People will always search for conspiracy's... About the moon, I believe they've really been there. Not a doubt. Isn't it true that the flag is still there a can be seen with some microscopes?
More interesting is the story that they've seen some very interesting stuff on their trip.. stuff that looked like some kind of extraterrestrial intelligence xD
About the 9-11 conspiracy. I don't know what to think about this. But I do now that Bush is not afraid of making sacrifices, to achieve his target.. his target to show his power all over the world... uhg -.-
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Mir@cle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
...About the 9-11 conspiracy. I don't know what to think about this. But I do now that Bush is not afraid of making sacrifices, to achieve his target.. his target to show his power all over the world... uhg -.-
[/QUOTE]
Well, however it is, I think it's something more related to economic interests (both personal and American) than to the will of "showing his power"... Bush family didn't start the rush towards the White House because they were actually into politics, in my opinion: it was just a mean through which achieve a position of control and orientate moneyflows...
But I don't find anything strange in all this: since the standard system adopted in the Western World became capitalism, the ones who actually hold power are those who can have influence on huge moneyflows... Therefore, Bush family is not a white fly.
As a consequence to what you said, Tijn, I'd like to quote once again Mr. Josef Stalin's sentence, though I've already put it in my reply few messages ago...
... "One single death is a tragedy. One million deaths is statistic"...
I once tried to look back to the history of the world, keeping these words clean in my mind: well, I'm sure that if everybody did the same, many odd things would be a little bit easier to be understood...
Oh, before I end this comment, I'd like to point out that what I show in relation to such topics is not a cheap cynism: for the record, my grandfather is one of WW2 Italian Resistance's Gold Medals... He was put to death when he was my age by Fascist and Nazi troops, so my family knows what that "one single death" means...
Under a historical point of view, he's a Gold Medal. Under his family point of view, he was a son, a husband, a dad. And he would have been a grandfather.
Don't know if this makes sense... Try to take what you please out of it...
:)
Alberto
...About the 9-11 conspiracy. I don't know what to think about this. But I do now that Bush is not afraid of making sacrifices, to achieve his target.. his target to show his power all over the world... uhg -.-
[/QUOTE]
Well, however it is, I think it's something more related to economic interests (both personal and American) than to the will of "showing his power"... Bush family didn't start the rush towards the White House because they were actually into politics, in my opinion: it was just a mean through which achieve a position of control and orientate moneyflows...
But I don't find anything strange in all this: since the standard system adopted in the Western World became capitalism, the ones who actually hold power are those who can have influence on huge moneyflows... Therefore, Bush family is not a white fly.
As a consequence to what you said, Tijn, I'd like to quote once again Mr. Josef Stalin's sentence, though I've already put it in my reply few messages ago...
... "One single death is a tragedy. One million deaths is statistic"...
I once tried to look back to the history of the world, keeping these words clean in my mind: well, I'm sure that if everybody did the same, many odd things would be a little bit easier to be understood...
Oh, before I end this comment, I'd like to point out that what I show in relation to such topics is not a cheap cynism: for the record, my grandfather is one of WW2 Italian Resistance's Gold Medals... He was put to death when he was my age by Fascist and Nazi troops, so my family knows what that "one single death" means...
Under a historical point of view, he's a Gold Medal. Under his family point of view, he was a son, a husband, a dad. And he would have been a grandfather.
Don't know if this makes sense... Try to take what you please out of it...
:)
Alberto
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fairy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions. [/QUOTE]
G. Gordon Liddy said that three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead. I may not know much about science, but I know plenty about human nature. To expect that hundreds of NASA employees would keep a secret as big as this is a bit of a stretch.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Think how much it is costing the US Government to keep them all quiet hahahahaha
A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions. [/QUOTE]
G. Gordon Liddy said that three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead. I may not know much about science, but I know plenty about human nature. To expect that hundreds of NASA employees would keep a secret as big as this is a bit of a stretch.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Think how much it is costing the US Government to keep them all quiet hahahahaha
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ian R wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think Bob Braeunig gives a very good explantion of why people tend to believe in things like the Moon landing hoax:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Why do people believe this stuff? [/QUOTENAME]
I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.
