You laugh at my conspiracy theory, therefore...

[Silent3]

• You must believe EVERYTHING you see on television (you gullible idiot, you).
  
• You must believe no politician or corporation has ever done ANYTHING wrong (you naive pasty, you).
  
• You must believe that (list a bunch of well-known, not-at-all controversial instances of government or corporate wrong-doing) never happened!
  
• You obviously have something against "just asking questions" (you strident imposer of conformity, you).
  
• You don't understand that because you can't answer every real or imagined possible doubt I can raise about the "official story" that my version of events therefore has to be correct (even if it can't come anywhere close to meeting the standards of proof I expect for the "official story") -- you're living in denial!
  
• You're oppressing me!
  
• You're a sell-out!
  
• You're in on it!

I'm sure I could think of more, but that's what comes to mind off the top of my head as the typical sort of response when, oh, someone here laughs at freeper "the moon landings were a hoax!" CTers, and (no big surprise) it turns out DU has its own contingent for the same wackiness.

The "fallacy of the excluded middle" appears to play a major role in conspiratorial thinking.

[Gabi Hayes]

1. yeah...those wackos who thought Nixon etal, engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the

electoral process,

or Reagan's puppeteers engaged in some sort of conspiracy to subvert the constitution by trading arms for hostages

or Cheney, etal engaged in treasonous conspiracy to reveal the identity of a NOC during their endless war?

that sort of wackiness

nice try

[Silent3]

2. My god, how blind can you be...

...you just provided a perfect example of the stupid "fallacy of the excluded" middle thinking I illustrated. You don't even see that, do you?

[Gabi Hayes]

3. please educate me, oh, all seeing one.

so I assume the excluded middle provides something for the existence of actual conspiracies, while providing some sort of blanket exclusion for conspiracies with which one disagrees?

so you're a coincidence theory CTer, as opposed to the other kind, yes?

good for you

have fun with your sophistry

[Silent3]

7. It's a matter of each one being judged on the evidence.

There's clear evidence of, say, Nixon and Watergate. That evidence wasn't all that hard to find either. The secrets were hard to contain. Watergate shows what bungling idiots conspirators, even inside a small, much easier-to-control conspiracy, can be.

The moon landings being faked, however, is a whole other ball park. Pulling that off with the thousands of people involved in the space program, and keeping that all secret for decades, would be damn near impossible. Add on top of that that there's little motivation to fake the landings since, while challenging, landing on the moon isn't such an extraordinarily unbelievable task.

To act like there's no difference between doubting Watergate happened and the the moon landings happened is to totally ignore the completely different burden-of-proof space those two different ideas occupy.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. whose evidence?

some evidence is self, uh, evident, and subject to replicable analysis

there are those, whose dogma doesn't match yours in the Nixon example, will NEVER believe anything submitted

same goes for conspiracies with whose premises, more difficult to concretely prove, are nonetheless plausible, for example the reasons for the Bush regime's refusal to cooperate with the 911 investo

I see your point, but I'm not willing to write off the possible existence of socalled wacky conspiracies because of the lack of 'concrete' evidence

[Silent3]

14. If lack of evidence doesn't bother you...

...then no idea has any more merit than any other idea.

Eager conspiricists may occasionally play lip-service to the notion that they are merely being "open" to ideas for which there is a lack of evidence, but all the emotion displayed, the anger and bitterness of being victimized or lied to under the supposedly hypothetical version of events is there, all of the scorn toward people who won't buy into the conspiratorial version of the story is there.

Show me a MIHOP 9/11 CT-er, and I'll show you someone who isn't merely "considering" that a controlled detonation brought down the WTC, I'll show you someone who is lividly angry that the imagined conspiratorial bastards did it.

There's a difference between it being hypothetically possible for evidence of a given version of events being hidden and covered up, and acting as if that merest possibility is equivalent to the actuality of whatever cover up that suits the story you want to believe.

As soon as lack of evidence becomes the most damning evidence, you're down the rabbit hole and you aren't coming back.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. you're the victim of your own hypothesis

I don't fit many of the categories you posit (the emotional reaction, anything to do w/MIHOP

and AFA games like Nixon/Reagan/Bush have played, those 'conspiracies' were derided, especially by opinion leaders, until the 'evidence' so derided became accepted

I'll grant that your derision of the obvious popular conspiracy mythology is apt, but where do you draw the line between obvious crackpotism like the moon landings and grayer areas like, oh, why don't you pick one and apply your standards there?

[Silent3]

27. My OP was inspired by the moon landing thing...

...and applies specifically to such very nutty conspiracy theories, which nevertheless are vigorously defended by often small but not inconsiderable minorities.

If you're taking to be some sort of blanket denial of any small-c conspiracy, that's a silly way to take it. I'm talking about what I'd call Grand Capital-C Conspiracy. The large, elaborate conspiracies that would require unimaginable levels of competence, coordination, amazing containment and control of secrets, not just mere media influence but puppet-like media control, etc.

The "line between obvious crackpotism" isn't just a single line. There's quality of evidence, there is plausibility of alternatives explanation, and there are matters of reasonable motivation for given conspiracies to be executed.

