.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean, etc...

Eric Piercey

Mar 6, 2008, 03:36 PM

I think ucfgrad93 asked for proof.

Your say so doesn't qualify as proof I'm afraid.

Jet fuel burning doesn't melt steel. Just watch Loose Change, the Final Cut. Watch it with an open mind. At the very very least you'll understand the motivation behind the 9/11 Truth movement. These aren't crazy people.. some sure, but come on.. crazy or ignorant- pick your poison. These are just people who want answers they aren't getting. There are many questions that don't have answers about that day. Big gaping questions.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean, etc...

In the interest of time, gimme a break. Nobody is going to prove anything or sway anyone, so I speak freely. If I don't adhere to the most strict of debate rules making statements that aren't 100% perfectly sound sue me! Where's your contribution to the thread other than taking potshots? That's right... that's what you do, you take pot shots from the high ground. Grow a pair and put something out there that everyone doesn't already know that their "supposed" to think. One liners to stir the pot along. blah blah.

TEG

Mar 6, 2008, 03:40 PM

bartelby

Mar 6, 2008, 03:42 PM

Eric Piercey

Mar 6, 2008, 03:52 PM

It didn't melt the steel, just caused a molecular change reducing it tensile strength. It also wasn't just the fuel burning, but everything else in the building. I was in a materials class around the time 9/11 happened, and we went over the causes and proved that it occured, exactly as reported.

TEG

And what about WTC7? Did it collapse out in grief? Sympathetic vibrations? What about the cell calls from beyond the range of cell towers from the one plane? Where's all the footage from the cams around the pentagon? There are many questions.

If I were you I'd give up. If people believe the US Gov planned and executed the attack then nothing will change their minds.

Not at all. I've already stated I don't think the "US Gov" planned the 911 attack. The US Gov is huge and that _would be_ ridiculous. There's just a lot that doesn't add up about the official story while at the same time a lot that does add up to support other theories.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2008, 03:55 PM

There are many questions.

And the existence of them doesn't mean that they constitute an answer.

Eric Piercey

Mar 6, 2008, 04:06 PM

And the existence of them doesn't mean that they constitute an answer.

By "constitute an answer" do you mean "deserve an answer?" To which I'd say, "What's more important??"

If you meant "form an answer" I guess I just don't get what you meant. Questions don't make an answer. Right. 42 but what's the question.

EricNau

Mar 6, 2008, 09:59 PM

Zwhaler

Mar 6, 2008, 10:05 PM

Although I believe the Earth is round, many do not.

Flat Earth Society:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Lmao that website claims that they have been "deprogramming the masses" (trying to convince them that the earth is flat) since 1547, yet their evidence page is still "under construction". Classic!

EricNau

Mar 6, 2008, 10:10 PM

And let's not forget this gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTv9dM4t_iY

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 10:11 PM

Looks like you've done your research, but unfortunately from substandard and inaccurate sources.
My research comes from survivors of the WTC attacks. (Not personal interviews but from recordings and other documents).

PS - Have you run your theories past the 2,500+ families who lost a loved one that tragic day?
No I haven't nor would I.

On a side note: People are going to believe whatever they want to believe.

brendanryder

Mar 6, 2008, 10:12 PM

And let's not forget this gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTv9dM4t_iY

LOL!!!!!!
what a tool
"they upgraded these phone they now have more pixels i think"

EricNau

Mar 6, 2008, 10:14 PM

On a side note: People are going to believe whatever they want to believe.
Indeed, but absent of evidence, that makes them neither more or less correct.

jb60606

Mar 6, 2008, 10:14 PM

The NBA is fixed. Oh yeah - that's not a theory anymore.

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 10:16 PM

Indeed, but absent of evidence, that makes them neither more or less correct.
Like I said. My "evidence" comes from survivors of the attacks. Are you saying that they are wrong and that they don't know what they're talking about?

EricNau

Mar 6, 2008, 10:33 PM

Like I said. My "evidence" comes from survivors of the attacks.
Anything other than anecdotal evidence?

Are you saying that they are wrong and that they don't know what they're talking about?
In what way are they qualified to draw such conclusions?

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 10:41 PM

In what way are they qualified to draw such conclusions?
They were there!

One of the survivors that was in the basement at the time said "there was a loud BOOM from beneath my feet" - "for a split second, I was in the air". He said that the explosion occurred 5-10 seconds before the first plane hit.

Now, why would there be an explosion in the basement?

jb60606

Mar 6, 2008, 10:42 PM

you guys are arguing about something that can't be proven on either side.

Prof.

Mar 6, 2008, 10:44 PM

you guys are arguing about something that can't be proven on either side.
I know. I just don't want to be pegged as a liar when I'm not lying.

jb60606

Mar 6, 2008, 11:03 PM

I know. I just don't want to be pegged as a liar when I'm not lying.

I wouldn't worry about it man.

ucfgrad93

Mar 6, 2008, 11:54 PM

My research comes from survivors of the WTC attacks. (Not personal interviews but from recordings and other documents).

Do you have links to these recordings and documents?

BoyBach

Mar 7, 2008, 08:36 AM

Jet fuel burning doesn't melt steel. Just watch Loose Change, the Final Cut. Watch it with an open mind. At the very very least you'll understand the motivation behind the 9/11 Truth movement. These aren't crazy people.. some sure, but come on.. crazy or ignorant- pick your poison. These are just people who want answers they aren't getting. There are many questions that don't have answers about that day. Big gaping questions.

In the interest of time, gimme a break. Nobody is going to prove anything or sway anyone, so I speak freely. If I don't adhere to the most strict of debate rules making statements that aren't 100% perfectly sound sue me! Where's your contribution to the thread other than taking potshots? That's right... that's what you do, you take pot shots from the high ground. Grow a pair and put something out there that everyone doesn't already know that their "supposed" to think. One liners to stir the pot along. blah blah.

