Why a conspiracy?

Which? If you don't mind my asking.

Sure. Though please note that I mere hold these theories to be likely, not necessarily true.

Firstly, I believe that certain technologies are being intentionally suppressed, as they would cause major profit losses for certain industries. A prime example being the invention of cheap alternatives to conventional combustion engines that no longer rely on fossil fuels. The petroleum industry is the biggest and richest in the world, so it is imaginable that a lot of wealthy people are interested in ensuring that such technology does not become widely available. If it did, their product could become worthless, considering the effect of supply and demand on pricing. If the world is no longer reliable on oil, these guys are out of business.

Secondly, I am strongly opposed to Scientology, which seems to be in fashion since the whole Anonymous thing. The whole story around Scientology is pretty complex, but when you consider how much money Scientologists are required to spend on their courses and how brainwashed these people come across when defending it from criticism, it is pretty obvious that something is not right. Considering the fact that Scientology uses any methods possible to silence criticism while (allegedly) attempting to gain footholds in governments all over the world, the organization appears less like a religion and more like a subversive fascist revolution attempt to me. Thankfully, the German government has similar views and there is actually an enquiry going on here as to whether Scientology should be considered unconstitutional and therefore be banned in Germany. (In case you didn't guess, I live in Germany. Though I am a british national.)

Those are the main ones. There are other conspiracy theories that I consider to be on the right track, but they are mostly of minor interest to me.

The first is plausible, though it's probably one of the least discussed. Methods and suggested areas haven't been too widely speculated on.

On the second, I agree as well.

You don't consider JFK or 9/11 as main? Do you think they are too ridiculous or?

Quote from: divito the truthist on July 03, 2008, 06:45:48 AM

Which? If you don't mind my asking.

Sure. Though please note that I mere hold these theories to be likely, not necessarily true.

Firstly, I believe that certain technologies are being intentionally suppressed, as they would cause major profit losses for certain industries. A prime example being the invention of cheap alternatives to conventional combustion engines that no longer rely on fossil fuels. The petroleum industry is the biggest and richest in the world, so it is imaginable that a lot of wealthy people are interested in ensuring that such technology does not become widely available. If it did, their product could become worthless, considering the effect of supply and demand on pricing. If the world is no longer reliable on oil, these guys are out of business.

I have to respectfully disagree here.  Granted, fuel is one of the major uses of oil, but there are a lot of other important uses of oil as well.  Plastics, dyes, pharmaceuticals, paraffins, cosmetics, fertilizers, etc.  I forget who it was, but someone once said that oil is too valuable to use as fuel.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 03, 2008, 04:23:51 AM

I agree that the inconsistency of opinions about the conspiracy theory is not substantial evidence against the theory itself. But the fact remains that the theory is just a theory. Even if everyone here were to agree on the details of the proposed conspiracy, the fact remains that there is no proof of its existence. It is, to put it into your words, evidence of nothing.

Pretty much. Not to mention, evidence of a conspiracy would be hard to come by, given what a conspiracy is, entails, and the negative association they contain.

If this evidence of a conspiracy is so hard to come by, where did the conspiracy come from?  Somebody just made it up because it happens to fit?

You don't consider JFK or 9/11 as main? Do you think they are too ridiculous or?

I haven't really done much research on either of those. I don't know enough about JFK or the whole story surrounding his assassination to form any kind of opinion about a conspiracy theory. As for 9/11, the only conspiracy theory that really caught my attention was that it may have been an inside job, but I tend to steer clear of that topic as opinions on it are heavily polarized. Although I must admit that 9/11 was a rather powerful catalyst for a number of major changes in the world, not to forget that western governments are now using "terrorists" as an excuse to do just about anything. I don't know.

occasionally i wonder what the goal of sanity could be in the oppressive environment that is a conspiracy

then i realise-people will beleive what they want to believe

whether you want them to or not 

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 02, 2008, 10:15:10 PM

Like the US government, the Soviet government was likely completely in the dark about the conspiracy.  And remember, they were the first ones to supposedly put something into orbit, not us.

