my favourite conspiracy theory, and others

bbmac

Veteren member
Messages
3,584
Likes
789
Who shot JFK?

When Truman and Eisenhower left office they both warned of the growing influence and distorted power of the 'military industrial complex.' Since 1945 and 1975 the Usa increased it's military spending 100 fold in real terms. All post-ww2 Us presidents have succumbed to the power and influence of this lobby, with the exception being kennedy, (and possibly carter for different reasons.)

Kennedy although something of a war vet himself (albeit limited,) knew very early on that the war in vietnam could not be won, and seeing the bigger picture, he realised that fighting the cold war through 'client states' in tit-for-tat measures to halt communist expansion was going to prove very costly both fiscally, politically, and in american lives abroad. Truman had, to a large extent been bullied into increasing the Us participation in korea and kennedy feared the same pressures. (The Mcarthy witch hunt's were still afresh memory.) His running mate's primary campaign had been funded by just the kind of donations that would expect some return, (LBJ.) So putting him 'on the ticket' meant having the 'enemy' within, and manage-able which was preferable than not. He also figured that LBJ could bring Texas and some other states along with him in what would be a close contest with Nixon.

His stated policy of disentangling the Us from vietnam by the end of his 2nd term was an athema to the military and the industrial complex that profited from war. LBJ knew this too and was under their collective pressure for 'pay back.' But he was powerless against JFK, Robert kennedy, and mcnamara who formed the inner circle, - any 'elder statesman advice' coming from adlai stevenson - not lbj - who was out in the cold. I have little doubt that lbj was at the very least unconsciousely implicit in the events that followed.

Who most wanted Kennedy out the way, and who benefited most, was it Castro, The cuban rebels or the Mafia, well each had a strong case, - from the bay of pigs to robert kennedy's crackdown on the mob, but the biggest beneficiary was what eisenhower had turned as and warned of, 'the military industrial complex.'

Was the mob involved,? maybe as the hired shot, but in all probability it was the former's organisation that affected the demise of JFK (and later - probably Robert kennedy too,) and put LBJ, from Texas in the Whitehouse, who proceeded to massively increase engagement in Vietnam.

Whish state benefited most economically from Vietnam,? -Texas. Who's in the White house now? - a texan. Why didn't LBJ run for re-election in 68, his attempts to forge an 'honourable peace at the paris conference was seen as trechary by his doners, who switched to nixon, and sabotaged the peace plan through an intermediary acting on behalf of the Nixon camp, who let the opposing side know that more favourable terms would be on offer from the 'new' president. (Incidentally almost 6 more years of war resulted in Nixon achieving slightly less than LBJ had negotiated 6 years earlier.)

Carter was the other exception, he was a micro-manager who really couldn't see the big picture, and couldn't be got at - basically a pacisfst who opposed war as an instrument of policy on pseudo-religious/moralistic grounds. He was fed bad advice and a bad plan re; the iranian hostages, and was then resoundingly beaten by a neo-con republican who took us closer to the brink (although we didn't know it at the time) than any president before him, - Reagan. If Reagan had't have forced Hague to go as Secretary of State mid way through his first term, things might have been a lot different. As the Iranian contra affair proved reagan was the opposite of carter, he saw the big picture-that was fed to him, but had no eye for detail.

How did Bush lose the 92 election after having the highest approval rating in history, post gulf war, - he wouldn't go all the way to Baghdad after liberating kuwait, whose support did he lose? who has corrected this unfinished business? where is he from? who was his running mate? (now vice president) what is his background? This is how conspiracy theorys are born. You just have to unwrap the puzzle that itself is wrapped up in a riddle and surrounded by an enigma.




More recent conspiracy theorys:
1. Osama bin Laden is dead, The U.s know this but it suits their purpose to let the world think he is alive for 2 reasons; firstly so that a martyr doesn't emerge to fuel more extremism, and a vacumn isn't created that would be filled by who knows what, secondly to give the world an identifiable traget and face that it can focus on in the so called new war on terrorism-the net result being massive increases in military expenditure.

2. Is Myra Hindley still alive, and free with a new identity? possibly!


How true is all of the above...................................you decide. :?: :confused: :!:
 
Actually that's one conspiracy theory that I never did believe.
 