Last night I watched 'Loose Change the Second Edition' on Youtube (yes I know!) (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/19/xkcd-comic-on-intenr.html) and have a pile of issues with it, some of which I will air:

At the beginning of the film the narrator talks about an anti-terrorist report published in 1997 (I think?) on the cover of which was depicted the WTC in a cross-hairs. There is nothing unusual or 'conspiratorial' about this since the building was attacked with a car bomb in 1993, was is conveniently forgotten about by the film makers.
The film makers obviously do not understand metaphors. When a fireman says that the lobby was "like a bomb went off" he doesn't necessarily mean it literally. The same goes for the explosions that were heard/seen/felt by the other eyewitnesses describe. I've heard the term "like a bomb went off" to describe things as diverse as a child's untidy bedroom and a footballers badly injured cruciate knee ligament, neither of which I took to mean literally.
Since the film makers couldn't be bothered to justify or explain their Flight 93 'theory' I won't bother to redress it or highlight the obvious fatal flaw.
The 'explosions' of dust that can seen erupting from windows as the building collapses are not proof of a bomb exploding, merely air being forced out of the building via the path of least resistance as the floors above collapse on to the ones below.
As for the argument that the WTC are the only buildings to collapse due to fire damage, I have two points to make: Firstly, and most importantly, none of the other buildings are the WTC (or to put it another way, they are all designed and constructed differently and so will react differently to structural damage.) Secondly, with the exception of the Empire State Building, the film makers do not mention the cause of the other fires. I'd imagine that a fire caused by a lit cigarette being dropped into a waste paper basket, for example, would be completely different to one caused by a near fully fuelled 757 crashing into a building? But then I'm no expert, which brings me neatly onto my next point...
As a film maker you cannot dismiss the evidence of the various government "so-called experts" and expect me to believe your "so-called experts". It doesn't work like that, I'm sorry.
The last issue that I can be bothered to comment on is Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia and used it this morning to find out who Sarah Silverman is after reading a newspaper article about her, but as a film maker you cannot use Wikipedia as a journalistic 'research tool'. My basic understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong since I couldn't be bothered to research it myself) of it is is that anybody can register and add or amend an article. This means that I can say that I'm living in Thailand whilst being employed as the Prime Minister of the UK and the President of China, and be happily married to Anne Hathaway whilst having an affair with Natalie Portman. Sadly, just because it says it on Wikipedia doesn't make it true. Do you see the problem with using Wikipedia as the basis of evidence in a journalistic report?

P.S. I apologise that my "Just because I'm paranoid" comment caused you offence. It was posted in a light-hearted way and it was obviously misjudged.

Prof.

Mar 7, 2008, 12:44 PM

Do you have links to these recordings and documents?
That's the thing. I, for the life of me, can't find them anymore. I searched for two hours last night and I couldn't find them. I'll keep looking and post them here as soon as I find them.

EDIT: HA! I found it! Fast forward to 52:38 and watch thru 58:51. This is not the same video I watched b4 but it has the same interviews with the same ppl.

Watch it here (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm).

blackfox

Mar 7, 2008, 05:29 PM

While not exactly a conspiracy theory, I am curious about people's opinions of the significance of 2012/2013 and an apocalypse of somesort.

I happened to have a (drunken) conversation about this time period the other day, and was left vaguely disturbed (and wobbly).

I look at the following:

1.The Mayan calender ending in the end of 2012.
2.The IChing also ending at the same time.
3.The odd alignment of planets/heavenly bodies at that time, which is very rare.
4.The fact that there are supposed to be equally rare extreme solar activity, with giant sunspots and magnetic disturbances.

Numbers 3 and 4 make me think of EMP effects, and how badly Western civilization infrastructure would be damaged if almost all electrical devices managed to be fried at the same time.

Thoughts?

oh, I'm sorry i missed the puns...

Blue Velvet

Mar 7, 2008, 05:35 PM

2.The IChing also ending at the same time.

I'm a keen student of the I Ching and have been working with a number of translations for almost 30 years... I'd like to hear more about this.

.Andy

Mar 7, 2008, 05:43 PM

The IChing also ending at the same time.
People with eczema will be happy to hear this.

Blue Velvet

Mar 7, 2008, 05:45 PM

People with eczema will be happy to hear this.

:D Have a cigar. Made me laff after a crap day... thanks.

jb60606

Mar 7, 2008, 06:05 PM

freeny

Mar 7, 2008, 06:16 PM

I have seen some of the "evidence" pertaining to the conspiracy that we did not land on the moon and I can honestly say that it does cast some doubt...

Did we? I cant say for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if they came out and said we didn't.

skunk

Mar 7, 2008, 06:21 PM

People with eczema will be happy to hear this.I was thinking that was just the iChing on the cake, but of course in the States it's "frosting", which doesn't really work, so we'll have to go with yours, I suppose.... :p

Blue Velvet

Mar 7, 2008, 06:27 PM

I have seen some "evidence" pertaining to the conspiracy that we did not land on the moon and I can honestly say that it does cast some doubt...

What supposed evidence is that then?

Gelfin

Mar 7, 2008, 06:29 PM

1.The Mayan calender ending in the end of 2012.

They had to stop sometime. It would have been more remarkable had they kept someone writing down calendar cycles forever. Although computers make it trivial for someone to do so, there's a fair chance no human has ever printed out a calendar for February of 22,738. Do you think this indicates some special knowledge our culture possesses about when the world will end, or is it more likely that we simply have no use for a calendar so far in the future?

2.The IChing also ending at the same time.

What little I know of the I Ching suggests that those who regard it as a supernatural resource use it as a source of divination, not prophecy. It's a little like saying "The Tarot" predicts the end of the world at a particular time. That just isn't how it's typically used. If this is some novel interpretation of the I Ching, it probably was invented very recently by someone who already knew about the Mayan date and retrofitted his I Ching interpretation to match.

3.The odd alignment of planets/heavenly bodies at that time, which is very rare.

Rare planetary configurations are only rare individually. Collectively they are pretty common, and you could decide any one of them is a portent of the end of the world (and people regularly do). The only reason you'd latch onto one in 2012 in particular is that you're specifically looking for any interesting alignment around that time as further evidence for the conclusion you've already got in mind.

The stretch from 2012 to "2012/2013" is interesting. "Mayan calendar" kooks are usually pretty intent on 2012 specifically, typically a specific date in 2012, which I cannot remember at present. The fuzzing of the date here suggests the nearest "interesting" alignment of planets available doesn't happen until sometime in 2013 -- in other words, no correlation at all! That doesn't faze people who are determined to convince themselves, of course, even though apparently the world is scheduled to end before one of the events said to portend its ending.

4.The fact that there are supposed to be equally rare extreme solar activity, with giant sunspots and magnetic disturbances.

"Equally rare" meaning equal to the rarity of a particular astronomical event? I am not certain we even have enough information about solar cycles to make such a statement with any authority. We are in the middle of an upswing in solar activity scheduled to peak around 2012, but its period is about eleven years. Computers failed to melt down in 2001; they'll similarly survive 2012.