Fixed.  Come on Roundy, you know better than that.  Sigh.

I figured it was implied. 

Quote from: divito the truthist on July 03, 2008, 06:45:48 AM

Which? If you don't mind my asking.

Sure. Though please note that I mere hold these theories to be likely, not necessarily true.

Firstly, I believe that certain technologies are being intentionally suppressed, as they would cause major profit losses for certain industries. A prime example being the invention of cheap alternatives to conventional combustion engines that no longer rely on fossil fuels. The petroleum industry is the biggest and richest in the world, so it is imaginable that a lot of wealthy people are interested in ensuring that such technology does not become widely available. If it did, their product could become worthless, considering the effect of supply and demand on pricing. If the world is no longer reliable on oil, these guys are out of business.

I'd assume the people who come up with these ideas or even create them, would already figure this out going in.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you were to actually create a free energy device (hypothetically), that you will probably have various schemes plotted against you that may include pain, kidnapping, or death. Either that or have many people trying to discredit you, but either way if you were aware of this fact I'm sure there are avenues to get the word out that aren't impossible because of a conspiracy

Yeah, this discussion is great but the question remains, how would the conspirators make money? in fact, exploring space will eventually lead to such great wealth that Earth will look poor from other planets. ( Mars, Luna,Venus,mercury and the Jovian moons carry massive amounts of materials rarely found on Earth, such as Gold, Uranium,Iridium and platinum. along with massive deposits of iron,nickel, silver, and carbon that and materials that oxidize too quickly to usable on Earth).

I agree that the inconsistency of opinions about the conspiracy theory is not substantial evidence against the theory itself. But the fact remains that the theory is just a theory. Even if everyone here were to agree on the details of the proposed conspiracy, the fact remains that there is no proof of its existence. It is, to put it into your words, evidence of nothing.

It has already been demonstrated that NASA is a fraudulent organization which lies about what it can and cannot do. Just look at the dangling effects of astronauts in the wire supports video I linked a couple days ago:

Quote

I agree that the inconsistency of opinions about the conspiracy theory is not substantial evidence against the theory itself. But the fact remains that the theory is just a theory. Even if everyone here were to agree on the details of the proposed conspiracy, the fact remains that there is no proof of its existence. It is, to put it into your words, evidence of nothing.

It has already been demonstrated that NASA is a fraudulent organization which lies about what it can and cannot do. Just look at the dangling effects of astronauts in the wire supports video I linked a couple days ago:

Wait, so a video can be used as proof for FET, but it can't be used for RET?

Wait, so a video can be used as proof for FET, but it can't be used for RET?

No one has said that you couldn't use images or videos in your arguments. I use them all the time.

Quote

Wait, so a video can be used as proof for FET, but it can't be used for RET?

No one has said that you couldn't use images or videos in your arguments. I use them all the time.

You just dismiss RE images and videos because they are obvious conspiracy fakes.   

You just dismiss RE images and videos because they are obvious conspiracy fakes.   

The link I posted exposes NASA as a fraudulent organization and demolishes its credibility.

All those videos on you tube on YouTube are not very fleshed out.
half the time the video was blurry. Also due to the lack of atmosphere, lower gravity and reduced magnetic feild, the flag would probably keep waving for hours, all due to the astronauts moving the flag.
The flag also had a loose wire frame to keep it up the astronauts had tighten. No footage on Youtube shows it being fixed, even though NASA has videos of that.  Also, videos are exactly the same as pictures. they are simply made of several frames (photos) that proceed from the first to last in quick progression, looking like actual normal movement. So this video is not suitable for this site.

What the hell are you talking about? The video I linked had nothing to do with flags.

actually it did, for about 0:30 secs, no movement, even with the guys near them. And you don't think I just checked that one video do you?

actually it did, for about 0:30 secs, no movement, even with the guys near them. And you don't think I just checked that one video do you?

Nope. You're looking at the wrong video. The video I posted has nothing to do with flag movements.

