[Misc] JFK Assassination 59 years on

[Bold Seagull]

Moon landings - not particularly likely the 1969 one happened, no. Too many Hollywood people involved in early NASA.
Alien visitations - if the universe is as big as claimed, it is near impossible that we haven't had visitors
Aliens stored in Area 51 - not seen any compelling evidence that this is the case so this one might well be false
9/11 - may or may not have happened as described, but the executive arm (the CIA) of the yankee banks as well as the US govt had the strongest motifs to make it happen

"Mainstream" theories that seem unlikely: flat earth, the Jewish global conspiracy (there is a global conspiracy but it doesn't have any ethnic or religious origin), Marxist conspiracy theory (the idea that 'socialists' and 'communists' are taking over the world is... a funny one as it would serve no purpose), WW2/holocaust denial (politically a far more complex war than people think, but it did indeed happen and so did the killings of millions of jews).

Alien visitations - if the universe is as big as claimed, then it is a near certainty that they wouldn't be able to visit.

It's not just size either, it's time. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It pretty much took 4.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. So the universe is actually only 3 x older than it took intelligent life to evolve on Earth.

So not only are you talking vast distance to travel in terms of visit, you are also talking about a vast coincidence of time.

While not strictly a science fiction film, one thing George Lucas got right was 'a long long time ago...in a galaxy far far away'.

 

[Swansman]

That isn't what the article says though. And no one believes EVERYTHING that governments etc say, of course they lie - only this time they didn't.

Your attitude is common though and I don't blame you for not looking as I understand that you would find it challenging. When theories (conspiracy or otherwise) are debunked their adherents usually never say "Blimey, I was wrong". Instead they double down and maintain that they ARE right despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don't expect you to be any different. You could ponder though as to how they faked it, especially the source of the radio signals from the lunar craft as it travelled to, and landed on the moon, and also having successfully faked it why they felt the need to fake it a further FIVE times.

Anyway, don't bother replying, sit there with you bag over your head, it doesn't matter to me. Have a good evening.

Funny, when I say "go read this yourself" I get the response "lololol conspiracy theorists always telling you to 'do your own research'!" and when I won't read the shit you wash your brains with it is "typical conspiracy theorists not to go and listen to this piece of "information").

No one here is going to read 'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing just because I tell them to, neither are they going to read Gustave Le Bons "Psychology of Crowds" to understand how it is very easy to brainwash the majority of people. And similarly, I'm not going to hear or read yet another "psychologist" describing why every fringe theory is some kind of psychological illusion.

 

[beorhthelm]

the fun thing about conspiracies usually, they dont answer any question while raising more questions (which is great, leads to more speculative questions and rumination), and secondly they involve organisations trying to achive an aim indirectly that have have the power to act on directly. and there's a coverup of the coverup by a large government agency, yet Brad from Wichita has sussed them.

 

[Swansman]

the fun thing about conspiracies usually, they dont answer any question while raising more questions (which is great, leads to more speculative questions and rumination), and secondly they involve organisations trying to achive an aim indirectly that have have the power to act on directly. and there's a coverup of the coverup by a large government agency, yet Brad from Wichita has sussed them.

Yeah I'd say you are partially spot on there: the difference between us conspiracy theorists and you mainstreamers is that we ask questions.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Yeah I'd say you are partially spot on there: the difference between us conspiracy theorists and you mainstreamers is that we ask questions.

the difference between mainstreamers and conspiracy theorists is that we ( mainstreamers) ask questions and then read up to find answers rather than just ask weird questions and then refer to unverified and very questionable sources, or just asks the question and leaving at that.

 

[Swansman]

the difference between mainstreamers and conspiracy theorists is that we ( mainstreamers) ask questions and then read up to find answers rather than just ask weird questions and then refer to unverified and very questionable sources, or just asks the question and leaving at that.

Funny thing is that I find the sources giving the answers to mainstreamers (the few times they don't shape their world around headlines) highly biased and very questionable.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Yup, they would.

And nah I'm good, I've heard and seen enough of the "all conspiracy theorists are crazy and all who believe everything that govts and the likes claim are perfectly sane" kind of stuff.

Cool. It’s not about people believe who believe in conspiracy theories being crazy.

That isn't what the article says though. And no one believes EVERYTHING that governments etc say, of course they lie - only this time they didn't.