People predict the end of the world all the time (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/appendix3.html). The only thing less likely than the idea that it would happen on any particular day is that any particular human would correctly predict it by examining odd factoids such as those upon which would-be prophets rely.

skunk

Mar 7, 2008, 06:36 PM

The stretch from 2012 to "2012/2013" is interesting. "Mayan calendar" kooks are usually pretty intent on 2012 specifically, typically a specific date in 2012, which I cannot remember at present. The fuzzing of the date here suggests the nearest "interesting" alignment of planets available doesn't happen until sometime in 2013 -- in other words, no correlation at all! That doesn't faze people who are determined to convince themselves, of course, even though apparently the world is scheduled to end before one of the events said to portend its ending.You are being unnecessarily harsh, considering your own knowledge is so avowedly fuzzy. the reason for the "stretch" from 2012 to 2012/3, if you could be bothered to check, is that the date usually given is December 23rd 2012, which translates very understandably to 2012/3.

Gelfin

Mar 7, 2008, 06:42 PM

I was thinking that was just the iChing on the cake, but of course in the States it's "frosting", which doesn't really work, so we'll have to go with yours, I suppose.... :p

Nah, you're good. We use do both terms, but in that expression we always defer to the Queen. :)

You are being unnecessarily harsh, considering your own knowledge is so avowedly fuzzy. the reason for the "stretch" from 2012 to 2012/3, if you could be bothered to check, is that the date usually given is December 23rd 2012, which translates very understandably to 2012/3.

You're right. Next time I'll spend a lot more time researching to make sure the people who say a nation of stone-age aboriginals knew when the world would end aren't onto something. After all, for all I know the planetary alignment falls on December 23rd exactly, and wouldn't that make me look the fool for not cashing in my retirement immediately?

EricNau

Mar 7, 2008, 07:06 PM

I know. I just don't want to be pegged as a liar when I'm not lying.
No one is accusing you of lying. With science, you have to appreciate that your evidence, claims, and views will attract criticism, and should not be taken personally. It's through this process of "peer-review" that scientists ensure they have the best evidence and reach the most accurate of conclusions.

PS - I just watched the selected portion of the link you posted earlier. I was extremely disappointed in the video's misrepresentations of the facts, as well as the gross misinterpretation of the evidence presented. They make a lot of claims, all unsubstantiated, and provide no proof other than hearsay.

skunk

Mar 7, 2008, 07:14 PM

You're right. Next time I'll spend a lot more time researching to make sure the people who say a nation of stone-age aboriginals knew when the world would end aren't onto somethingPerhaps at least you could target your scorn more selectively.

Gelfin

Mar 7, 2008, 07:19 PM

Perhaps at least you could target your scorn more selectively.

Intended tone there was more "light sarcasm." Apologies if I offended.

Prof.

Mar 7, 2008, 07:45 PM

PS - I just watched the selected portion of the link you posted earlier. I was extremely disappointed in the video's misrepresentations of the facts, as well as the gross misinterpretation of the evidence presented. They make a lot of claims, all unsubstantiated, and provide no proof other than hearsay.
I just wanted you to watch the interviews of the professor, construction worker and that other guy.

freeny

Mar 7, 2008, 09:14 PM

What supposed evidence is that then?

It was some documentry I viewed a few years back, It was packed with lots of scenarios backed by some loose evidence but certainly enough to make you go hmmmmm...

Things like if you speed up footage of astronauts walking on the moon they look exactly like their strolling around on earth.

Satalite photos of area 51 and the crater cluster that looks suspiciously like the terrain in the Apollo footage.

Questions like how come the video technology of the day was pretty good and produced quality images but for some reason they decided to take up the crappiest camera ever.

Im not saying im convinced, but i wouldn't be suprised

Badandy

Mar 8, 2008, 01:38 AM

My favorite

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

And for real

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

it5five

Mar 8, 2008, 01:55 AM

My research comes from survivors of the WTC attacks. (Not personal interviews but from recordings and other documents).

No I haven't nor would I.

On a side note: People are going to believe whatever they want to believe.

You should read this Popular Mechanics article debunking almost all of the more "popular" 9/11 myths.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Possibly one of the most thorough and best articles about the subject I've read.

Badandy

Mar 8, 2008, 02:50 AM

You might also want to check out the Democracy Now debate that is on youtube between the Popular Mechanics guys and the makers of Loose Change. Made the Loose Change guys look like idiots. The Popular Mechanics guys (editor and chief and some other guy) were very civil and produced facts while the LC people (avery and another guy) just resorted to being uncivil, using insults, and asking rehetorical questions with no evidence other than people saying, at the time of the attacks, "it sounded like a bomb."

solvs

Mar 8, 2008, 04:16 AM

There are many questions.
There are. Doesn't mean conspiracy. At least not like this.

As said in the other thread, never suspect conspiracy if incompetence would achieve the same result.

anti-microsoft

Mar 8, 2008, 04:24 AM

What about Paul is dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead)?

Nickygoat

Mar 8, 2008, 04:29 AM

You are being unnecessarily harsh, considering your own knowledge is so avowedly fuzzy. the reason for the "stretch" from 2012 to 2012/3, if you could be bothered to check, is that the date usually given is December 23rd 2012, which translates very understandably to 2012/3.

Does that mean there's no Christmas then? That's a bit of a bugger :p

solvs

Mar 8, 2008, 05:38 AM

Does that mean there's no Christmas then?
No, but there will be Christmas shopping beforehand. ;)

I can't help feeling like we've over this before.

Prof.

Mar 8, 2008, 01:40 PM

Why is it so hard for people to believe that the US government, along with other governments, could possibly attack its own people?

Here, I'll counter for you guys so you don't have to.;)

Why is it so hard for you to believe that a small group of determined terrorist attacked us and not the US government?

:p

EricNau

Mar 8, 2008, 02:56 PM

Why is it so hard for people to believe that the US government, along with other governments, could possibly attack its own people?
Consider this:
How has the war in Iraq been going? Does it seem like a heavily orchestrated running-like-clockwork mastermind attack, or a half-baked spur of the moment idea that didn't work out the way we planned?

Do you really think the US government is capable of hiding such a secret? Remember that our government is arranged in such a way where no branch has ultimate power, and that representatives range from the federal level all the way down to the governments of local cities, making such a conspiracy fundamentally impossible. The idea that the US government could carry out an attack without word leaking out is absurd, unless you want to create another conspiracy about an underground government, in which case the theory becomes even more farfetched and inane.

Our last President couldn't even hide his love affair, so what makes you think they're capable of keeping a secret far more elaborate and complex?

Prof.

Mar 8, 2008, 04:04 PM

The US gov't is going to do whatever it wants to do; it doesn't care about rank, power or branches. I would bet you that there are things the gov't does that even the president doesn't know about.

Desertrat

Mar 8, 2008, 04:10 PM

So many of these conspiracy notions require way too many people's involvement, with all of them never getting a bit drunk and spouting off to a buddy or galfriend about how cool they were. People like to talk too much, like to have others' approbation, to keep deep, dark secrets...

'Rat

Badandy

Mar 8, 2008, 04:32 PM

Why is it so hard for people to believe that the US government, along with other governments, could possibly attack its own people?

