Conspiracy Theories


Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you not think that if they were fake the ussr would have known and blown them out of the water so to speak.

Yeh, but I just find it hard to believe that the Russians beat them to it putting a man into orbit and then, just eight years from that, the Americans suddenly had the technology not only to go into space like the Russians but go all the way and land on the surface of the moon. And back. All safe and sound. And that's not taking into account the 'documentary' from a few years back questioning a number of 'issues' about the 1969 moon landing either. I just find it hard to believe that technology from 1961 to 1969 became that much improved that a moon landing was made possible. Eight years of technology today could have done that but in the 1960s ? I'm not saying it didn't happen but I'm not fully convinced that it did either. It's an open question for me is all I'm saying.
 
Yeh, but I just find it hard to believe that the Russians beat them to it putting a man into orbit and then, just eight years from that, the Americans suddenly had the technology not only to go into space like the Russians but go all the way and land on the surface of the moon. And back. All safe and sound. And that's not taking into account the 'documentary' from a few years back questioning a number of 'issues' about the 1969 moon landing either. I just find it hard to believe that technology from 1961 to 1969 became that much improved that a moon landing was made possible. Eight years of technology today could have done that but in the 1960s ? I'm not saying it didn't happen but I'm not fully convinced that it did either. It's an open question for me is all I'm saying.

Apollo 11 left retroreflectors (essentially high-tech mirrors that bounce back light) which, if tracking the rocket all the way to the surface of the moon and back hadn't already, gave the Soviets irrefutable evidence that they were beaten to it.

As has been said, even the smallest doubt and the USSR would've been all over them like a rash.
 
even if its not all true with the JFK assassination it makes for good reading and some of the stuff i have read on it does point to government involvement.

cheers for upping the links waltermitty
 
Yeh, but I just find it hard to believe that the Russians beat them to it putting a man into orbit and then, just eight years from that, the Americans suddenly had the technology not only to go into space like the Russians but go all the way and land on the surface of the moon. And back. All safe and sound. And that's not taking into account the 'documentary' from a few years back questioning a number of 'issues' about the 1969 moon landing either. I just find it hard to believe that technology from 1961 to 1969 became that much improved that a moon landing was made possible. Eight years of technology today could have done that but in the 1960s ? I'm not saying it didn't happen but I'm not fully convinced that it did either. It's an open question for me is all I'm saying.

So the alternative theory would be that every single one of the tens of thousands of Americans involved in several faked moon landings have all kept their mouths shut about "the truth" for four decades?
 
Last edited:
The Military Industrial Complex, and to prolong the Vietnam war

Kennedy was making noises to end US involvement

Undoubtedly this.

There was a whole consortium of people who wanted him whacked and would have benefitted from it, hence Greedy's list of rogues, but ultimately this was the prime motivation and the MIC's shady top level operatives in smoke filled rooms had the power to make it happen.
 
I know it sounds stupid to question something like that but there is still something about it that doesn't sound quite right to me. I would love to be able to think that the human race developed the space technology this much in just a few years but in the 1960s I'm just not fully convinced it was possible that fast and with such a successful outcome. Whether or not the 1969 moon landing took place I'm convinced there is more to this than we are being told.
 
Undoubtedly this.

There was a whole consortium of people who wanted him whacked and would have benefitted from it, hence Greedy's list of rogues, but ultimately this was the prime motivation and the MIC's shady top level operatives in smoke filled rooms had the power to make it happen.



fact is and this points to why it was never investigated properly to this day

everyone wanted him or bobby dead , everyone benefited and everyone was guilty
 
I know it sounds stupid to question something like that but there is still something about it that doesn't sound quite right to me. I would love to be able to think that the human race developed the space technology this much in just a few years but in the 1960s I'm just not fully convinced it was possible that fast and with such a successful outcome. Whether or not the 1969 moon landing took place I'm convinced there is more to this than we are being told.

It doesn't sound stupid to question it, though it does sound stupid to close your ears to the answers that have been given to you.

The technology had been developed over decades. The Yanks and Soviets scalped the best rocket engineers the Nazis had to offer when the war ended. Add to that massive, massive investment, a can-do attitude, an intercontinental competition for technological, military and political dominance plus a lot of trial and error, and you've got a moon landing.
 
fact is and this points to why it was never investigated properly to this day

everyone wanted him or bobby dead , everyone benefited and everyone was guilty

I've come to the conclusion that the hit was supposed to be done then Oswald blamed and whacked and that would be that. One lone nut, mystery solved with his death. The situation was in many ways unprecedented so there is absolutely nee way the perpetrators could have foreseen the shit storm of theories and possible permutations that came out of it, but in the end it worked to their advantage as the confusion served to mask the reality of the whole situation and as you say, so many were complicit either directly or indirectly, even up to CBS news trying to hide the existence of the Zapruder film and discredit Garrison.
 
I've come to the conclusion that the hit was supposed to be done then Oswald blamed and whacked and that would be that. One lone nut, mystery solved with his death. The situation was in many ways unprecedented so there is absolutely nee way the perpetrators could have foreseen the shit storm of theories and possible permutations that came out of it, but in the end it worked to their advantage as the confusion served to mask the reality of the whole situation and as you say, so many were complicit either directly or indirectly, even up to CBS news trying to hide the existence of the Zapruder film and discredit Garrison.

look at the reason for free speech, in that the truth can be hidden easier,in the midst of "whack jobs and nutters" there is the truth, nicely waiting for you if you look very hard

on the subject of films, watch the one taken from the opposite side to the grassy knowl, watch where people are running to after the president was hit also the family in the ZF clearly state the fatal shot came from over their shoulder (the grassy knowl)as did over 50 (iirc) other witnesses
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't sound stupid to question it, though it does sound stupid to close your ears to the answers that have been given to you.