Wait, so a video can be used as proof for FET, but it can't be used for RET?

I say let them have that, otherwise the discussion around FET would be over.  

As for the videos, they are the main reasons why I have doubts about whether NASA went to the moon in the 60's and 70's - but I'm still not convinced that they didn't and even if it does turn out that the videos are fake, I don't believe that constitutes proof that the entire space program is fake.

For one, if the videos were fake, it is not actually proof that NASA never went to the moon. There are several reasons why the videos may have been faked. I won't elaborate here because I don't have the time, but anyone can look it up.

Secondly, even if NASA really did not go to the moon back then and the videos were faked to convince people of the opposite, there is a motive: the Soviet Union and the space race. Obviously the US government would not want to simply concede defeat against the Soviet Union.

All in all I believe that if the videos of the moon langing are fake, we are still very very far from proving that every single space mission since then has been faked aswell. Not to mention that no one would "pretend" to put a space station in space when they couldn't really do it, because the damn thing would be (and is) easily visible around the world. Consider that the russian MIR space station was up there for 15 years, and the ISS has been up there for 10 years already and is still under construction. Why would they go to the enormous trouble of faking that?

All in all I believe that if the videos of the moon langing are fake,

If the moon landings were faked then it means that NASA is a fraudulent organization working under ulterior motives. It means that NASA cannot be trusted in anything it does or anything it claims.

Quote

You just dismiss RE images and videos because they are obvious conspiracy fakes.   

The link I posted exposes NASA's as a fraudulent organization and demolishes its credibility.

Can you prove that the video wasn't doctored in order to attempt to expose NASA as a fraudulent organization and demolish its credibility?

Quote

All in all I believe that if the videos of the moon langing are fake,

If the moon landings were faked then it means that NASA is a fraudulent organization working under ulterior motives. It means that NASA cannot be trusted in anything it does or anything it claims.

Have you read or watched any videos or books that debunk all of the videos showing it's a hoax? What do you think about those?

Quote

All in all I believe that if the videos of the moon langing are fake,

If the moon landings were faked then it means that NASA is a fraudulent organization working under ulterior motives. It means that NASA cannot be trusted in anything it does or anything it claims.

That's your opinion. Not fact.

And even if we did assume that NASA is a fraudulent organization, that still leaves several other space organizations on the planet. How do you intend to prove they are fraudulent too?

Quote

All in all I believe that if the videos of the moon langing are fake,

If the moon landings were faked then it means that NASA is a fraudulent organization working under ulterior motives. It means that NASA cannot be trusted in anything it does or anything it claims.

Tom, some of your posts have been proven to be wrong.  Does that mean that none of your posts can be trusted?

Maybe , it would be a happy day for RE'ers.

Have you read or watched any videos or books that debunk all of the videos showing it's a hoax? What do you think about those?

Those moon hoax debunking videos just try to explain away the discrepancies by claiming "the moons ambient light did it" or "it's a perspective illusion" with no further evidence. They pick out the worst examples from the moon hoax documentaries and wave their hands around and say that it's possible that it's an illusion.

While some of those explanations are somewhat possible, there's no perspective illusion which could cause the astronauts to dangle above the surface of the moon as my video demonstrates.

That's your opinion. Not fact.

And even if we did assume that NASA is a fraudulent organization, that still leaves several other space organizations on the planet. How do you intend to prove they are fraudulent too?

Those other space programs are all partnered with NASA to work on space projects.

Quote

That's your opinion. Not fact.

And even if we did assume that NASA is a fraudulent organization, that still leaves several other space organizations on the planet. How do you intend to prove they are fraudulent too?

Those other space programs are all partnered with NASA to work on space projects.

I highly doubt that NASA and the Soviet program were partnered during the Cold War.

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/astp/astp.html

You do realize that the political climate between the US and USSR was much different in the '50s and '60s than it was in 1975, don't you?

You do realize that the political climate between the US and USSR was much different in the '50s and '60s than it was in 1975, don't you?

The Cold War was still in full swing through the 70's.