The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.
The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Thanks, great analysis! It has helped me understand why some people, even highly intelligent people, seem so eager to believe in conspiracies....
Must have to do with psychology as much as with politics...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Why do people believe this stuff? [/QUOTENAME]
I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.
The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.
The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Thanks, great analysis! It has helped me understand why some people, even highly intelligent people, seem so eager to believe in conspiracies....
Must have to do with psychology as much as with politics...
This is the same thing Mike Myers did in America (Fahrenheit 911) only with less money.
There's always someone passing along a conspiracy. There's still homeless vets in Deely Plaza handing out brochures, for gods sakes!!
What am I supposed to hate British people now? Cause someone said Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor?
And anyone whose a REAL doctor knows for a fact that we went to the moon.
I'm sure there's a video out there called "Hitler: A visionary of our time" but I'm not going to buy it. Go ahead, you all....
There's always someone passing along a conspiracy. There's still homeless vets in Deely Plaza handing out brochures, for gods sakes!!
What am I supposed to hate British people now? Cause someone said Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor?
And anyone whose a REAL doctor knows for a fact that we went to the moon.
I'm sure there's a video out there called "Hitler: A visionary of our time" but I'm not going to buy it. Go ahead, you all....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mircrowave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This is the same thing Mike Myers did in America (Fahrenheit 911) only with less money.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't know Austin Powers, The International Man of Mystery was anti-Bush.
Although I heard somewhere that Dick Cheney is Dr. Evil, and he's making a trillions of gazillions of dollars from Halliburton profits on the Iraq invasion.
Wonder if Dick Cheney has a Mini-me too.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't know Austin Powers, The International Man of Mystery was anti-Bush.
Although I heard somewhere that Dick Cheney is Dr. Evil, and he's making a trillions of gazillions of dollars from Halliburton profits on the Iraq invasion.
Wonder if Dick Cheney has a Mini-me too.
No, Michael Myers. The boogie man on Halloween.
[QUOTE]The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.[/QUOTE]
So, "the confused", because they are "open-minded", will come to see that the official stories are correct in the end. I'll leave it to readers here to judge if there is any bias in that statement or not.
[QUOTE]The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.
[/QUOTE]
I am disgusted by this portrayal of whom I'd like to call "seekers of the truth". The above quote of Bob Braeunig is completely full of generalizations. A conservative such as Fairy here was more than happy to see this paragraph of text, but below the surface, perhaps she sees this text as describing people who clearly have the willpower to bravely question the validity of certain things unlike herself. She speaks for millions.
"Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception."
Evidence, according to whom? This is a clear attempt of a speaker trying to manipulate the listener. The statement implies that the perspectives of the government and media are always correct. I am tired of the Bob Braeunigs of the world telling me I have preconceptions. I have no preconceptions, nor am I paranoid, as he also alleges. Do you think I want to believe that the Bush administration plotted 9/11 for political reasons? Do you think I want to accept that they currently feel no remorse for killing over 100,000 Iraqis (even though they have fed the media that it is only 30,000)? Who chose to arrest Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt counting the number of US deaths in Iraq? Someone who believes in democracy, and freedom of speech? Also, do you think I enjoy knowing that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about the lower-class black people in New Orleans, as was clearly shown after Katrina? Of course I don't.
