|
Post by drewid on Jul 9, 2011 14:42:00 GMT -4
Imagine... ten years and still no solid evidence.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 9, 2011 14:52:22 GMT -4
Calling the output of truth organisation 'gutter trash' is not name calling. Yes, slightly ad hominen I'd agree, but given the material, it's probably the response you are going to invoke from people. Now regarding the rest of your post. I have looked at 911 material before, so your presumption that I (and others) 'have neither the ability nor the inclination for honest analytical thought' is a bare assertion fallacy. I have looked at it, and looked at it with honesty and openness. I don't believe it. If you don't like my view after looking at the material, then that is kind of tough on you. Given your habit of comparing members here with 'kindergartners', it comes as no surprise that you have experienced hostility and never been able to have a point-to-point debate. Given your own hostility to those that have a different view to you, I doubt that you are able to have a point-to-point debate either. You seem very angry, and very emotional; and while you may feel outraged for whatever reason, you need to take a deep breath and calm down. If you want objectivity, then you need to reciprocate objectivity. So far, I've seen some spamming and plenty of abuse from you.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 9, 2011 15:16:23 GMT -4
"I'm certainly not going to put in the time and effort to start at square one by reading the gutter trash bla bla"Always the same. Name calling and cursing and pathetic attempts at ad hominem attacks. Like I said, I had a pretty good idea of what I stumbled into when I noticed all the "Liars" (as opposed to us "Truthers", eh?) going on to each other with their kindergarten babble. That's why I said I'm not willing to be bothered starting at square one with people with neither the ability nor the inclination for honest analytical thought. I know what I'm dealing with. I've had a lot of experience with this. There is not a one of them who can defend the official 911 cover story in honest polite point by point debate. I have never encountered even one. And since you brought it up too, that would go for their mock president and his blatantly forged birth certificates and no known history (and his disbarred lawyer wife, too) as well. OK, carry on, Liars. Sorry to interrupt your kindergarten play time. In case there are any intelligent and honest people looking in, here are some 911 truth groups: One of the things I find amazing, the the venom and hypocracy when people get thier tar brushes out for people who see things for what they are with this topic. It is usually directed at people who see the terroist attack yet they accuse the attack believers and accuse them when the accusers are not seeing that they are indeed that which they seem to hate. Believe what you want to.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 9, 2011 15:25:10 GMT -4
Imagine... ten years and still no solid evidence. Imagine how the Apollo crowd feels, they've been at it for over 30 years now, and still no evidence. I really do wish Kaysing and Rene had been alive when the LRO returned the goods. I'm sure they would have cried photoshop and put on a brave face, but deep inside I'm sure they would have had that sinking feeling. I'd have liked to see the evidence taken to them with ambush interviews and 'what do you think of this?' Seeing their reactions on tape might have been the biggest nail in the coffin. Still, they've got the young antipodean to pull around the dead weight of their legacy. His jumped up declaration of Grandson must be coming back to haunt him. What must it be like, dragging around the bloated, rotten carcass that his idealogical grandfather and father left him. Pathetically trying to breath life into it while his informative years pass him by; and all the time, the weight of the LRO stomps down on its putrid flesh.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 9, 2011 16:16:37 GMT -4
No, I'm not going to put the time and effort here to start at square one all over again, here with individuals who likely have the predisposition to chant slogans and call names and make themselves annoying, but correct me if I'm wrong, Very well. You're wrong. This is your first post: You clowns better stick to the Apollo missions because you sound like totally mindless blithering idiots when you're trying to do your politically corrected kindergarten mocking - parroting what the talking heads on your tv set taught you to chant in lieu of actual sentient thought - of what you call "truthers" and "birthers" and "conspiracy theories".
