Conspiracies

[Estreeter]

Conspiracies

Yep, Conspiracies.
They happen; it would be a bit naive to think they have never happen. I watch the History Channel a fair bit and some of the documentaries on there make me wonder at times. Are we controlled by greedy and power hungry individuals, are there secrets kept from the public for our own good?
We all know some of the big ones, like

Did Lee Harvey act alone?

And no, it wasn’t a mob hit, I should know

Roswell, New Mexico?


Are these dudes real?


What happened to the left over pizza I was gonna have for breakfast?

I’m sure some of us are intrigued and would like too know the truth about certain world events and the shaping, maybe even the controlling of our history. Do we already know the truth and conspiracies are made up by some with nothing better to do than research the internet eating cheese and bacon balls all day long?

Over to you, Thoughts ? Ideas ? Donations

Note,
We had a successful thread like this a few years back, but was removed due too a very few ruining it for most, so please behave and make the Mods jobs easy

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

...are there secrets kept from the public for our own good?

Secrets are kept from the public for the government's good, not the public's

Even when all the actors are dead, there are things you're not allowed to know. Didn't you know you're not allowed to know?

You should have grown up in Russia, then you'd know everything about not knowing

[shodan2011]

First of all, I'm quite happy to be called a conspiracy nut (or Conspiraloon ). There have been plenty of them over the years that have involved government agencies breaking the law - MKULTRA, Iran/Contra, the biological weapons testing on British soldiers at Porton Down and so on. So it's a little naive to believe that government agencies aren't still getting up to "questionable" activities.

This is my main area of interest:

JFK was NOT killed by Lee Harvey Oswald

The Warren Commission was compromised from the start by the appointment of Allen Dulles (former Director of the CIA and a man who loathed Kennedy when Kennedy fired him after the Bay of Pigs) and John McCloy (an odious little man who was all in favour of rounding up Japanese American citizens during the Second World War and putting them in what was essentially concentration camps). It was later revealed that Gerald Ford was secretly passing information to the FBI on what the Commission was getting up to. Hale Boggs and Richard Russell both refused to sign the Commission's report because they thought the "Single Bullet Theory" was garbage.

There's too much to go into here, but I recommend "Breach of Trust" by Prof. Gerald McKnight, which is about the Warren Commission and why it was nonsense.

The JFK assassination didn't occur in a vacuum; he made a lot of enemies during his time as president. Big oil men, the Steel industry, the Mafia (yes, even the mafia estreeter ), people in the CIA, the anti-Castro Cubans, people inside the Pentagon (mainly members of the Joint Chiefs), the Military Industrial Complex - they all ended up hating Kennedy. Any one of them could have been responsible.

[billybunter]

This is a subject I could write a book about. But you can offend people very easily. So anything I type is NOT meant to offend. I don't believe man went to the moon. 9/11 was an inside job; nobody flies planes into skyscrapers in New York and get's away with it.
Why is there no picture of the "moon rover" left behind? We have aparatas that can gaze on distant galaxies. But not one photo of the moon landing gear. I think i've made my point.

[elton dong]

Originally Posted by billybunter

I don't believe man went to the moon.

The presence of reflectors on the Moon has been used to rebut claims that the Apollo landings were faked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...ing_experiment

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by billybunter

Why is there no picture of the "moon rover" left behind? We have aparatas that can gaze on distant galaxies. But not one photo of the moon landing gear. I think i've made my point.

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

[ubu_roi]

Originally Posted by billybunter

Why is there no picture of the "moon rover" left behind?

Well, it's not the rover, but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took a picture of Tranquility Base in 2009.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceands...lity-base.html

[billybunter]

Originally Posted by ubu_roi

Well, it's not the rover, but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took a picture of Tranquility Base in 2009.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceands...lity-base.html

Why has "man" not been back to the moon? Why did Russia not go? Because "man" never set foot on the moon. The Van Allen belts would kill a human. The Russian's knew this and never bothered with the movie. Apollo rockets were wafer thin. They had to be to blast into orbit.

[ubu_roi]

Originally Posted by billybunter

The Van Allen belts would kill a human. The Russian's knew this and never bothered with the movie.

The most concise rebuttal to this I know of is from Wikipedia:

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.

As for the Russians, it's interesting to note that they acknowledged the moon landings at the time, and continue to acknowledge them to this day. If they had any doubt to their validity, I'm certain that they would have brought this up to discredit the Americans.

Then again, maybe the Russians are in on the conspiracy. Those damned Illuminati bastards!

[BigDog44]

Ok so here is a theory for you, and its a bit of a mind fuck. The Russian passenger jet that was blow up by IS.
Was it really IS I know they jumped on the bandwagon and claimed it was them, but what if it wasn't?
It would seem to me to be a good way to pull Russia into a broader campaign against IS than simply bombing them in Syria.

Just a thought.