Appollo missions

One of my favourites is the one about how the US government and NASA faked the moon landings in a battle of one up manship with the USSR during the cold war.
Instead of landing on the Moon, the Apollo crews may have found their way to the Arizona/Nevada desert/s.

A recent documentary seemed to dispel this conspiracy theory as a myth, by discounting the conspiracy theories "evidence" as non-reliable - such as the shadows and the USA flag blowing in a breeze.

It's still an interesting conspiracy theory though, and if true, would demonstrate what our governemnts are capable of keeping hidden from us.
 
Last edited:
JTrader said:
One of my favourites is the one about how the US government and NASA faked the moon landings in a battle of one up manship with the USSR during the cold war.
Instead of landing on the Moon, the Apollo crews may have found their way to the Arizona/Nevada desert/s.

A recent documentary seemed to dispel this conspiracy theory as a myth, by discounting the conspiracy theories "evidence" as non-reliable - such as the shadows and the USA flag blowing in a breeze.

It's still an interesting conspiracy theory though, and if true, would demonstrate what our governemnts are capable of keeping hidden from us.

The lunar landings were used to precisely place a special reflective prism on the surface of the moon, which is still there today. It is used by scientists to measure the varying distance of the moon from the earth in its orbit. Anyone can point a laser at the publically available co-ordinates, and the prism will reflect the laser back to you.

None of the conspiracy theories has ever touched on the placement of this prism, because it conclusively proves that we did go, otherwise it wouldnt be there.
 
Arbitrageur said:
The lunar landings were used to precisely place a special reflective prism on the surface of the moon, which is still there today. It is used by scientists to measure the varying distance of the moon from the earth in its orbit. Anyone can point a laser at the publically available co-ordinates, and the prism will reflect the laser back to you.

None of the conspiracy theories has ever touched on the placement of this prism, because it conclusively proves that we did go, otherwise it wouldnt be there.

Hi Arb

yes i forgot about the prism. I think this may have been the concluding nail in the coffin of the lunar conspiracy theorists in the documentary.

I've just bought a National Geographic telescope for 1/2 price (£22.50) from Asda, with up to 525x magnification. Do you reckon I'll be able to see the flag? ;)
 
JTrader said:
Hi Arb

yes i forgot about the prism. I think this may have been the concluding nail in the coffin of the lunar conspiracy theorists in the documentary.

I've just bought a National Geographic telescope for 1/2 price (£22.50) from Asda, with up to 525x magnification. Do you reckon I'll be able to see the flag? ;)
National Geographic is an American institution and as such will be complicit in any cover up. The viewfinder will have a little US flag in it that will pop into focus when you aim the telescope at the moon ;)
 
I read a book titled Dark Moon, about the supposed conspiracy.
They tried to "prove" that EVERYTHING relating to the Apollo flights was a conspiracy, and the book became something of a parody of all-things-covered-up.

Pity really, as there were some good points, but ultimately, the fact is, astronauts did go to the moon.

examples given:
- the Saturn-V wasnt powerful enough to take them to the moon.
- the cosmic radiation should have fogged up the photographic plates
- the photos appeared to be "posed" - ie, astronaut, lander, (with the US flag "spotlighted" even when in shadow), even though all cameras were held on astronauts chest, rather than hand-held
- the solar radiation should have killed them
- the lander rockets should have left a crater on landing
- the Soviets also were in on the "conspiracy"

good, fun, book. but one-sided.
 
Arbitrageur said:
The lunar landings were used to precisely place a special reflective prism on the surface of the moon, which is still there today. It is used by scientists to measure the varying distance of the moon from the earth in its orbit. Anyone can point a laser at the publically available co-ordinates, and the prism will reflect the laser back to you.

None of the conspiracy theories has ever touched on the placement of this prism, because it conclusively proves that we did go, otherwise it wouldnt be there.

Is it possible though that the prism was placed on the moon after the supposed race with the russians to be the first on the moon?

They put the prism there at a later stage. Or was it placed on the 1 st historic landing of man on moon?
 
JTrader said:
One of my favourites is the one about how the US government and NASA faked the moon landings in a battle of one up manship with the USSR during the cold war.
Instead of landing on the Moon, the Apollo crews may have found their way to the Arizona/Nevada desert/s.

A recent documentary seemed to dispel this conspiracy theory as a myth, by discounting the conspiracy theories "evidence" as non-reliable - such as the shadows and the USA flag blowing in a breeze.

