Food & Drink6 mins ago
conspiracies everywhere
12 Answers
Does anyone give any credence to the raft of conspiracy theories that seem to be emerging every day?....eg. We did n`t go to the moon, 9/11, ufo and aliens cover up,new world order,secret governments etc etc. Some of them are absolute tripe, but a few get pretty close to the mark. The Freemasons is one that it would be good to lift the lid on, and is it true that the British government is thinking about setting up a special department to monitor all internet traffic?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I myself hold no stock in conspiracy theories or theorists.
Their arguments are ridiculous & easily explained.
Take the conspiracy that man never landed on the moon. They say if man really did then why haven't they done it again? Because it's heinously expensive!! And everything that was needed to understand the moon was taken on that landing & now they are looking further afield - pouring the money into that.
And the pentagon being blown up by the US themselves as there was no airplane wreckage. Well, the plane was loaded to the gills with fuel & those sorts of crashes obliterate most of the plane. Of course there was wreckage, just not big chunks of it.
Conspiracy theorists like complicated, convoluted explanations. They simply cannot or will not understand the simple answer. They figure there has to be a huge plot afoot. The americans are the worst for this as they look upon themselves as invincible. They can't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone for instance. How could one man kill the most powerful man on earth? No, it has to be much, much more than that they think.
Their arguments are ridiculous & easily explained.
Take the conspiracy that man never landed on the moon. They say if man really did then why haven't they done it again? Because it's heinously expensive!! And everything that was needed to understand the moon was taken on that landing & now they are looking further afield - pouring the money into that.
And the pentagon being blown up by the US themselves as there was no airplane wreckage. Well, the plane was loaded to the gills with fuel & those sorts of crashes obliterate most of the plane. Of course there was wreckage, just not big chunks of it.
Conspiracy theorists like complicated, convoluted explanations. They simply cannot or will not understand the simple answer. They figure there has to be a huge plot afoot. The americans are the worst for this as they look upon themselves as invincible. They can't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone for instance. How could one man kill the most powerful man on earth? No, it has to be much, much more than that they think.
I have a great conspiracy theory.
In the fifties the UK government and the French conspired with the Israelis so they would invade Egypt and we'd use the pretext to seize control of the Suez canal.
Oh sorry that's history isn't it - still it was a conspiracy theory at the time!
And it seems a small but significant number of people on here think huge numbers of the world's scientists are conspiring to defraud world Governments of research funds on the pretext of an invented global warming.
And apparently that's not a conspiracy theory at all!
In the fifties the UK government and the French conspired with the Israelis so they would invade Egypt and we'd use the pretext to seize control of the Suez canal.
Oh sorry that's history isn't it - still it was a conspiracy theory at the time!
And it seems a small but significant number of people on here think huge numbers of the world's scientists are conspiring to defraud world Governments of research funds on the pretext of an invented global warming.
And apparently that's not a conspiracy theory at all!
The problem is that some people will never be happy with the expanation they have been given.
Imagine if tomorrow Obama announced that the moon landings were a hoax, that it was the US that orchestrated Sept 11th to have a reason to go into Afghanistan and the FBI assassinated Kennedy.
Do you think all the conspiracy theorists would be happy with that? No. They would immediately conjure up more theories about why they were being told that and what the US is covering up by telling them that etc.etc.etc.
Imagine if tomorrow Obama announced that the moon landings were a hoax, that it was the US that orchestrated Sept 11th to have a reason to go into Afghanistan and the FBI assassinated Kennedy.
Do you think all the conspiracy theorists would be happy with that? No. They would immediately conjure up more theories about why they were being told that and what the US is covering up by telling them that etc.etc.etc.
The trouble is that some conspiracy theories have merit, some don't.
Personally I have doubts about the moon landings but I have no doubt about Diana's death. I have concerns about the plane landing in the Pentagon but not so much of a concern regarding the planes into the twin towers.
But even the word 'conspiracy theorist' has negative connotations - and people assume that if you believe one, you believe them all.
Personally I have doubts about the moon landings but I have no doubt about Diana's death. I have concerns about the plane landing in the Pentagon but not so much of a concern regarding the planes into the twin towers.
But even the word 'conspiracy theorist' has negative connotations - and people assume that if you believe one, you believe them all.
I agree on principle with but not with his examples. The trouble is that the 1% (or less) of conspiracy theories that are worth taking seriously are tarred with the same brush as the 99% (or more) which are rubbish. The idea that they are all rubbish assumes a perfectly honest world in which no-one, not even politicians, ever try to hide the truth. An example:
I have no idea whether JFK�s murder was the result of a conspiracy. How could I possibly know that? But I do know that there was a conspiracy to cover up the facts afterwards. And I know that because I can see it for myself.
When we could see all of the Zappruder film it was instantly obvious that the shot which killed JFK, the one that shattered his skull, came from the front.
No shot from the rear could have made his head snap backwards like that and shoot chunks of his head over the car boot. His head would have been knocked forward and the debris propelled over the Governor and his wife in the front seats. You don�t have to be any sort of a crank to see this. And I say a conspiracy because:
1. We were officially allowed to see the whole film and did so only because a TV producer breached Time-Life�s copyright and showed it anyway, as late as the 1980s I think.
2. The frames published by the Warren Commission were in the wrong order, thus concealing the fact that the head snapped backwards. (A mistake? Maybe, but one that was never acknowledged or corrected.)
3. The sequence of frames published by Time-Life omitted those tell-tale frames, again hiding the movement of the head.
The ironic thing is that if Oswald did actually fire the first shot from the rear (and we don�t know that) and had been brought to trial he could have been charged only with attempted murder because no-one can know whether JFK would have died from that shot before being killed from the front. Oh
I have no idea whether JFK�s murder was the result of a conspiracy. How could I possibly know that? But I do know that there was a conspiracy to cover up the facts afterwards. And I know that because I can see it for myself.
When we could see all of the Zappruder film it was instantly obvious that the shot which killed JFK, the one that shattered his skull, came from the front.
No shot from the rear could have made his head snap backwards like that and shoot chunks of his head over the car boot. His head would have been knocked forward and the debris propelled over the Governor and his wife in the front seats. You don�t have to be any sort of a crank to see this. And I say a conspiracy because:
1. We were officially allowed to see the whole film and did so only because a TV producer breached Time-Life�s copyright and showed it anyway, as late as the 1980s I think.
2. The frames published by the Warren Commission were in the wrong order, thus concealing the fact that the head snapped backwards. (A mistake? Maybe, but one that was never acknowledged or corrected.)
3. The sequence of frames published by Time-Life omitted those tell-tale frames, again hiding the movement of the head.
The ironic thing is that if Oswald did actually fire the first shot from the rear (and we don�t know that) and had been brought to trial he could have been charged only with attempted murder because no-one can know whether JFK would have died from that shot before being killed from the front. Oh
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
How Many Onn Here Thinkthis Is...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.