Does that last paragraph look hostile? Yes, it does, but for different reasons than Mr. Braeunig had to offer. I am not "in denial of the truth". I am seeking the truth. I am tired of being told by people like him that free thought is a negative thing, and that by going against the grain of the media, I therefore must have an underlying agenda. I'm sure I am speaking for millions.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/09/coast-attack060209.html
Read the above article. Most recently, the Bush administration has now come up with a brilliant ploy to cover up for their wrongdoings while spying on the American people. According to Bush, there apparently was a planned terrorist attack on a skyscraper in Los Angeles, which they say they foiled in 2002. So, I ask, why didn't we hear about t
So, "the confused", because they are "open-minded", will come to see that the official stories are correct in the end. I'll leave it to readers here to judge if there is any bias in that statement or not.
[QUOTE]The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.
[/QUOTE]
I am disgusted by this portrayal of whom I'd like to call "seekers of the truth". The above quote of Bob Braeunig is completely full of generalizations. A conservative such as Fairy here was more than happy to see this paragraph of text, but below the surface, perhaps she sees this text as describing people who clearly have the willpower to bravely question the validity of certain things unlike herself. She speaks for millions.
"Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception."
Evidence, according to whom? This is a clear attempt of a speaker trying to manipulate the listener. The statement implies that the perspectives of the government and media are always correct. I am tired of the Bob Braeunigs of the world telling me I have preconceptions. I have no preconceptions, nor am I paranoid, as he also alleges. Do you think I want to believe that the Bush administration plotted 9/11 for political reasons? Do you think I want to accept that they currently feel no remorse for killing over 100,000 Iraqis (even though they have fed the media that it is only 30,000)? Who chose to arrest Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt counting the number of US deaths in Iraq? Someone who believes in democracy, and freedom of speech? Also, do you think I enjoy knowing that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about the lower-class black people in New Orleans, as was clearly shown after Katrina? Of course I don't.
Does that last paragraph look hostile? Yes, it does, but for different reasons than Mr. Braeunig had to offer. I am not "in denial of the truth". I am seeking the truth. I am tired of being told by people like him that free thought is a negative thing, and that by going against the grain of the media, I therefore must have an underlying agenda. I'm sure I am speaking for millions.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/09/coast-attack060209.html
Read the above article. Most recently, the Bush administration has now come up with a brilliant ploy to cover up for their wrongdoings while spying on the American people. According to Bush, there apparently was a planned terrorist attack on a skyscraper in Los Angeles, which they say they foiled in 2002. So, I ask, why didn't we hear about t
double post
sorry, triple post...
gah!! the forum is acting up tonight!
Yep, the board behaves weird.. strange error windows, while posts are made anyway. And I use the old board now, because I can't see anymore if there are new posts in the new one :S
In an instance where a particular allegation (i.e. that the Moon landings were hoaxed) is demonstrably false, Bob Braeunig’s analysis of those who still continue to lend credence to such a conspiracy theory works remarkably well. As someone who has debated many such hoax believers over the last decade, I can assure you that the vast majority fall into these two categories.
However, you've made the mistake of applying Bob B's article to the 9/11 conspiracies, which was never the intended goal of Bob in the first place. Since I am relatively unknowledgeable about the accusations regarding the New York and Pentagon attacks, I cannot say with any great certainty that there is a similarly between those who follow the two very different conspiracy theories.
Nevertheless, one thing I can say about both the Moon Hoaxers and the 9/11 Conspiracy buffs, is that a large number of both camps tend to spout a large amount of anti-US Government rhetoric.
Ian.
However, you've made the mistake of applying Bob B's article to the 9/11 conspiracies, which was never the intended goal of Bob in the first place. Since I am relatively unknowledgeable about the accusations regarding the New York and Pentagon attacks, I cannot say with any great certainty that there is a similarly between those who follow the two very different conspiracy theories.
Nevertheless, one thing I can say about both the Moon Hoaxers and the 9/11 Conspiracy buffs, is that a large number of both camps tend to spout a large amount of anti-US Government rhetoric.
Ian.
When the documentary states that 9 of the hijackers are still alive, surely if they had enough evidence to prove that then surely there would be a much bigger uproar about it........
Interesting documentary though.....
Interesting documentary though.....
talkin about big lies... the da vinci code... xD