:p

Because there's no evidence to believe otherwise. Until you show me evidence that is conclusive, then you are just spewing hot air. Dissent should be encouraged, wild speculation should not be given validity.

Read the Popular Mechanics rebuttal. Hell, even watch the Democracy Now debate between P.M. and the Loose Change creators.

The fact is, Loose Change relied on taking quotes out of context, talking to people in the immediate aftermath (when information is least reliable), and not using experts when they needed to.

EricNau

Mar 8, 2008, 08:52 PM

The US gov't is going to do whatever it wants to do; it doesn't care about rank, power or branches. I would bet you that there are things the gov't does that even the president doesn't know about.
And who, pray tell, is behind these "acts of evil" if not the president or Congress? Surely you are not proposing that the Supreme Court justices were behind the attacks? ;)

This notion displays a clear misunderstanding of how the government of the US functions collectively and individually. Our government is composed of individual people, like you and me, who were elected by the people. When you consider this, and stop thinking of the government as a collective "it" or "thing," and also take into account that all governmental meetings are to some degree public, you realize how unlikely secret government conspiracies are.

ZiggyPastorius

Mar 8, 2008, 09:04 PM

As for JFK, if anyone has seen the stabilized Zapruter Film, they know he was killed by a shot from in front of him. http://youtube.com/watch?v=XmE6A7TGhiM

TEG

I'm curious to know how that video demonstrates he was shot from the front? Looks to me like it supports the truth, not the conspiracy theories.

freeny

Mar 8, 2008, 09:41 PM

I'm curious to know how that video demonstrates he was shot from the front? Looks to me like it supports the truth, not the conspiracy theories.

Funny, I'm curious to know how that video demonstrates he wasn't shot from the front.... ;)

stevento

Mar 8, 2008, 09:41 PM

I would bet you that there are things the gov't does that even the president doesn't know about.

well with this president, i think it's better we keep him in the dark about some stuff :D :D

Badandy

Mar 8, 2008, 11:36 PM

well with this president, i think it's better we keep him in the dark about some stuff :D :D

Well, at least we won't have another Clinton in the White House after a Bush, Clinton, Bush.

SMM

Mar 8, 2008, 11:43 PM

Conspiracy theories; lots of fun, sometimes interesting speculation. But, they are not all created equal, as are the people who quickly buy into them, or even more quickly, debunk them. Many people will not buy into any idea, which upsets their comfortable view of life and the world around. What I find amusing, these same people will quickly jump on the bandwagon, if the source is Rush Limbaugh, BillO, Bill Kristol, or a member of the mainstream corporate media. But, that is for another thread.

If everyone here really stopped to think about it, there are volumes of things, which were once considered 'conspiracy theories', which have proven true. And there are a great number which were proven false, or have been forgotten as they are unprovable.

When I (usually) read about a CT, I try to put myself into the position of a prosecutor trying to see if I could make a compelling case, based on the available evidence (including circumstantial). The first test it has to pass is, does it make sense? Then I try to separate speculation/conjecture from fact. If something has far more fact than speculation and it makes sense, I will then look for supporting documentation.

Area 51:

My sense tells me that the government/air force has remained secretive, aloof about this story on purpose. I think they want to encourage the UFO mystery, rather than talk about what has really been going on there. But, I will freely admit, I am not a UFO believer either. I do think there is life elsewhere in the universe. But, when one considers the vastness of space, why would someone traverse that distance to do some sneaky little spying missions? There is going to have to be at least one piece of indisputable evidence brought forth before I will give this any credence.

Time Travel:

There have been, and currently are many CTs that revolve around the existence of time travel. I watched a Nova documentary about this a few years back. Somewhere around the middle of the show, they interviewed Dr Steven Hawking. His response was, "If time travel were possible, how come we have never met someone from the future?" I remember being so impressed by the simplicity and yet profoundness of his answer. Until someone can answer that question, it is a dead issue with me.

The Assignation of President Kennedy:

Why this is still considered a CT is beyond me. The overwhelming evidence points to death by triangulated gunfire. At first, no one wanted to believe this was anything more than the act of a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Anyone suggesting otherwise was not just 'ahead off the curve, they were 'way out on a limb'. That is especially true after the Warren Commission Report came out. Earl Warren was one of the most respected men in America. certainly, he would not put his name on something false. Or, would he? He would not do it as a participant of a conspiracy, but I can believe he could be convinced that the truth would be too devastating to be made public during the cold war.

No, the real CT about Kennedy was that Oswald killed him. By the late 60's, the 'official' story began to unravel. Researchers went through the old papers and studied the official documents. They began to re-interview many of the witnesses. Time after time, what they found was that the witnesses had been intimidated by the investigators, their testimony in the WCR was drastically changed, or even fabricated. Another pattern arose; many of the witnesses has died alone in accidental deaths. Finally, the McGruder film surfaced. He had perfect direct line of sight view of the President's motorcade, as it made the insane 10MPH turn down Dealy Plaza. He caught on tape the entire assignation. None of the bullets appear to hit the President from above. The first shot appears to hit him from behind, the second from the side (the grassy knoll where a plethora of witness heard and saw the shot coming from). But, the final, and absolutely conclusive piece of evidence was his capture of the fatal shot. And, it came from straight on. No question about.

A couple people have suggested that our government would not kill its own citizens. That is a fairy tale belief. I can think of numerous examples without even scratching my head; Kent State, numerous times the government fired on and killed labor strikers. George Patton used a calvary charge to break-up a peaceful demonstration of WWI veterans in WA DC. Many were killed. The government helped kill over 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam, 4000 in Iraq. The police are killing innocent Americans everyday with immunity. President Kennedy was killed for many reasons.

To start with, he did not even have enough time to get his chair warm, before the Bay of Pigs fiasco. This had been put together by the cold war sacred cows of the CIA; Allen Dulles, Richard Bissel and Charles Cabell. They convinced the young President that all the dots were crossed, everything was in motion and it was 'a done deal'. Well, the operation began to unravel immediately. The insurgents were trapped on the beach and the CIA called for US air support. Kennedy was furious. He realized this had been an anticipated, and planned, part of the operation from the beginning. He told them NO. The Cuban government mopped-up the rest of the invaders soon thereafter. Kennedy went on national TV and took full responsibility for the operation. Somewhat later, he fired all three.

Now, these were sacred cows of the WWII OSS and the cold war. They were major players and integral parts of the planning in Indochina. Kennedy began to send his own trusted people to Vietnam (Lansdale, McNamara) for fact gathering missions. By 1963, Kennedy had decided that Vietnam had to be won by the Vietnamese people themselves (with limited support). His quote was, "Afterall, this is their Country and war to win, or lose". However, he did not state this publicly, as it was drawing near to election time. This was big. Vietnam was going to be the next big cash-cow for the military industrial complex. It was going to be huge. Hundreds of secret contracts had already been awarded, most in Texas. This had to be stopped, and it was. On November 23, 1963.