For instance, the supposed controlled detonation of the WTC fails on many counts. Even if you were to lend a little credence to the supposed physical evidence, you still have to ask: What would be gained by rigging the buildings for collapse? Wouldn't the plane crashes, even if they left badly damaged but standing buildings, with plenty of people killed, have been more than enough to get Bush the war he wanted? Why risk being discovered planting explosives throughout the WTC for absolutely no worthwhile gain? If the Bush administration did plan 9/11, and wanted to use the attacks on the WTC to justify war, did they really need complete building collapse to get the desired result?

[defendandprotect]

23. It's a matter of mountains of crimes and evidence of them . . .

You think Watergate was "a small conspiracy" . . . ???
Read The Huston Plan sometime . . .

You're saying that the Moon Landings had to have happened because we can trust government . .
while we're showing you that you can't . . .

The moon landings being faked, however, is a whole other ball park. Pulling that off with the thousands of people involved in the space program, and keeping that all secret for decades, would be damn near impossible. Add on top of that that there's little motivation to fake the landings since, while challenging, landing on the moon isn't such an extraordinarily unbelievable task.

Do you really think that the astronauts are going to spill the beans now?
Obviously when they made this fatal deal their careers, livelihoods went on the line -
their reputations - including personal.

"Landing on the moon isn't such an extraordinarily unbelievable task" . . . :eyes:

True -- only if you discount the Van Allen Belts.

and a myriad number of other things! Like film and picture taking on the moon -- :eyes:

To act like there's no difference between doubting Watergate happened and the the moon landings happened is to totally ignore the completely different burden-of-proof space those two different ideas occupy.

There's a long chain of evidence to the contrary -- start with genocide re Native America,
enslavement of African -- move on to all the countries the US has invaded and taken over.
Look at the international CIA/coups -- unless you're denying them as well?
Operation Northwoods, Operation Paperclip --
NASA being headed up by Werner Von Braun and staffed with Nazis --

CIA founded with Nazis brought in by Dulles under Paperclip --

And, unless you're also in denial of the coup on JFK . . . then you understand that while it
is largely solved by private investigation by citizens -- and despite the outrageous cover
story still in place, the power of the right wing in America still blocks the truth coming out.

Same with RFK and MLK -- for the latter see Wm. Pepper --

Are all of these people doing investigations and gathering information merely to fool YOU???

"Only a fool never doubts" ... Shakespeare



PS: I've "recommended" your thread to be sure that it gets see as much as possible --
it's a subject which constantly needs thinking about --

[Silent3]

37. Where to start with that jumbled mess?

One thing at a time: Let's take the moon landings by itself. It doesn't matter if the whole government is staffed by genocidal Kennedy-assassinating, CIA-directed Nazis. Utterly immaterial. Even an entrenched pattern of deception and corruption doesn't prove a particular deception, nor does it grant one magical abilities to perform amazing conspiratorial feats. The logistics of a fake moon landing are actually far more complicated than a real one.

Do you really think that the astronauts are going to spill the beans now?

Do you really think the astronauts are they only ones who'd have to keep a big secret here?

What about the imagined film crews and TV studio operators?
What about the world-wide network of people assigned to maintain radio contact with the astronauts during their flight who would be pointing their antennas in the wrong direction if the astronauts weren't really out there traveling exactly the right path for a real flight?
What about the world-wide network of radar installations tracking the flight?
What about the people who were supposed to board the astronauts into the Apollo rockets? Who would have to spirit them away to a studio, then after all the TV deception was done, get them into a real spacecraft so they'd fall from the sky in the expected return capsule?
What about all of the naval vessels and military crew assigned to picking up capsules that fell from the sky with astronauts in them?
What about all the geologists who would either have to be in on the deception, or successfully fooled by some kind of conspirator-created fake moon rocks? Those rocks are still being studied today, which is a lot of fooled geologists or a long ongoing string of conspirators.
What about all the engineers who looked at the designs for all of the equipment being built who didn't complain that the stuff being build couldn't possibly work in a real mission?
What about the reflectors left on the moon by the supposedly imaginary astronauts, still functional and observable today?

It's not just all of the astronauts from all of the crews of all of the lunar orbit and landing flights who would have to be involved, but thousands involved in each mission. You'd have needed thousands of long-term committed conspirators from dozens of countries, each of whom would have had to have performed extraordinarily well at his or her particular task of deception, and/or an elaborate combination of real unmanned rockets, radio relays, and secretly-developed robotic technology (another group of conspirators to keep quiet for decades) beyond anything known to have been possible in the 1960s.

As for the Van Allen radiation belt "problem" (emphasis mine):

The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize 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. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. 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 thirty-three of the thirty-six 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. However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions

Here's something a lot of Grand Conspiracy fans just don't get: EVEN IF you think you've found flaws or unanswered questions in the "official story" of an event, unless you have an alternate explanation with FEWER unanswered questions and puzzling problems to be solved, the "official story" remains superior to your alternate version.

[defendandprotect]

51. "Logistics of a fake moon landing are actually far more complicated than a real one"--!!

Where to start with that jumbled mess?
One thing at a time: Let's take the moon landings by itself. It doesn't matter if the whole government is staffed by genocidal Kennedy-assassinating, CIA-directed Nazis. Utterly immaterial. Even an entrenched pattern of deception and corruption doesn't prove a particular deception, nor does it grant one magical abilities to perform amazing conspiratorial feats. The logistics of a fake moon landing are actually far more complicated than a real one.