Your attitude is common though and I don't blame you for not looking as I understand that you would find it challenging. When theories (conspiracy or otherwise) are debunked their adherents usually never say "Blimey, I was wrong". Instead they double down and maintain that they ARE right despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don't expect you to be any different. You could ponder though as to how they faked it, especially the source of the radio signals from the lunar craft as it travelled to, and landed on the moon, and also having successfully faked it why they felt the need to fake it a further FIVE times.

Anyway, don't bother replying, sit there with your bag over your head, it doesn't matter to me. Have a good evening.

The psychology behind why people need conspiracy theories is a lot more interesting than the conspiracy theories themselves. Ironically, the notion that academics whom study conspiracy theorists are ‘crazy’ is a conspiracy theory in itself.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Funny, when I say "go read this yourself" I get the response "lololol conspiracy theorists always telling you to 'do your own research'!" and when I won't read the shit you wash your brains with it is "typical conspiracy theorists not to go and listen to this piece of "information").

No one here is going to read 'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing just because I tell them to, neither are they going to read Gustave Le Bons "Psychology of Crowds" to understand how it is very easy to brainwash the majority of people. And similarly, I'm not going to hear or read yet another "psychologist" describing why every fringe theory is some kind of psychological illusion.

Kaysing a man who if descriptions are anything to go by had a nervous breakdown and went on walkabout, not exactly what I would call reliable.
Gustav Le Bon last work was in 1931. The field has come on from his work so would suggest reading someone a bit more up to date, don’t throw it out but widen to reading.

As an aside, if you think the moon landings are impossible then don’t look at semiconductor development … mad!

 

[Swansman]

Cool. It’s not about people believe who believe in conspiracy theories being crazy.

The psychology behind why people need conspiracy theories is a lot more interesting than the conspiracy theories themselves. Ironically, the notion that academics whom study conspiracy theorists are ‘crazy’ is a conspiracy theory in itself.

I can see how people find it interesting. Usually strongly disagree with the theories on why we "need conspiracy theories" though.

In a similar manner, I find the psychology behind why mos people cognitively need to stick with mainstream thinking more interesting than mainstream thinking itself. Also find it quite interesting how to manipulate minds in various manners.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I can see how people find it interesting. Usually strongly disagree with the theories on why we "need conspiracy theories" though.

In a similar manner, I find the psychology behind why mos people cognitively need to stick with mainstream thinking more interesting than mainstream thinking itself. Also find it quite interesting how to manipulate minds in various manners.

Manipulating minds is very much what those that propose conspiracies have a habit of doing ….

 

[Swansman]

Manipulating minds is very much what those that propose conspiracies have a habit of doing ….

That is possible, don't think we're very good at that in that case.
If we had any success in that, we wouldn't live in a permanent global oligarchy where 0.001% own like half of the planet and have done so sometimes for centuries.

Still much preferable to getting your mind manipulated, which is very much what mainstreamers are keen on.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Funny thing is that I find the sources giving the answers to mainstreamers (the few times they don't shape their world around headlines) highly biased and very questionable.

by ‘highly biased’ you actually mean ’factual and peer reviewed’. They are questionable because they don’t align with your narrative and are in all likelihood from accepted sources.
if you want to do this properly can I suggest you perform a literature review on the moon landings, or lack of them in your case. BTW, Lit reviews are very painful and often tedious.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

That is possible, don't think we're very good at that in that case.
If we had any success in that, we wouldn't live in a permanent global oligarchy where 0.001% own like half of the planet and have done so sometimes for centuries.

Still much preferable to getting your mind manipulated, which is very much what mainstreamers are keen on.

That last bit doesn’t actually make sense.

 

[Swansman]

by ‘highly biased’ you actually mean ’factual and peer reviewed’. They are questionable because they don’t align with your narrative and are in all likelihood from accepted sources.
if you want to do this properly can I suggest you perform a literature review on the moon landings, or lack of them in your case. BTW, Lit reviews are very painful and often tedious.

Factual - dubious. "Peer reviewed" only means something if Karl Popper is your God, and he isn't mine. To be fair though, I was more referring to what most mainstreamers read, which isn't usuallly research but most often newspaper bollocks.

That last bit doesn’t actually make sense.

Mainstreamers likes to have their minds manipulated was what I was trying to say. Sentence was a little clunky.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yeah I'd say you are partially spot on there: the difference between us conspiracy theorists and you mainstreamers is that we ask questions.