Since the 1970's, several in-depth documentaries have been done, each providing indisputable proof of the Kennedy's assignation; The Men Who Killed Kennedy (6 part series History Channel), JFK (major film by Oliver Stone), Executive Action (early film). Up until the past 8 years, the evidence has been slowly accepted. But, something has happened since then. It seems like a real effort has been underway to discredit it. The lying liars are ever at work covering their tracks.

9/11:

I work for the 4th largest demolition contractor in the US, 8th in the world. I asked our explosives engineer to look at the 9/11 Mysteries DVD. He told me that he had 'heard about that crap' and did not believe any of it. However, reluctantly he agreed. A few months passed and I did not hear a thing from him. I figured he just tossed it and that was that. Then one day, he asked if I had lunch plans (which I did not). We ordered a pizza and went to the training room, where we have a 65" 1080 HD TV. We actually spent three hours in there and the bottomline is 'inclusive'. But, what he said is very interesting. If this thread stays alive, in a few days I will tell that story.

Prof.

Mar 9, 2008, 05:11 AM

<snip>
Eric, I can always count on you to reply to my posts.:p;)

well with this president, i think it's better we keep him in the dark about some stuff :D :D
I laughed so hard when I read this I cried

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 9, 2008, 08:46 AM

Might as well add my 2 cents,

Our own citizens have been killed in many places and all they have to say is national security and presto any law that was ever made just ups and disappears. Power without oversite leads to corruption. Look at those area 51 workers who died from toxic waste. 1st the govt wouldnt admit the base even existed and when it did all they had to do was use national security and every right,liberty or even law was eliminated or gone. We do have a govt working within a govt and these people arent elected,have no oversite and under national security can do near anything and I would doubt the president even has access to these places or people.
Just look at the ufo topic, if you examine the really solid cases you find a pattern of denial everytime or incompetance to the point of being near laughable. After 911 UFO reports were treated like jokes by our own govt. UFO over Chicago airport a year or so ago. response? it was a cloud. UFO seen over texas a month or two back,response? 1st we had no planes then we did and then the ufo was the F16s at least thats the latest govt story. One over Arizona I think it was in the 90's. They are still spinning it and these arent even the most solid cases. Seems the govt has been caught in lie after lie concerning these things since Roswell when at 1st a Disc was reported found then changed to balloon. I think we are being watched and have been watched since the dawn of man. History books and even the Bible are loaded with things flying in the sky while we were struggling with the wheel. To make a long story short our govt has told so many lies on this subject that its almost impossible for them to reveal the truth today plus I dont think man is ready to be told the truth. Heck we still have muslims killing folks over cartoons imagine what they would do if told the truth that another race has been watching us,taking samples, maybe even manipulating the human race for thousands of years. Man has really only had real technological progress for the past 100 years or so, Its possible and likely aliens could be thousands of years ahead of us in a universe thats billions of years old. If the govt knew this and they do they wouldnt want this out and so everytime something is seen,photographed, or observed the govt response is allways.....near comical or even pathetic. Plus the fact that this technology is so far ahead of us that our govt couldnt do anything about it even if they wanted except to say.....it was a cloud,no swamp gas,no it was our fighters or no it was a balloon or a star or anything other then the truth. Man planet wide isnt ready to admit we arent alone in this universe.
2 good web sites for more info is ufo evidence or ufo casebook. another rant is over:)

Badandy

Mar 9, 2008, 06:26 PM

I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe. In fact, it's almost a certainty based on probability.

I am, however, VERY skeptical about UFO's (referencing the above poster). Many times, they are unknown aircraft that are developed by LM SkunkWorks or a similar organization. Others are sighted by crazy people, and still other "evidence" is photoshopped. But the reason why I don't believe that there have been UFO's in our atmosphere is that if these aliens are thousands of years ahead of us in technological progress and have figured out how to travel to our planet from light years away, they would know how to go undetected. They would look at us from the outside or would have invisible camo or something. They wouldn't just willy-nilly fly through the sky, IMO.

EricNau

Mar 9, 2008, 06:58 PM

Many times, they are unknown aircraft that are developed by LM SkunkWorks or a similar organization. Others are sighted by crazy people, and still other "evidence" is photoshopped.
One also must remember that normal astronomical objects (such as the moon or venus) can appear very strange and unfamiliar under certain atmospheric conditions. Other times there truly are unidentifiable objects in the sky which look very peculiar indeed. By no means are many people who claim to have seen a alien spacecraft crazy; they just misinterpreted the evidence and jumped to an illogical conclusion based on today's culture.

Blue Velvet

Mar 9, 2008, 07:05 PM

It's the phenomena spotted by professional and trained observers that are uncanny; pilots and the like. Especially when they're corroborated by radar and Air Traffic Control.

I remember this event so clearly, I was 15 at the time, and even now the 'official' explanations sound like crap. Since when did Venus turn up on ground-based ATC radar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights

skunk

Mar 9, 2008, 07:43 PM

How did I miss that? What a story!

SMM

Mar 9, 2008, 08:07 PM

Well, at least we won't have another Clinton in the White House after a Bush, Clinton, Bush.

Ya, those years of prosperity under Bill Clinton were brutal. What was he thinking when he actually produced a budget surplus, for the first time in several generations? And, what is even worse, he wanted to squander the money away by bolstering social security and paying down the national debt. And, then there were those wars he got us into that lasted weeks and cost tens of lives (combined). We sure do not need that kind of leadership any more! :p

Hello.there

Mar 9, 2008, 08:15 PM

Badandy

Mar 9, 2008, 08:30 PM

Ya, those years of prosperity under Bill Clinton were brutal. What was he thinking when he actually produced a budget surplus, for the first time in several generations? And, what is even worse, he wanted to squander the money away by bolstering social security and paying down the national debt. And, then there were those wars he got us into that lasted weeks and cost tens of lives (combined). We sure do not need that kind of leadership any more! :p

Bill Clinton was far from the best president, but I don't want to get into that discussion. My point is that perhaps we should elect people based on merit rather than last name. Statistically speaking, the chances that we would elect 4 different people from the same two families in politics consecutively based on merit is ridiculously low.