Conspiracies are based on fooling the public . . . are you saying our government has never
done that before?

Further, you've just argued against yourself here in suggesting that a fake "Moon Landing"
is more complicated than the real thing? Really . . . ??

The problem with the Moon Landing subject is it's probably even more extraordinary a suggestion
re conspiracy in some minds than even 9/11 would be in their minds. Am I right?

AND, it takes some understanding of the claims and counter-claims which I don't think many
here are familiar with. A little different from earthly conspiracies.

Do you really think that the astronauts are going to spill the beans now?

Do you really think the astronauts are they only ones who'd have to keep a big secret here?

Of course not, but evidently you asked about the astronauts?

And, again if you really want to discuss the Moon Landing there are some here who can provide
some enlightenment on the subject -- if I can get them to take the time -- and make it a separate
thread.

Meanwhile, it's been a long time since I looked at the issue ...

What about the imagined film crews and TV studio operators?
What about the world-wide network of people assigned to maintain radio contact with the astronauts during their flight who would be pointing their antennas in the wrong direction if the astronauts weren't really out there traveling exactly the right path for a real flight?
What about the world-wide network of radar installations tracking the flight?
What about the people who were supposed to board the astronauts into the Apollo rockets? Who would have to spirit them away to a studio, then after all the TV deception was done, get them into a real spacecraft so they'd fall from the sky in the expected return capsule?
What about all of the naval vessels and military crew assigned to picking up capsules that fell from the sky with astronauts in them?
What about all the geologists who would either have to be in on the deception, or successfully fooled by some kind of conspirator-created fake moon rocks? Those rocks are still being studied today, which is a lot of fooled geologists or a long ongoing string of conspirators.
What about all the engineers who looked at the designs for all of the equipment being built who didn't complain that the stuff being build couldn't possibly work in a real mission?
What about the reflectors left on the moon by the supposedly imaginary astronauts, still functional and observable today?

Not every member of the film crew and TV stuido operators -- or Walter Cronkite for that matter -
would have known the truth. Only those necesssary to pull it off.
Indeed, it seems that some of those involved in the project did manage to leave some clues as
to what was really going on.
No one says that a rocket wasn't launched. The question is was anyone in it?
There could have been other astronauts, substitutes we're unfamiliar with.
Presumably those who "loaded the astronauts" into the spaceship might not have known that they
were removed later.
As for the return capsule, it could have just as easily been dropped into the area from a helicopter.
And, of course, the naval vessels and military crews wouldn't necessarily know that.
Oops . . . not landing in this area - landing over there!
As for the "moon rocks" and "geologists" -- some say the rocks seem questionable -- as though they
were manufactured. Meanwhile, we could have sent a rocket up -- a rocket landed on the moon the
night before we supposedly launched or landed, in fact. At any rate, a separate mission could have
been the way to collect the rocks. Meanwhile, do you know any "geologists" who have examined the
moon rocks? And, what geologist would turn around and say . . . "you know, there seems to be
something wrong with these rocks?" Not likely!
And, re the materials/equipment -- remember that these were people making money from government
contracts -- if it wasn't going to do the job, they might have guessed why.
Much of the gear and the gear in use didn't really seem functional -- and the LEM's ability to
do what was claimed is also questioned.
As for the reflections -- I have an article somewhere on that - I'll look for it.

Again, I don't think we have any idea of the numbers, but control always comes from the top
and information is compartmentalized. Once something like this begins it would be very difficult
for one person to stand up against it.
However, on the question of the astronauts, you might take a look at Jim Marrs new book -
"Rise of the Fourth Reich" -- and in fact I think there is a program on Freemasonry which
indicates that many of them were Freemasons? Religion does funny things to people's heads.
And, again "thousands" is your guess, not mine.
What did the guys sitting at the computers know about what might be really going on?
As for the Van Allen radiation belt "problem" (emphasis mine):
As I recall it, in fact, they've only recently discovered that the Van Allen Belts are even
more extensive than they formerly thought! Quite more extensive!
If you're aware of any of the evidence from helmets where astronauts were exposed for short
periods of times, you understand that they felt the effects everywhere on their bodies/brains -
and that affect was VISIBLE on their helmets. And, now "aluminum" not only crashes thru steel
but "protects from the ionizing radiation"--! No. It would take steel - thick blocks/layers
of steel to protect the craft and astronauts -- and needless to say the film!
There is no safe pathway thru the Van Allen belts unless you have an astronaut who is willing
to risk his life - and evidently quite a number of Cosmonauts did just that.

Further, our government exploded atomic weapons in the upper atmosphere evidently trying to
knock out the Van Allen belts . . . sometime in the 1960's as I recall.

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.

Now . . . notice . . . it was a REBUTTAL of his prior claims.
After the US showed the world that they had done this, supposedly, what was Van Allen to say?

Think back to the CNN journalist outside the Pentagon with his film crew -- he tells you clearly
"NO PLANE" hit the Pentagon and emphasizes that over and again. Yet only a few short hours
later he is a broken man REBUTTING his prior statements. Obviously, they hire unreliable people
to cover these stories -- and then send them out on one of the biggest stories ever!

Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

So the astronauts themselves measured this and told us -- while satellites came back scarred
and helmets were scarred from short trips! And let me remind you here of the soldiers forced to
remain close to our nuclear tests and what they were told about radiation levels.
And what were NYC residents told of biological tests in the NY City subways?
Do you recall the EPA LIED about the harmful environmental effects after 9/11 at Ground Zero
and surrounding areas?
I'm not suggesting that the astronauts were exposed and lied to, I'm saying it's likely they
didn't go.

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six 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. However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions

Keep in mind that astronauts on the space station which seems to be only in NEAR outer space
suffer extreme problems. Some can't walk on return and have to be transported in wheel chairs.
The female astronaut Shannon Lucid holds the record for time spent on the space station.
She walked off. Females endure time in space better than males do ... that's why we had no female astronauts!
Spending any time even in NEAR space can create problems such as cataracts.

Here's something a lot of Grand Conspiracy fans just don't get: EVEN IF you think you've found flaws or unanswered questions in the "official story" of an event, unless you have an alternate explanation with FEWER unanswered questions and puzzling problems to be solved, the "official story" remains superior to your alternate version.

Isn't that simply a repeat of ... "if there were no planes, then where did the passengers go?"
Come on . . . There is an alternate explanation -- and even Hollywood thought of it!

And I'll comment on this . .

"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice." - Unknown

What was Gallileo's stupidity and how long did it take the RCC to admit he was right?

[defendandprotect]

17. eh . . .before Nixon/Watergate, we had LBJ/Gulf of Tonkin lie-Vietnam --

then we had Ford - our first unelected VP and first unelected Pres thanks to the
criminal Nixon --
Try to remember that Kissinger also came out of the Nixon/Watergate hole --
Rummy and Cheney also got their start in Nixon's White House -- along with the Plumbers
Not to mention the wiretapping that was very much part of that administration.

Carter -- notable for imperialism in Afghanistan -- having put the US in/CIA 6 months
before the Russians came in. We went in to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes
of giving them a Vietnam type experience" . . . CIA/US own the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- we
funded them and had total surveillance of them -- probably still do.
We were financing them with $124 million -- tens of millions the month before 9/11!

Carter's rescue missions which went down at least twice -- think called off 3X --
HEAD BY OLLIE NORTH AND SECORD! And maybe you've heard of the "October Surprise" which
was simply a repeat of Nixon's back channel deals to keep negotiations from going forward
to end VN conflict as LBJ hoped in stopping the bombing prior to the election.

Reagan -- do we really have to repeat the crimes for you -- Iran Contra -- October Surprise -
the homelessness still with us - Nicaragua financed by drug money/Ollie North

Poppy Bush -- first attempts to overturn the VN-syndrome preventing us from the joys of war !!!
Invasion of Panama! Gulf War I!

W Bush and his wiretapping which began 7 months BEFORE 9/11 giving the lie that it was done
to protect us. Patriot Act -- Attacks on Afghanistan/Iraq -- WMD lies --

Not to mention at least 50 years of political violence with assassination of not only
presidents and future presidents -- civil rights leaders -- but assassination of rising
leadership.

Suppose you've also noticed the stolen elections -- electronic voting machines --
and I understand that OBAMA acknowledged CHEMTRAILS recently . . . and his conclusion that
they would have to be kept going due to Global Warming!

You've proved nothing except to yourself --

So . .. what was that you were saying?

[Silent3]

30. What does a long laundry list of various conspiracies have to do...

...with what I wrote?

[defendandprotect]

55. I responded to a message which began a chain . . . read those messages to you and your reply--!!!

[defendandprotect]

19. Excuse me . . . are you actually saying you doubt the evils of Watergate?

The Huston Plan ... a remodeled Operation Northwoods?

Back channel efforts to keep VN peace meetings from going forward going, pushed
by LBJ stopping the bombing to create the opportunity?

Iran Contra didn't happen -- drug money wasn't used, funds not raised illegally contrary
to Bolen Amendment?

As they say, "you can't wake up a man who is pretending to be sleeping" --

For your sake, I hope it is merely pretense -- !!!

[Silent3]

21. No, I didn't express any doubts about Watergate at all.

That you even got confused that way says a lot about your reading comprehension. There wasn't even ironic pretense to get confused about.

The point (to spell it out for you, since apparently that's required) is that the existence of one real conspiracy (Watergate) has not the slightest thing to do with, neither supports nor detracts, from whether or not the moon landings were real or faked. No connection. None. Zip.

[defendandprotect]

24. You referred to Watergate as "a small conspiracy" . . .

Nor do you confirm Iran Contra --
or the use of drug money for Nicaragua illegalities --

I really don't want to upset your sense of superiority, but we are NOT talking simply about
Watergate which makes me wonder if you are doing any reading here at all of the many threads
which would enlighten you about this nation's history of imperialism and our CIA's many
foul deeds throughout the world?

If you want to discuss the moon landings why not do so ... ?

However, neither can you suggest that since you only find Watergate a believable conspiracy
that there weren't many other conspiracies -- and that the Moon Landing wasn't one of them!

And, "Zip" to you as well -- but my advice is give up the puerile comments and insults --

[Silent3]

29. Watergate was a small conspiracy in that...

...it did not require a large number of people to pull off, unlike the enormous number of people that would have to be involved in something like faking the moon landings. Once knowledge of the Watergate break-in spread beyond the few who actually conducted the botched operation, secrecy broke down and lead to the truth was soon uncovered.