The technology had been developed over decades. The Yanks and Soviets scalped the best rocket engineers the Nazis had to offer when the war ended. Add to that massive, massive investment, a can-do attitude, an intercontinental competition for technological, military and political dominance plus a lot of trial and error, and you've got a moon landing.

So in just eight years back in the 1960s the US failed to get a man into space first only to successfully land on the moon and back. That to me is a very impressive improvement on technology and makes me wonder even more. If space technology improved that much in just eight years 35-40 years ago then how come the technology hasn't (pardon the pun) rocketed even further in the 35-40 years that followed ? Surely with improvements like that 40 years ago we should be further now than 'just' putting together a space station just outside the Earth ? It's all a mystery to me. :oops:
 
I don't even think you have to look that hard once you blow awaythe chaff of the total non believers on one side and some of the more whacky theories on the other. Oliver Stone pointed the way in his film. It was admittedly flawed, even by Stone himself, but he laid out a clear pathway as to the motivation and execution of the whole thing. The fact that certain entities tried to have his film banned BEFORE HE HAD EVEN COMPLETED HIS f***ing SCRIPT or even shot a foot of film just goes to prove how the paranoia is still out there.

Sidebar - how come The Kennedys is being shown on the History Channel back home? THC originally backed it then pulled out as their owners are about to publish a book by Caroline Kennedy who didn't want this shown, and it ended up being financed and shown by some obscure cable channel (which I don't have - Grrrrrrrrr!) from Little Rock Arkansas or summat?

So in just eight years back in the 1960s the US failed to get a man into space first only to successfully land on the moon and back. That to me is a very impressive improvement on technology and makes me wonder even more. If space technology improved that much in just eight years 35-40 years ago then how come the technology hasn't (pardon the pun) rocketed even further in the 35-40 years that followed ? Surely with improvements like that 40 years ago we should be further now than 'just' putting together a space station just outside the Earth ? It's all a mystery to me. :oops:

The public got bored with the moon and NASA's budget was severely cut and/or shifted to shuttle technology. Once again the MIC steered budgetting more towards weapons. Northrup designed and tested a craft that looked a lot like the current shuttle decades before but he fell afoul of the powers that be and thus research was set back many years.

If you watch a flick like The Good Shepherd (OK it's a film but loosely based on factual characters) it's strongly hinted how the power is held within a few people/families and the president is just a bit of a distraction as he's not really involved.
 
So in just eight years back in the 1960s the US failed to get a man into space first only to successfully land on the moon and back. That to me is a very impressive improvement on technology and makes me wonder even more. If space technology improved that much in just eight years 35-40 years ago then how come the technology hasn't (pardon the pun) rocketed even further in the 35-40 years that followed ? Surely with improvements like that 40 years ago we should be further now than 'just' putting together a space station just outside the Earth ? It's all a mystery to me. :oops:

It only makes you wonder if you want to wonder. It's a fine achievement, that's partly why it's one of the iconic moments of the 20th Century.

Of course, this is all academic. The retroreflectors, lack of Soviet complaint and independent verification from tracking observatories in Spain and Germany prove it. It's easily one of the stupidest conspiracy theories out there.
 
I don't even think you have to look that hard once you blow awaythe chaff of the total non believers on one side and some of the more whacky theories on the other. Oliver Stone pointed the way in his film. It was admittedly flawed, even by Stone himself, but he laid out a clear pathway as to the motivation and execution of the whole thing. The fact that certain entities tried to have his film banned BEFORE HE HAD EVEN COMPLETED HIS f***ing SCRIPT or even shot a foot of film just goes to prove how the paranoia is still out there.

Sidebar - how come The Kennedys is being shown on the History Channel back home? THC originally backed it then pulled out as their owners are about to publish a book by Caroline Kennedy who didn't want this shown, and it ended up being financed and shown by some obscure cable channel (which I don't have - Grrrrrrrrr!) from Little Rock Arkansas or summat?



The public got bored with the moon and NASA's budget was severely cut and/or shifted to shuttle technology. Once again the MIC steered budgetting more towards weapons. Northrup designed and tested a craft that looked a lot like the current shuttle decades before but he fell afoul of the powers that be and thus research was set back many years.

If you watch a flick like The Good Shepherd (OK it's a film but loosely based on factual characters) it's strongly hinted how the power is held within a few people/families and the president is just a bit of a distraction as he's not really involved.

there is a line in that film when trafficante (pesci) asks matt damon what "you people have " "the ni*** have their music , the irish their...,the italians have etc , what do you people have?"

he replies "we have the united states of america and you are all just guests here"

remember that
 
there is a line in that film when trafficante (pesci) asks matt damon what "you people have " "the ni*** have their music , the irish their...,the italians have etc , what do you people have?"

he replies "we have the united states of america and you are all just guests here"

remember that

Brilliant! One of my favorite films of recent years. Pity it didn't do as well as expected as supposedly DeNiro had plans to bring the history up the the present day.

Have you read The Cold 6000? I get a bit pissed off with Elroy, he's a complete lunatic and his writing style is a pain in the arse but it's a great fictional tie in of a load of conspiracy theories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top