And I was more taking a small shot at stevento (the Hillary "saddam" Clinton stan). ;)

stevento

Mar 9, 2008, 08:48 PM

Ya, those years of prosperity under Bill Clinton were brutal. What was he thinking when he actually produced a budget surplus, for the first time in several generations? And, what is even worse, he wanted to squander the money away by bolstering social security and paying down the national debt. And, then there were those wars he got us into that lasted weeks and cost tens of lives (combined). We sure do not need that kind of leadership any more! :p

i know!
how dare he improve our then failing schools and maintain our alliances around the world?! :mad:
the worst part was his bad habit of appointing qualified people to do their jobs i.e. FEMA :rolleyes:

Badandy

Mar 9, 2008, 09:02 PM

i know!
how dare he improve our then failing schools and maintain our alliances around the world?! :mad:
the worst part was his bad habit of appointing qualified people to do their jobs i.e. FEMA :rolleyes:

Look, if you guys think his presidency was all good, go ahead. That's not what this thread is about.

SMM

Mar 9, 2008, 11:11 PM

Look, if you guys think his presidency was all good, go ahead. That's not what this thread is about.

Badandy, I am not trying to bust your balls, but consider what you wrote, "Well, at least we won't have another Clinton in the White House after a Bush, Clinton, Bush."

I read this as an attack against Bill Clinton, although admittedly subtle. When you state, "Well, at least...", it makes me think you see that as the worse thing that could happen to us. I thought my response was specific to the point. I offered many examples of positive achievements President Clinton made. I also think I strayed away from making any personal attacks directed at you by using light sarcasm instead.

You point out, "That's not what this thread is about". You are correct. It is about conspiracy theory. If you go back and read the early posts, most were only marginally 'on subject'. Regardless, explain to me how my comment to your post was less 'on subject' than your post, which I was responding too. With that being said, I really am not that interested in a response. I would much prefer to have discussion and dialog with you. Afterall, do we not really come here to learn and share ideas?

Badandy

Mar 9, 2008, 11:38 PM

Badandy, I am not trying to bust your balls, but consider what you wrote, "Well, at least we won't have another Clinton in the White House after a Bush, Clinton, Bush."

I read this as an attack against Bill Clinton, although admittedly subtle. When you state, "Well, at least...", it makes me think you see that as the worse thing that could happen to us. I thought my response was specific to the point. I offered many examples of positive achievements President Clinton made. I also think I strayed away from making any personal attacks directed at you by using light sarcasm instead.

I know you aren't trying to bust my balls. It actually is all a misunderstanding. I wasn't taking a shot at Bill, I actually just put that post up there to tick stevento off (after all, he/she is the largest Hill supporter on this forum). It was in fun, and I wasn't trying to make any point at all.

K, back to conspiracies.

stevegmu

Mar 9, 2008, 11:46 PM

i know!
how dare he improve our then failing schools and maintain our alliances around the world?! :mad:
the worst part was his bad habit of appointing qualified people to do their jobs i.e. FEMA :rolleyes:

From what I recall, we had a Republican-led Congress during B. Clinton's presidency.
Ever hear of J. Reno or Waco? How about Somalia, or the internet bubble?

SMM

Mar 10, 2008, 12:56 AM

I know you aren't trying to bust my balls. It actually is all a misunderstanding. I wasn't taking a shot at Bill, I actually just put that post up there to tick stevento off (after all, he/she is the largest Hill supporter on this forum). It was in fun, and I wasn't trying to make any point at all.

K, back to conspiracies.

Gotcha. Sorry for not seeing through it. :)

solvs

Mar 10, 2008, 01:36 AM

From what I recall, we had a Republican-led Congress during B. Clinton's presidency.
We also had a GOP led Congress during most of Bush's presidency, and look at how that turned out.

Ever hear of J. Reno or Waco? How about Somalia, or the internet bubble?
Very few, if any of us, will defend these mistakes of that administration, but you ignore us if we do and defend the same or worse when Bush does it, but what does that have to do with conspiracy theories?

I figured you'd just call us all wackos liberals again and try to say we all believe all of this, even though we don't. :rolleyes:

yg17

Mar 10, 2008, 01:52 AM

Regarding 9/11, I think Bill Maher said it best on his show Friday night....Bush couldn't have been behind 9/11 it worked and it involved planning :D

ZiggyPastorius

Mar 10, 2008, 03:39 PM

Funny, I'm curious to know how that video demonstrates he wasn't shot from the front.... ;)

Um, maybe from the fact that the bullet enters the back of his head and exits the front? Simple physics shows that an exit hole is the one that is blown apart, thus causing his head to roll back. Again, I ask: How does this show he was shot from the front? Looks like he shoots backwards to me.

You know, I remember when I first saw that film....Besides being tremendously horrified by how disgusting the whole thing is, the first thing I said when I finished was actually, "Finally, conspiracy theorists will shut the hell up now." But I guess not. Not even a 1300 page book filled with evidences on both side that shows the truth is correct (the truth being that it was "the lone gunmen" as people say, Lee Harvey Oswald) can shake people. Bah, it just disturbs me to no end. But I suppose the government used their top secret magic guns to defy physics this one time, right?

it5five

Mar 10, 2008, 03:42 PM

Regarding 9/11, I think Bill Maher said it best on his show Friday night....Bush couldn't have been behind 9/11 it worked and it involved planning :D

Haha. Yep, that was funny. "Bush wasn't behind 9/11. Why? It involved PLANNING."

New Rules is always good.

scotthayes

Mar 10, 2008, 04:04 PM

If you get the chance to see this BBC show about September 11th it explains a great deal and debunks all the myths.

BBC Conspiracy Files (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm)

BoyBach

Mar 10, 2008, 05:35 PM

solvs

Mar 10, 2008, 09:27 PM

What was that old joke? There probably are aliens, but why would they come here because we're like the Alabama of the universe? Something like that.

BoyBach

Aug 4, 2008, 09:13 AM

Do they really think the earth is flat?

In the 21st Century, the term "flat-earther" is used to describe someone who is spectacularly - and seemingly wilfully - ignorant. But there is a group of people who claim they believe the planet really is flat. Are they really out there or is it all an elaborate prank?

Nasa is celebrating its 50th birthday with much fanfare and pictures of past glories. But in half a century of extraordinary images of space, one stands out.

On 24 December 1968, the crew of the Apollo 8 mission took a photo now known as Earthrise. To many, this beautiful blue sphere viewed from the moon's orbit is a perfect visual summary of why it is right to strive to go into space.

Not to everybody though. There are people who say they think this image is fake - part of a worldwide conspiracy by space agencies, governments and scientists.

Welcome to the world of the flat-earther.

Our attitude towards those who once upon a time believed in the flatness of the earth is apparent in a new Microsoft advert.

Depicting an olden-days ship sailing on rough seas, presumably heading towards the "edge of the world", the advert is part of a $300m campaign aimed at rescuing the reputation of Windows Vista by comparing its critics to flat-earthers.