I'm not getting into Iran/Contra et al because I'm not going to get into an utterly-beside-the-point case-by-case on every possible conspiracy that can be brought up.

However, neither can you suggest that since you only find Watergate a believable conspiracy (a gratuitous misrepresentation of what I've said -- as if I'm under some obligation to enumerate every single conspiracy I think has happened, and somehow implicitly disbelieve everything I don't explicitly confirm belief in) that there weren't many other conspiracies -- and that the Moon Landing wasn't one of them!

That Watergate happened is mutually independent of any other conspiracy that may or may not have happened. It's a perversion of the burden of proof to imply that all possible other conspiracies must be disproved.

Human nature is enough to tell us that there have been, there are, and there will be many conspiracies. Some will eventually be uncovered, some will successfully be concealed. What that doesn't tell is which ones are real or not. Each must be proved or disproved by evidence and on individual merit.

[defendandprotect]

44. I think you're overestimating and underestimating . . .

When you said "small" I was taking it that you meant it in the sense of something minor.
However, I don't think the numbers that we may estimate really tell us anything.
Control comes from the top as we can see with the great deal of damage that Bushco did.

There are also incidental casualties -- such as the 100's who died evidently trying to
tell us the truth about the JFK assassination. Many knew, many tried to reveal what they knew.

How many people were involved in the horrendous damage done to Iraq and more than a million
innocent citizens in Iraq killed? They were taking instructions from the White House via
lawyers who twisted and tortured our laws.

I think the Moon Landings have to be a separate subject because it is an extraordinary suggestion
which supposedly doesn't take place on this planet. Somewhere along the line we should have
those who have the most information about this run a thread and discuss it. I believe there
are some here who could do that.

However, re the numbers involved in such a conspiracy and its relationship to having the
secret kept, I don't see that as the large problem you see. Many secrets have been kept by
many people for questionable reasons -- at least I think we'd question the reasons --
and presume there may still be secrets bigger than the Moon Landing.

However, what I am saying to you about the Moon Landing is that when you look at the long
history of conspiracies by this nation, it becomes obvious that that this would simply be one
more.

It's occurred to me that perhaps you think that when we talk about various conspiracies that
you suppose we mean that they are all unrelated -- ? What I think most of us are talking about
is global fascism and the continuing patterns and agenda to have total control over others --
to move the wealth and resources of every nation from the many to the few.

I'm sure you wouldn't argue with the idea that Hitler rose only with much behind the scenes assistance -- and that he rose under power of political violence? This is the same thing, essentially. The right wing cannot come to power without violence, intimidation,
assassinations and election steals.

And, of course, our elections are another obvious conspiracy -- certainly not tracking back
simply to 2000 and 2004. The computers began to come in during the mid-late-1960's and our
elections haven't made much sense since then.

Some say that the knowledge of the election steals beginning at that time may have been one
factor in the Watergate breakin . . . since information on an investigation of the computers
at that time was passed on to the Chair of the DNC. Additionally, certainly Nixon's efforts
in back channels to keep LBJ/Humphrey from succeeding with peace negotiations re VN were done
for his benefit and were treason. Not unlike Reagan's "October Surprise." Same thing.

And this comment is what makes me think that you may not understand that all of these
conspiracies are related and inter-related . . .

I'm not getting into Iran/Contra et al because I'm not going to get into an utterly-beside-the-point case-by-case on every possible conspiracy that can be brought up.

This is somewhat unclear --
However, neither can you suggest that since you only find Watergate a believable conspiracy (a gratuitous misrepresentation of what I've said -- as if I'm under some obligation to enumerate every single conspiracy I think has happened, and somehow implicitly disbelieve everything I don't explicitly confirm belief in) that there weren't many other conspiracies -- and that the Moon Landing wasn't one of them!

if you're interested in arguing it, you'll have to restate it --


And this does give me more of a clue that perhaps you see these events as being isolated from
one another...

That Watergate happened is mutually independent of any other conspiracy that may or may not have happened. It's a perversion of the burden of proof to imply that all possible other conspiracies must be disproved.

No -- Nixon was planning a false flag operation -- akin to Operation Northwoods --
in order to halt the elections of 1972. See The Huston Plan. And it included murder.
Nixon is involved in many ways in the JFK assassination. As LBJ was.
If you haven't seen the video of Madelaine Brown, JFK's mistress, as she describes who
attended the dinner and private meeting the night before the assassination at Clinton
Murchinson's home, I'd suggest you view it. She also recites the long list of names of
those involved.

Meanwhile, in verification of that meeting and all the attendees, journalist Helen Thomas just
happened to have been invited that evening to the social event. The day after JFK's assassination
Helen Thomas filed an affadavit naming all of the participants in that meeting --
Nixon, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and many, many more notables were there - including John McCloy,
if you know anything about him.

Unfortunately, global fascism wasn't defeated in WWII -- hundreds of thousands of Nazis were
brought into our country under Operation Paperclip under the guidance of Allen Dulles.
They were used to found the CIA, they were funneled into the FBI - and NASA.

Human nature is enough to tell us that there have been, there are, and there will be many conspiracies. Some will eventually be uncovered, some will successfully be concealed. What that doesn't tell is which ones are real or not. Each must be proved or disproved by evidence and on individual merit.