Do you even know what the word "conspiracy" means? Read it slowly and carefully. When you have finished reading, read it again, remembering that it is your first post. This is your gambit. What kind of reaction did you expect to that kind of insulting behavior to people, you have never talked to before? So before you accuse anybody, please take a look at yourself.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 9, 2011 18:38:25 GMT -4
My specialty, however, is exposing the 911 false flag operation hoax. Of course I am also interested in the crazy scam they are running with that Kenyan or whatever the hell it is that they've installed in the White House following their mock election Sorry, but you just immediately lost whatever credibility you had with me. I see that the legal definition of 'conspiracy' is highly complex and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even from crime to crime. My capsule definition was sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But if I ever have any questions about its exact meaning, I'll consult a qualified attorney, thank you very much, rather than a (term removed for reasons of politeness) who still, at this late date, suffers from the delusion that the current president of the US is not the legitimate holder of that office. I would have liked for this to be true of the previous office-holder, but I am compelled to follow facts, not things I would merely wish to be true.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 9, 2011 18:53:11 GMT -4
They massage the unemployment figures, they change the rules for counting crime statistics, they make illegal expenses claims, they protect their backsides by lying during TV invterviews, they sidestep and dodge questions. It does not mean that Apollo was a fraud and 9/11 was an inside job. Nor does it mean they can waive the laws of physics at will. This seems to be a common thread among many conspiracy theorists, not just the Apollo hoaxers. The usual bottom line is that we should believe the conspiracy theorists' version of events without analysis or criticism simply because they want us to -- exactly what they accuse the government of doing.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 9, 2011 21:07:09 GMT -4
You clowns better stick to the Apollo missions because you sound like totally mindless blithering idiots when you're trying to do your politically corrected kindergarten mocking - parroting what the talking heads on your tv set taught you to chant in lieu of actual sentient thought - of what you call "truthers" and "birthers" and "conspiracy theories". Do you even know what the word "conspiracy" means? A whole string of insults... and off topic to boot. You're banned. I don't have time to babysit you.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 9, 2011 21:11:27 GMT -4
Welcome to the board Ong. But haven't you been here before? The name is familiar to me, for sure, but all of the rude conspiracy theorists I've encountered over the years are starting to blend together. I'm sure he's been here before but since his profile say's he has only made 7 posts he must have deleted his account and created a new one.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 9, 2011 22:35:08 GMT -4
Welcome to the board Ong. But haven't you been here before? The name is familiar to me, for sure, but all of the rude conspiracy theorists I've encountered over the years are starting to blend together. I'm sure he's been here before but since his profile say's he has only made 7 posts he must have deleted his account and created a new one. Seemed familiar to me as well. But then I looked at every page of the banned users thread and couldn't find his name. I'm sure he's been here and apparently at BAUT as well.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 9, 2011 23:23:27 GMT -4
Conspiracies always fall apart. History teaches us this. If you really look into things like Iran-Contra and Watergate, you realize that conspiracies fall apart quite quickly. And those were truly tiny conspiracies compared to the alleged Apollo conspiracy. The more who are involved, the greater the chance of a participant spilling the beans by accident, conscience or greed. To mitigate against these latter two, the conspirators must sincerely believe that their actions are the lesser evil and they act in the public's interest by lying to them. It's really hard to think of very many examples, especially where it is necessary to keep things secret for many decades. The Space Race was a competition with the Soviet Union, a country that ceased to exist over 20 years ago; how could anyone involved in a hypothetical Apollo hoax still honestly believe that the conditions that allegedly made it necessary still exist? It would only take one participant with knowledge of the details to decide that secrecy is no longer warranted, perhaps someone who knows he's dying and therefore has little to fear. That leaves an alleged Apollo conspiracy driven solely by the greed of the participants. But again, many of the alleged participants are long dead. So who are the rest still protecting? No matter how you look at it, an Apollo conspiracy just doesn't make any sense. And that's speaking just from the standpoint of human nature, ignoring the vast mountain of public documentation showing not only each step of the missions but how each element in the Apollo system worked.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 10, 2011 1:54:58 GMT -4
The usual bottom line is that we should believe the conspiracy theorists' version of events without analysis or criticism simply because they want us to -- exactly what they accuse the government of doing. Black sheeple are still sheeple.
|
|
|
Post by comarre on Jul 10, 2011 7:40:23 GMT -4
It's really hard to think of very many examples, especially where it is necessary to keep things secret for many decades. The Space Race was a competition with the Soviet Union, a country that ceased to exist over 20 years ago; how could anyone involved in a hypothetical Apollo hoax still honestly believe that the conditions that allegedly made it necessary still exist? . While I agree with the rest of your post, this point is debatable. The US wasn't just in some sort of delimited battle with the USSR, which of course no longer exists, but in a battle of "hearts and minds" for countries and individuals in the world wondering whether to side with the US or the USSR. It could be argued that even if the USSR no longer exists the disclosure of a hypothetical Apollo hoax would expose the manipulation of those countries by the US in the 60s. If Apollo really had been hoaxed, it could still be far too early to disclose the fact. Of course, this can't explain why no disclosure has come from individuals...
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 10, 2011 17:53:30 GMT -4
They have claims about who did it, mostly based on motive, but they don't have anything like an explanation of how it could have been done that fits with, you know, physics. Yes, that small problem that gets in the way of Apollo and 9/11 conspiracies. Physics. I do believe the Bush administration lied to me--because they did--but it does not then follow that 9/11 was an inside job. Exactly. An argument that I often hear from Apollo CTers is 'yes, but governments do lie. Do you always believe your government?' I actually saw that argued on another board - "If you believe that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy, you must not believe that conspiracies exist, or are even possible." The poster was not able to explain the exact connection for that, but I think there's a truth there. Conspiracy theorists believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory, the moon hoax, etc., because they believe in conspiracies. Anything unusual is to be presumed a conspiracy unless proven otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2011 18:40:26 GMT -4
Welcome to the board Ong. But haven't you been here before? The name is familiar to me, for sure, but all of the rude conspiracy theorists I've encountered over the years are starting to blend together. I'm sure he's been here before but since his profile say's he has only made 7 posts he must have deleted his account and created a new one. I did a little Googling and came across this post.A user using the name Ong was with us in back in 2005 or 2004, before some information was lost, including his posts. From the other posts I've read, it seems he started as a HBer at BABB who was converted, then morphed into a truhter. A that point he became bitter and rude and was banned from there. He came here and met the same fate. From the behavior, it seems likely to have been the same guy. Some people just don't know when to give it up. The Google search
|
|