... where none are needed. what is the objective to fake moon landing, why do it? why does questioning of the landing arise?

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Factual - dubious. "Peer reviewed" only means something if Karl Popper is your God, and he isn't mine. To be fair though, I was more referring to what most mainstreamers read, which isn't usuallly research but most often newspaper bollocks.

Mainstreamers likes to have their minds manipulated was what I was trying to say. Sentence was a little clunky.

Clearly someone that hasn’t carried out an academic research piece, in fact a very purile statement on your part. The fact that you can actually post that using the technology at your disposal is down to peer reviewed work. FWIW, the history of semiconductor design and manufacture is IMHO equally as impressive as the space race.

It may surprise you that a very many of us don’t get our info solely from newspapers because it is as you say, in the most parts bollocks.

For a bit of light reading on the build up to the Apollo programme try Tom Wolf’s - The Right Stuff.

 

[Swansman]

... where none are needed. what is the objective to fake moon landing, why do it?

There could be multiple purposes really.

- Spending billions on space technology is better motivated with "we're gonna explore space" than "we're gonna develop equipment to enhance control and propaganda spread".
- A nice little moon landing is a nice distraction from a useless shambolic war.
- Easy to forget that in the 50s over 50% of all Americans believed in UFOs and that, until policy changed to "there's no such shit", plenty of govt and military people in the US claimed to have no idea what they were dealing with. Sending some people to the moon was a good way of saying "nothing to see here, move on" and "we're the US govt, we are always fully in control of everything, keep your trust in us".

 

[beorhthelm]

There could be multiple purposes really.

- Spending billions on space technology is better motivated with "we're gonna explore space" than "we're gonna develop equipment to enhance control and propaganda spread".
- A nice little moon landing is a nice distraction from a useless shambolic war.
- Easy to forget that in the 50s over 50% of all Americans believed in UFOs and that, until policy changed to "there's no such shit", plenty of govt and military people in the US claimed to have no idea what they were dealing with. Sending some people to the moon was a good way of saying "nothing to see here, move on" and "we're the US govt, we are always fully in control of everything, keep your trust in us".

all good reasons to go to the moon. why fake it? you have to suppose that it was some reason unachievable, so faked. so are the rockets, the tech and science all faked too? do we have no space station or satellites either?

 

[Winker]

Why do people always assume that aliens will have had to travel hundreds of light years to get here?
They could actually be living within our solar system.
Mars used to have an atmosphere and liquid water, how advanced was any life on there before it disappeared?
Then there is planet 'X', a theoretical planet that has not been discovered yet.

(I won't push my luck with the planet Nibiru or the moon being artificial and hollow, I'll leave them to @you-know-who)

 

[Zeberdi]

. where none are needed. what is the objective to fake moon landing, why do it? why does questioning of the landing arise?

I don‘t for one second countenance the idea that the moon landings were fake but if you were to seek a justification for creating such a blinding deception than here’s your reason, right here: https://www.rice.edu/kennedy. (‘Presidents should never promise a cure for cancer (sic or getting a man on the moon) in the State of the Union’ as President Bartlett was advised by Sam Westbourne in the West Wing).

America had been beaten by the Russians into space with Sputnik in 1957, in 1961-2 Kennedy was quite literally promising the moon - the politically charged moon mission became the focus of his presidency and relations with NASA were fraught with a lack of congressional funding and what could realistically be achieved. Kennedy then did a volte face on his ‘space race’ with the Russians and announced it should be a joint venture with them. A year later he was shot dead leaving a Country demoralised and reeling. Lyndon Johnson then publicly stated that the Apollo 11 mission would be a tribute to Kennedy and submitted a request for an increase in funding for NASA in his first budget with a determination to revitalise the Apollo program..

If the Apollo 11 mission had failed, it would have been a spectacular disaster for NASAs hope of any further space funding, for the legacy of an assassinated president and would have been a major embarrassment for the Johnson administration and for Johnson himself who had since 1957 hitched his presidential ambitions to space exploration, it would have have left his political reputation in tatters - (subsequently Vietnam would have that honour.)

So, if I were to look for a ‘why fake it‘, this is where I would start …however, if I believed a scam of such a magnitude could not be revealed for what it was with all the advances in technology and the sheer numbers of people involved, I would have to believe too that I had been conned into believing that the world was flat - which frankly is laughable