Most of the details of all the conspiracies are known -- they do eventually get written about
but not necessarily in school textbooks. Unfortunately, the power of the right wing to keep
coverups going has not dissipatated.

If you wish to keep discussing this civilly, I'd be happy to --

If you want to move on -- I understand.

[Silent3]

52. You bring up Iraq, but no one argues if the Iraq war has happened or not.

No one is arguing that the Iraq war is shot on a movie set and not really happening. And while loyal right wingers may give the Bush administration a lot of slack (or even believe in their dishonesty and corruption, but excuse it), much of the evidence against Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., for manipulating us into war under false pretenses is right out there in the open, and pretty convincing, even if the Obama administration is being annoyingly disinclined or reluctant to use what's there for prosecution.

Many details concerning Iraq may remain secret, but you can nevertheles make out a fairly clear outline of the Iraq fiasco from the easily visible details.

The faked moon landing scenario is a totally different beast.

When you're looking to prosecute a crime, the three standard things you have to prove are means, motive, and opportunity. I'll add one more item to that classic trio, which you can call either temperment or character. Temperament/character answers the question, "Is the suspect temperamentally inclined to act in the way required to commit the crime?"

When you go on (and on) about all of these other incidents from JFK to Nixon, you're getting all worked up about stuff that only contributes to two of these four elements: motive and temperament, and it's mostly temperament. You think governments and the people in them have established a pattern of being temperamentally capable of doing practically anything, even for the slightest motive, so even if you can only guess at a possible motive for an imagined crime (using the term "crime" broadly for all sort of misdeeds great and small), you're ready to suspect a particular crime has been, or is at least very likely to have been, committed.

But means and opportunity, and a particular clear motive rather simply guessing someone somewhere can come of with an angle to gain from practically anything, are still lacking. No matter how much you repeat the narrative of conspiratorial malfeasance, each accusation of conspiratorial action still needs to able to answer means, motive and opportunity.

Means and opportunity are the big downfall for a moon landing conspiracy. Not all secrets yield to the same secret-keeping techniques, and not all disinformation can be spread via the same means, so merely saying that other secrets have successfully been kept and other disinformation successfully spread doesn't answer the problems of keeping the planning and execution of fake moon landings secret, and successfully planting fake information not only in the news media, but in faked radar tracking, faked radio communications signals, and fake moon rocks.

Motive is also a bit weak. Sure, we had staked a fair amount of national pride on meeting Kennedy's challenge to land on the moon, but you have to remember that most of the real budgetary justification for the space program came from military applications for space technology: ICBM's and the potential for space-based weapons platforms. One person promoting the faked landing theory admitted that the Soviets would have been unlikely to fall for faked landings, so he proposed the Soviets had been paid off somehow to go along with our deception. That suggestion, however, throws nearly all motive for faking the landings out the window -- all potential for intimidating the Soviets with our space technology prowess would be lost.

I could go on and fill in the above with a lot more detail, but the main point is this: You seem to act as if the most important thing to convince me of is that a pattern of conspiracy exists and that our government is temperamentally inclined to dirty dealings and conspiratorial, secret action. I'm trying to point out convincing me of that is practically immaterial to whether the moon landings were faked. It's the particular challenges of pulling off that particular deception which matter here.

[defendandprotect]

56. Rather, WMD/mushroom clouds were part of a conspiracy to attack Iraq . . .

planned long before Bush even took office -- see his interview a year or more before he
was "elected" and see PNAC on the need for a new "Pearl Harbor."

You bring up Iraq, but no one argues if the Iraq war has happened or not.
No one is arguing that the Iraq war is shot on a movie set and not really happening. And while loyal right wingers may give the Bush administration a lot of slack (or even believe in their dishonesty and corruption, but excuse it), much of the evidence against Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., for manipulating us into war under false pretenses is right out there in the open, and pretty convincing, even if the Obama administration is being annoyingly disinclined or reluctant to use what's there for prosecution.

Of course, what we are saying is that the VP/President "conspired" to attack Iraq based on lies.
And though they may be out there as far as what we know, we don't have tape recordings and the
kind of "proof" that is often demanded. We need investigations, trials, prosecutions.
But I'm glad you acknowledge it as a "conspiracy." However, there was no challenge to the
administration's lies -- even now by corporate press -- and the war goes on and on, doesn't it?

The faked moon landing scenario is a totally different beast.

Again, no one but you has suggested a movie-set Iraq -- we are showing you one more conspiracy,
endless lies, many involved -- and that it succeeded. And that though we may have come closer
this time to prosecution, it hasn't actually happened.

"Is the suspect temperamentally inclined to act in the way required to commit the crime?"

What follows here doesn't seem well thought out -- do you want to try again?
And then you lapse again into discussion of the Moon Landing --
I would really suggest that if you want to discuss the Moon Landing you do it separately.
What I am pointing out to you, as many others are, the long list of conspiracies which
are related and interrelated -- and that the Moon Landing would simply be one more.

When you go on (and on) about all of these other incidents from JFK to Nixon, you're getting all worked up about stuff that only contributes to two of these four elements: motive and temperament, and it's mostly temperament. You think governments and the people in them have established a pattern of being temperamentally capable of doing practically anything, even for the slightest motive, so even if you can only guess at a possible motive for an imagined crime (using the term "crime" broadly for all sort of misdeeds great and small), you're ready to suspect a particular crime has been, or is at least very likely to have been, committed.