Satellite era

But are there any genuine flat-earthers left? Surely in our era of space exploration - where satellites take photos of our blue and clearly globular planet from space, and robots send back info about soil and water from Mars - no one can seriously still believe that the Earth is flat?

Wrong.

Flat earth theory is still around. On the internet and in small meeting rooms in Britain and the US, flat earth believers get together to challenge the "conspiracy" that the Earth is round.

"People are definitely prejudiced against flat-earthers," says John Davis, a flat earth theorist based in Tennessee, reacting to the new Microsoft commercial.

"Many use the term 'flat-earther' as a term of abuse, and with connotations that imply blind faith, ignorance or even anti-intellectualism."

Mr Davis, a 25-year-old computer scientist originally from Canada, first became interested in flat earth theory after "coming across some literature from the Flat Earth Society a few years ago".

"I came to realise how much we take at face value," he says. "We humans seem to be pleased with just accepting what we are told, no matter how much it goes against our senses."

Mr Davis now believes "the Earth is flat and horizontally infinite - it stretches horizontally forever".
"And it is at least 9,000 kilometres deep", he adds.

James McIntyre, a British-based moderator of a discussion website theflatearthsociety.org, has a slightly different take. "The Earth is, more or less, a disc," he states. "Obviously it isn't perfectly flat thanks to geological phenomena like hills and valleys. It is around 24,900 miles in diameter."

Mr McIntyre, who describes himself as having been "raised a globularist in the British state school system", says the reactions of his friends and family to his new beliefs vary from "sheer incredulity to the conviction that it's all just an elaborate joke".

So how many flat-earthers are around today? Neither Mr Davis nor Mr McIntyre can say.

Disappearing ships

Mr McIntyre estimates "there are thousands", but "without a platform for communication, a head-count is almost impossible", he says. Mr Davis says he is currently creating an "online information repository" to help to bring together local Flat Earth communities into a "global community".

"If you will forgive my use of the term 'global'", he says.

And for the casual observer, it is hard to accept that all of this is not some bizarre 21st Century jape. After all, most schoolchildren know that ships can disappear over the horizon, that satellites orbit the earth and that if you head along the equator you will eventually come back on yourself.

What about all the photos from space that show, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the Earth is round? "The space agencies of the world are involved in an international conspiracy to dupe the public for vast profit," says Mr McIntyre.

John Davis also says "these photos are fake".

And what about the fact that no one has ever fallen off the edge of our supposedly disc-shaped world?

Mr McIntyre laughs. "This is perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions," he says. "A cursory examination of a flat earth map fairly well explains the reason - the North Pole is central, and Antarctica comprises the entire circumference of the Earth.
Circumnavigation is a case of travelling in a very broad circle across the surface of the Earth."

Ultimate conspiracy

Mr Davis says that being a flat-earther doesn't have an impact on how one lives every day. "As a rule of thumb, we don't have any fears of aircraft or other modes of transportation," he says.

Christine Garwood, author of Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea, is not surprised that flat-earthers simply write off the evidence that our planet is globular.

"Flat earth theory is one of the ultimate conspiracy theories," she says.

"Naturally, flat earth believers think that the moon landings were faked, as were the photographs of earth from space."

Perhaps one of the most surprising things in Garwood's book is her revelation that flat earth theory is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Ms Garwood says it is an "historic fallacy" that everyone from ancient times to the Dark Ages believed the earth to be flat, and were only disabused of this "mad idea" once Christopher Columbus successfully sailed to America without "falling off the edge of the world".

In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.

Theories about the earth being flat really came to the fore in 19th Century England. With the rise and rise of scientific rationalism, which seemed to undermine Biblical authority, some Christian thinkers decided to launch an attack on established science.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816-1884) assumed the pseudonym of "Parallax" and founded a new school of "Zetetic astronomy". He toured England arguing that the Earth was a stationary disc and the Sun was only 400 miles away.

In the 1870s, Christian polemicist John Hampden wrote numerous works about the Earth being flat, and described Isaac Newton as "in liquor or insane".

And the spirit of these attacks lives on to the present day. The flat-earth myth remains the outlandish king in the realm of the conspiracy theorist.

And while we all respect a degree of scepticism towards the authorities, says Ms Garwood, the flat-earthers show things can go too far.

"It is always good to question 'how we know what we know', but it is also good to have the ability to accept compelling evidence - such as the photographs of Earth from space."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm

128176

I don't know what to say.

EricNau

Aug 4, 2008, 03:29 PM

<Flat-Earth foolishness>

I don't know what to say.
Either do I.

Although essentially all conspiracy theories are the same. Hopefully the absurdities in this article highlight the fundamental flaws in other conspiracies as well.

SMM

Aug 4, 2008, 09:13 PM

Either do I.

Although essentially all conspiracy theories are the same. Hopefully the absurdities in this article highlight the fundamental flaws in other conspiracies as well.

It is important to keep in mind, we should not simply dismiss, what seems like a conspiracy, as just that. If the past four years have taught us anything, it should be that the preponderance of proven conspiracies should not be taken lightly. That does not suggest we should blindly accept them, but neither should we simply deny them. The best defense is to fairly evaluate the strength of the argument, separating conjecture from fact, and carefully weighing the supporting evidence.

63dot

Aug 6, 2008, 08:51 PM

Area 51? The JFK thing? Contrails? What's you guys take on stuff like this? I watched a show recently on the 9/11 attacks and was stunned at the number of people that still think that Bush implanted bombs inside the towers to make them explode...

And there's tons of websites devoted to "contrails" out there. It's really humurous at what people will believe.

Are aliens at Area 51? Did the Egyptians build the Pyramids? What do you guys believe in?

Probably the most controversial thing I believe may happen, as I made a thread here recently, is that there could be an Anti-Christ appearing in the future. Whether it's this year or a thousand years from now, there is no way of knowing.

While I don't believe there is solid evidence for UFOs, I am not against the idea that there is life on other planets. It's just that if UFOs have come here on an off, there has to be more physical evidence than some incomplete story about Area 51.

As far as pyramids, why couldn't the Egyptians build the pyramids? They have been found to have been far more advanced than previously thought.

As for JFK, I don't think it was the U.S. government, more than either from Oswald or him being paid to do the job by a known enemy like Castro or the organized crime syndicate. Unfortunately, if it was more than just Oswald, they got away with it so far.

And finally, 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda, and had absolutely no connection to Saddam Hussein, but that was a convenient excuse for Bush to invade. Early attacks against Bush early on were not invited, but the consensus by most is that the USA went into Iraq on false pretenses.