It's still an interesting conspiracy theory though, and if true, would demonstrate what our governemnts are capable of keeping hidden from us.
Since you mention it, there are three things that perplex me.

1. Why were the stars not visible at any time ?

2. Considering the lack of gravity on the moon, how is it that the film footage does not show huge leaps of 20, 30 40 feet, and why did the astronauts not take the precaution of anchoring themselves to the lunar surface with lanyards, for safety ?

3. If you look carefully at the flagpole being driven into the lunar sufface and the amount of effort expended to do it, how is it, considering the lack of gravity, that the astronauts' feet did not lift off the ground ? By comparison, try doing this underwater, and see what happens....:cheesy: ...you just push yourself off the bottom, that's what.
 
SOCRATES said:
Since you mention it, there are three things that perplex me.

1. Why were the stars not visible at any time ?

2. Considering the lack of gravity on the moon, how is it that the film footage does not show huge leaps of 20, 30 40 feet, and why did the astronauts not take the precaution of anchoring themselves to the lunar surface with lanyards, for safety ?

3. If you look carefully at the flagpole being driven into the lunar sufface and the amount of effort expended to do it, how is it, considering the lack of gravity, that the astronauts' feet did not lift off the ground ? By comparison, try doing this underwater, and see what happens....:cheesy:

hi Soc,

the general answers tend to be: (and I think make sense)
1: the stars were visible, but since the photographs were of brightly-lit nearby objects, the exposure time was naturally fast, and consequently, the stars (far away) were not included.
(ask any keen astronomer about taking pictures of stars, and what the exposure rate should be. ) try taking a photo here, on earth, of a close object, AND the stars.

2: the suits were restrictive, and didnt allow extensive movements of elbows, waist and knees, hence the "hopping" around to move, rather than "walking". they also carried poles, and arm extensor "grabs" to pick up objects from the ground.
also the safety aspect!!! calling 999 wouldnt have worked.

3: you got me on that one!
 
trendie said:
hi Soc,

the general answers tend to be: (and I think make sense)
1: the stars were visible, but since the photographs were of brightly-lit nearby objects, the exposure time was naturally fast, and consequently, the stars (far away) were not included.
(ask any keen astronomer about taking pictures of stars, and what the exposure rate should be. ) try taking a photo here, on earth, of a close object, AND the stars.

2: the suits were restrictive, and didnt allow extensive movements of elbows, waist and knees, hence the "hopping" around to move, rather than "walking". they also carried poles, and arm extensor "grabs" to pick up objects from the ground.
also the safety aspect!!! calling 999 wouldnt have worked.

3: you got me on that one!


Hmm but when they boarded the rocket for blast off to get to the moon did they 'Walk' to get in the rocket when on earth or did they 'Hop' ? like skippy the you know what. Or were they carried in etc? or did they wear different suits for the journey their ?
 
New World Order

This is another interesting CT -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)

New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi) refers to a conspiracy theory in which a powerful and secretive group is claimed to be planning to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in world power struggles.

In new world order conspiracy theories, many significant occurrences are caused by a powerful secret group. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through a combination of political finance and mind control.

..............The Worlds ruling elite, actually descend from lizards etc. etc. :devilish:
 
Last edited:
I watched Loose Change the other day, very interesting stuff.

One of the most peculiar things is that despite all these doubts/discrepancies the mainstream media are not following up on it.
 
To me it's most rational to assume that governments/military do do shocking, immoral, counter-intuitive things, because their game and stakes are so high, and just accept it as the natural, rational way that they would behave. It seems a lot more likely than them not doing it. If you accept that, then all the excitement and paranoia of conspiracy theories goes away.
 
blackcab said:
To me it's most rational to assume that governments/military do do shocking, immoral, counter-intuitive things, because their game and stakes are so high, and just accept it as the natural, rational way that they would behave. It seems a lot more likely than them not doing it. If you accept that, then all the excitement and paranoia of conspiracy theories goes away.

Yes , but some would say it's wrong for them to behave like that, the intention of it all , what is it they fear? And why can they not be honest or even visualise achieving their goals in some other less negative way. ?

Who has told them they way of rule is best headed by violence fear ,hate ,,control ,force etc?

Why do they not see another way? Why do they not choose to lead using the opposites ?


Then all humans will match a field's flush of poppies?
 
Top