But means and opportunity, and a particular clear motive rather simply guessing someone somewhere can come of with an angle to gain from practically anything, are still lacking. No matter how much you repeat the narrative of conspiratorial malfeasance, each accusation of conspiratorial action still needs to able to answer means, motive and opportunity.

But I will break in here to point out there was a great deal of motive for faking a Moon Landing...

Means and opportunity are the big downfall for a moon landing conspiracy. Not all secrets yield to the same secret-keeping techniques, and not all disinformation can be spread via the same means, so merely saying that other secrets have successfully been kept and other disinformation successfully spread doesn't answer the problems of keeping the planning and execution of fake moon landings secret, and successfully planting fake information not only in the news media, but in faked radar tracking, faked radio communications signals, and fake moon rocks.

The first sentence seems to be the only pertinent one -- the Russians were 12 years ahead of America
in experience in outer space. Maybe you weren't around at the time of "Reds under the bed" but
let me assure you that the idea of Russians winning a space race was possible -- especially after
SPUTNIK -- and would have put our nation in shock not to mention our MIC which was raking in the dollars based on protecting us! And thriving on the Cold War.

No -- The Russians would not have to have been "paid off" -- no one would have believed them!

I could go on and fill in the above with a lot more detail, but the main point is this: You seem to act as if the most important thing to convince me of is that a pattern of conspiracy exists and that our government is temperamentally inclined to dirty dealings and conspiratorial, secret action. I'm trying to point out convincing me of that is practically immaterial to whether the moon landings were faked. It's the particular challenges of pulling off that particular deception which matter here.

So faking a moon landing wouldn't have been a "conspiracy" . . . ???

[Silent3]

59. "Again, no one but you has suggested a movie-set Iraq"

That was an analogy, not a suggestion.

I can't seem to get you to focus on any one thing long enough to pin down a discussion of that one thing. You just keep bouncing around all over the map.

I would really suggest that if you want to discuss the Moon Landing you do it separately.

Christ on a pogo stick, that's exactly what I've been trying to do.

I'd go through that last post of yours point by point, but when I see you ask a question like "So faking a moon landing wouldn't have been a 'conspiracy' . . . ???", which does not at all follow from anything I've said, I feel like I'm trying to nail jello to a tree.

[defendandprotect]

60. It needs to be done in a SEPARATE THREAD ...with people ready

to supply information -- that takes some work --

[SidDithers]

41. Perfect illustration of the OP's point...nt

Sid

[chrisa]

50. So, proven conspiracies mean that all conspiracies must be acknowledged?

How about David Icke's conspiracies that Reptilians are taking over the world?

Presidential corruption has been proven to be true time and time again. However, saying that we never landed on the moon, or attacked ourselves on 9/11 is completely ludacrous, as the evidence points to the contrary.

I consider the conspiracies the OP is considering more towards the "flat-earth" end of the spectrum.

[MichaelHarris]

4. I'm not sure which

conspiracy you're talking about but if it's Mr Ed I saw that fucking horse talk!

[Gabi Hayes]

5. every time he talks, his head moves back and to the left.

Willlllburrrr!

[MichaelHarris]

6. back and to the left?

That bastard shot JFK! Wonder how big a trigger guard would have to be for a horse hoof?

[Gabi Hayes]

9. you ever notice the size of his tongue?

[MichaelHarris]

10. are you suggesting

he may have done porn?

[Gabi Hayes]

11. I heard things

[MichaelHarris]

26. I knew about

Francis the talking mule but never Mr Ed

[Gabi Hayes]

31. Mr. Ed was the spotter

Francis was the trigger man

wait a minute; what aBOUT Trigger, anyway?

[MichaelHarris]

36. hahahahaha

Was Trigger a "top" or a bottom?

[DefenseLawyer]

13. Leave Trigger out of this

He and Roy were true blue. Dale too.

[MichaelHarris]

25. hahahahahah

blue as in doing porn?

[blondeatlast]

40. I have it on good authority that he was the REAL Deep Throat.

Think about it...

[TheWraith]

12. Kicked and recommended. nt

[Cerridwen]

15. Er, isn't your OP just one big exclusion of the middle.

I see lots o' binary thinking; you're complaining about either/or, up/down, yes/no, binary thinking then posting using either/or, up/down, yes/no, binary thinking.

This "law of logic" stipulates that with any proposition, it must be either true or false; a "middle" option is "excluded". When there are two propositions, and you can demonstrate that either one or the other must logically be true, then it is possible to argue that the falsehood of one logically entails the truth of the other.

Have you looked up the definition of irony lately?

[Silent3]

20. Where is that binary thinking? Show me an example.

I'm complaining that the typical (note, a shaded word that allows for other possibilites) CT-er response to being challenged is, in various ways, to exhibit any number of false binary choices, such as:

- One either buys the conspirators version of events, or one must totally trust all official stories ever told -- just look up the thread about freepers and the moon landing to see clear examples of this thinking. I'm not myself making up that binary thinking and falsely applying it where there was more subtlety.

- If I can cast this-and-that doubt on the "official story", that somehow boosts my conspiratorial version of events. The idea that each version of a story must succeed on its own merits, and the excluded middle of a different truth which is neither the official story nor a conspiracy, is regularly ignored.