In my lifetime, the most unbelievable story was that a U.S. President would plan to break into the headquarters of an opposing political party. But as it turned out, Watergate became the strangest story, and biggest story and scandal in many decades. Even some of the craziest conspiracy theories I have seen are more tame than what eventually was dug up on Nixon.

Iscariot

Aug 6, 2008, 09:49 PM

Probably the most controversial thing I believe may happen, as I made a thread here recently, is that there could be an Anti-Christ appearing in the future. Whether it's this year or a thousand years from now, there is no way of knowing.

While I don't believe there is solid evidence for UFOs, I am not against the idea that there is life on other planets. It's just that if UFOs have come here on an off, there has to be more physical evidence than some incomplete story about Area 51.

There's more "evidence" for extra terrestrials than there is for an Anti-Christ.

obeygiant

Aug 6, 2008, 10:01 PM

There's more "evidence" for extra terrestrials than there is for an Anti-Christ.

Thats not good considering there is absolutely zero evidence for an anti-christ.

A more apt comparison would be that there more "evidence" for extra terrestrials than there is for the White House forging a letter to start the Iraq war.

63dot

Aug 6, 2008, 10:30 PM

There's more "evidence" for extra terrestrials than there is for an Anti-Christ.

Much of the Bible has little evidence and it comes down to being a religion. But at the same time, much can be implied but what bugs me is when Christians automatically say that UFOs cannot exist because the Bible says so or implies it. I have even heard some Christians claiming UFOs are demons but there is nothing in the Bible saying that or even hinting at that.

If the UFOs have been sighted as much as some believe, don't you think that there would be a crash or collision either with another UFO or human aircraft?

I will venture to say many believe that there is a God or Higher Power but many who believe so don't want evidence for that since it's their faith/piece of mind, but will want proof for UFOs, bigfoot, loch ness, or many other things before they will believe.

Whether this is fair or logical is up for debate, but until I see something or hear of something quite spectacular on the UFO front, I will remain skeptical.

solvs

Aug 6, 2008, 10:57 PM

A more apt comparison would be that there more "evidence" for extra terrestrials than there is for the White House forging a letter to start the Iraq war.
Are you talking about this:

Forging the missing case for war (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/08/06/suskind/print.html)
In further chronicles of Bush government deceit, author Ron Suskind drops a bombshell: The White House ordered the CIA to fake a letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida.

Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) anyone?

63dot

Aug 6, 2008, 11:07 PM

Are you talking about this:

Forging the missing case for war (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/08/06/suskind/print.html)

Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) anyone?

I am so glad that Bush will be out of Washington very soon. He fooled us in 2000, but I don't know what in the world made us vote for him again since it was not disputed by many that Bush had always wanted to invade Iraq.

obeygiant

Aug 6, 2008, 11:09 PM

But at the same time, much can be implied but what bugs me is when Christians automatically say that UFOs cannot exist because the Bible says so or implies it. I have even heard some Christians claiming UFOs are demons but there is nothing in the Bible saying that or even hinting at that.

The only thing I know in the bible even slightly resembling a UFO is Ezekiel's wheel. Otherwise I don't believe the book says much about ET.

solvs

Aug 6, 2008, 11:20 PM

I am so glad that Bush will be out of Washington very soon. He fooled us in 2000, but I don't know what in the world made us vote for him again since it was not disputed by many that Bush had always wanted to invade Iraq.

Since before 9/11. Yeah, we know now. You'd think it would have been in the MSM more. Like this. Guess not.

It was even clearly laid out by PNAC, but somehow we're the conspiracy theorists simply for pointing this out.

63dot

Aug 6, 2008, 11:22 PM

The only thing I know in the bible even slightly resembling a UFO is Ezekiel's wheel. Otherwise I don't believe the book says much about ET.

Ironically, I read that passage recently and I didn't come to any conclusion outside of Ezekiel, like many prophets, making a political commentary about Israel's enemies. This type of language is descriptive in a sense that it matched metaphors of the time about political parties and allied or enemy nations.

The animal analogies are not much different than the way America was described as an eagle and the Soviet Union as a bear.

Certainly, I will read this chapter tonight.

Iscariot

Aug 6, 2008, 11:59 PM

Thats not good considering there is absolutely zero evidence for an anti-christ.

A more apt comparison would be that there more "evidence" for extra terrestrials than there is for the White House forging a letter to start the Iraq war.

I think you missed where I was going with that, Mr. Giant. In a thread about conspiracies and supernatural events, I find it odd that one would believe in something of which there is no proof versus something of which there is at least a smattering of "proof". The [misguided] power of faith, perhaps.

Pleas do not crush me under your (I assume them to be) enormous sandals.

If the UFOs have been sighted as much as some believe, don't you think that there would be a crash or collision either with another UFO or human aircraft?

I think that any species capable of interstellar transport would be sufficiently advanced as to not crash in a desert. (As a note, I do not believe aliens have visited us).

I will venture to say many believe that there is a God or Higher Power but many who believe so don't want evidence for that since it's their faith/piece of mind, but will want proof for UFOs, bigfoot, loch ness, or many other things before they will believe.

Why would you willingly believe in something ridiculous with no proof at all (Anti-Christ) versus something of which there is at least a little evidence, even if it's extremely tenuous?

63dot

Aug 7, 2008, 08:27 AM

Why would you willingly believe in something ridiculous with no proof at all (Anti-Christ) versus something of which there is at least a little evidence, even if it's extremely tenuous?

Logically, my Christianity does not make sense and I will be the first to admit it. For me, it gives me a real piece of mind and makes me realize that what I sometimes consider important on this earth is not the ultimate in importance.

Where I think much of the world puts a high value on money, I believe that religion as it's written (and maybe not practiced) puts a higher value on loving your neighbor. Many who have faith know that they have not reached the ideal of loving your fellow human beings (and animals), but as long as there are people, there will be many who strive for that goal.

I know I will never be Christ-like and it's a goal I can never attain. But it has been a great ride so far. Other goals I have had in life I eventually succeed in but they really never give me happiness.

EricNau

Aug 7, 2008, 01:18 PM

It is important to keep in mind, we should not simply dismiss, what seems like a conspiracy, as just that. If the past four years have taught us anything, it should be that the preponderance of proven conspiracies should not be taken lightly. That does not suggest we should blindly accept them, but neither should we simply deny them. The best defense is to fairly evaluate the strength of the argument, separating conjecture from fact, and carefully weighing the supporting evidence.
True conspiracy theories violate this concept, however. All evidence in favor of their claims cannot be proven, and all the evidence against their claims are used by the believers as proof as a cover-up. Therefore, using scientific logic, you can't address conspiracy theories.

I'd argue that, in the absence of proof, one should dismiss these claims outright. The burden of proof lies with those making the claims, and if they fail to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they have no case.