The false trichotomy (Ooh! This one is trinary, not binary!) of "believe my version of events, or else you're a dupe or a shill" is frequently proffered.

[Greyhound]

28. You posted a bullet point list with specific mischaracterizations.

You then used these caricatures to make some point. And you did it badly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man">A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

[Silent3]

33. Show me what I've mischaracterized.

You claim I've mischaracterized, but you offer no proof. I just came out of a thread where exactly those kinds of poor counterarguments were used. Would that they were only caricatures.

I am not ruling out that possibility that a believer in faked moon landings or controlled detonation of the WTC could make better counterarguments than the type I suggest, only characterizing (accurately so) the poor counterarguments I often see. Where is the straw man in that?

[Greyhound]

34. The. Bullet. Point. List.

:dunce:

[Silent3]

35. Yes, now you're repeating that you consider this a mischaracterization...

...but I'm not agreeing, clearly. I'm sorry if your simply saying so isn't enough to convince me.

Let's break this down:

In order for a mischaracterization to occur, there must be some subject with a given character, and a false or inaccurate character being supplied in lieu of the correct character.

What is the subject in your mind? For me, the subject is "typical illogical responses to having one's nutty conspiracy theory challenged". My characterization is, as you put it, "The. Bullet. Point. List". I stand by that as accurate. Not complete and exhaustive, but accurate to the extent required in a wryly stated expression of exasperation.

Do we even agree on what the subject is? If so, what alternate characterization of the defense of nutty conspiracy theories do you offer as more accurate than my own?

[Greyhound]

43. I guess Ron White is right.

Especially when it is willful.

Have a wonderful day.
:hi:

[Silent3]

46. I see you're unwilling or incapable of answering my questions.

It's pretty straight forward what I asked of you: tell me what you think is being characterized, and your alternate more accurate characterization.

If all you can do is snidely wish a wonderful day all that says is you've got nothing to back up your accusations with.

[Greyhound]

47. Unwilling to give you an education in remedial reading comprehension.

Neither am I going to accept your fallacious framing.

Bye.
:hi:

[Silent3]

58. And, of course, you can't be bothered...

...with explaining what makes the framing fallacious. You expect to argue via simple declaration, then act as if it's the problem of the person you're arguing with if they don't accept your declarations as obviously true.

Followed by the childish "Bye", showing the world how your self-believed great mind can no longer be troubled with those who don't meet your high standards.

In other words, from beginning to end of this subthread, you've had zero substance and all posing and posturing.

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. Someone who hates conspiracy theories should make their bullet point list with only one bullet

That's what Arlen Specter would have done. ;)

[Dr Fate]

16. I'm just sick of the government trying to steal all my secrets. n/t

n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

22. Skinner is Frenchie cat's bitch & DU is like Fox news.

Not really! But google/search it for some great fun and laughter.

Teh operatives, they are everywheres on the DU.

[EndersDame]

32. So I am an idiot for thinking that Global Warming is not a conspiracy

Seriously y'all sound like the people who think that Global Warming is a liberal conspiracy or like the bible thumpers who "debunk" evolution with "evidence". Something about this anti science rhetoric just rubs me the wrong way.

We landed on the moon.Get over it. It was not a conspiracy . It was fact . There is oodles of scientific and historical proof to document it. Hell there is enough evidence to debunk the conspiracy theorists claims ,just check the Mythbusters episode countering the wackos claims SCIENTIFICALLY !! (oh wait we can't trust Adam and Jamie because they are just stooges of the evil corporate and political powers that be :eyesroll: )

[Cid_B]

38. That was a great episode...

nt

[defendandprotect]

45. Let me suggest that you certainly have no way to verify what you

are claiming -- same as us. We are taking the word of those in power that this
happened --

It would probably be a good idea to get what many of us think we know -- all unprovable --
out into a thread and discuss it.

There are some here -- if they would jump in, PLEASE -- who have information which I think
most of us would find interesting.

Lots of times discussions begin on a very poor basis of understand --
and I think that what we need most here at DU is information --
and that includes the Moon Landing information.



PS: And unfortunately Global Warming is a conspiracy -- but only in the sense of its
being covered up. More than 15 years ago the NY Times published a little article about
the Saudis asking for "subsidies" when it became clear that Global Warming would force
them to lower or end oil production. We have known since the late 1950's that Global Warming
was developing. Further, there is a 50 year delay in the effects we feel. In other words,
we are currently now only suffering the effects we triggered up to the year 1959.

[Odin2005]

39. It's called Circular Reasoning, AKA, Confirmation bias. Mixed in with B-n-W thinking.

Psychologists and cognitive scientists have a field day with conspiracy nuts showing their cognitive biases.

[SidDithers]

42. K&R. Very good post...nt

Sid

[Posteritatis]

48. It's also appallingly well-represented in this thread, isn't it?

I love how those guys react to being called out on their abandonment of logic by, er, further demonstrating it.

[chrisa]

49. Thinking that everybody else is a moron or "Sheep", and...

A select few of like-minded people to you are the only ones who aren't either mindless drones or in on it is a classic attribute of extremism.

Look at what the right wing militias talk like, or the loonies who think we didn't land on the moon, or the people who think 9/11 was an inside job. It's all the same.

[IDemo]

53. Who or what is a "naive pasty"? n/t

[Silent3]

57. Damn that limited post editing time window! n/t