Evan Burton

Kim Jong Il is dead. Kim Jong Il was assassinated by his son, Kim Jong Un, in a coup supported by the military. Kim Jong Un gained their support by promising increased military action against South Korea and full production of the bomb. Jong Un was unwilling to wait for a transfer of power and, with the help of the military, had his father killed in a coup. With the military controlling the state media, the word has gone out that he died whilst working hard for the people but he was actually poisoned.

No facts for the above, just starting an unfounded theory.

Someone did the research and has proved, without any doubt, that PFT are wrong.

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4145817

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4145941

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213916&view=findpost&p=4146491

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213916&view=findpost&p=4146816

I have a dream that, one day, 9-11 Twoofers will realise their mistakes, slap themselves in the head and say "WTF was I thinking!". Still, seeing as how many people still have crackpot theories regarding the Moon landings, I doubt this dream will ever come true.

PFT - Probably the most discredited 9-11 group. They've been caught out manipulating data to suit their claims, and this latest one is just another example of what clowns they are.

It's a search engine. We get lots of them.

Gus Grissom knew the lander was a lemon and even hung one on his desk. We all know what happened to him.

No, he hung one on the Command Module (not Lunar Module, or "lander") simulator. As he himself said, he was frustrated that the various changes that were occuring in the spacecraft were not being replicated in the simulator; it was still set as an "older version" of the CM. He didn't see much point in training in a simulator that did not replicate the configuration or responses of the actual spacecraft.

Werner von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks, which had been disgorged from the surface of the moon by the impact of small asteroids and were captured by Earth's gravitational attraction, so the astronauts "returning from the moon" could substantiate their visit by producing genuine "moon rocks"!

No, any geologist (or perhaps more rightly selenologist) would be able to tell the difference. The meteorites collected in the Antarctic showed distinctive evidence of having gone through the atmosphere, whereas the Apollo samples were all pristine and still showed the 'zap pits' caused by cosmic rays. Still, don't take my word for it: listen to someone who is trained in the field:

How Do We Know it is a Rock from the Moon?

Jim, before trying to argue authoritatively on a position, you should check your facts so you actually do know what you are talking about and can then champion them with confidence.

For those who want access to some of the best studies

of the evidence related to the moon landings, go to

assassinationscience.com and you will find links to

New Work on Moon Photographs

Russians letting the cat out of the bag

Moon Movie

Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon

Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings?

NASA erased moon footage

Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax"

Wagging the Moondoggie

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could read

"Wagging the Moondoggie" and not figure this out,

which includes David S. Lifton. Study the evidence!

This was all addressed in this thread, and those links were all found wanting. Jim forgets that and trots out the same list again.

If Josiah Thompson still believes there was a conspiracy, I'd request that next time he tell the Times, or any other msm organ that wants to interview him, that this is his belief. After trashing TUM or some other aspect of the case that most CTers find relevant and suspect, maybe he could just close with, "But this doesn't change the simple reality that there WAS a conspiracy."

Well said, Don.

Professor (and all other posters),

By all means explain why you think people are wrong, give examples, point out flaws in their argument... but please, do NOT call them "disinfo" agents, "operatives", etc, unless you have clear proof of such and cleared posting of such 'proof' with Mods prior to posting.

Thank you.

John,

Sorry, no - I don't have a 3D version.

*********************

So what excuses is Hoagland coming up with now, and how many of the faithful accept it and eagerly await his next pearls of wisdom?

I thought this animation of the predicted path would be educational for members.

Posted by Hoagland on September 7, 2011:

Actually, during Elenin's Closest Approach to the sun, September 10/11, NOTHING will be happening with Elenin ....

The real dates to watch are September 23 (when Elenin enters the field of view of the main SOHO camera), and the 26th -- when Elenin comes into DIRECT conjunction with the sun!

After that, September 29th will be the next key date to watch (when Elenin might deliberately FRAGMENT ... into a multiple of smaller "ships"), followed by October 16th -- when (at 19:50 GMT) Elenin will pass closest to the Earth (on its present course ...).

IF Elenin "does" anything on Sunday, September 11, it will ONLY be visible on the STEREO-A and B cameras anyway (I'm uncertain if it will still be visible from the ground, from Australia ...).

So, the 10th-year 911 Anniversary on Sunday is NOT a real distraction--

Unless ....

Something "bad" happens.

Posted by Hoagland on September 8, 2011:

Elenin is NOT a "huge object."

(The "shield is not an "object.")

The "fear porn" around it is ONLY aimed at those of us who even KNOW that Elenin exists ... at the moment.

But--

When Elenin "makes it" to CNN (and it WILL ... soon) -- all this "fear porn" will be patiently waiting ... on the INTERNET!

What do you think you'll find, even now, if you just go -- knowing NOTHING about Elenin -- and Google "Elenin" now ....

ALL THIS CAREFULLY-PLANTED FEAR PORN!!

Including--

Its "earthquake connection" ... to "alignments!"

You obviously have NEVER run a world-wide "fear porn campaign" ....

Worth remembering these misses. It is certainly going to be a great event, but I would treat anything that Mr Hoagland says with a very large grain of salt.

Working for me, Dawn. I can send you a copy via your supplied email, if you like.

Terribly biased and emotive. All those who agree were environmentally conscious, trying to do the right thing, guardian of truth and justice, whilst anyone who disagreed was a shill, a servant, etc.

The environmental impact will be the same as any weapons range, and I'm guessing this one will actually be a little smaller. I think there is going to be some type of weapons firing area, but the main thing is the airspace, so the Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) can operate without fear of a mid-air with a passenger plane or light aircraft, and if something happens to cause the RPA to crash then it won't be coming down on populated areas.

I liked this review of Hoagland.

The truth, it is out there…

by Dwayne A. Day

Monday, December 17, 2007

The classic movie A Christmas Story—currently in heavy rotation on cable—features a subplot involving the hero, Ralphie, who is excited to finally receive his Lil’ Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring. He has been waiting forever to join the exclusive fraternity of people who have access to the secret knowledge broadcast to everybody on the radio. But when he decodes his first message he is stunned to learn that it is a commercial for Ovaltine. He swears and throws it in the trash.

That kind of intense disappointment must greet conspiracy buffs virtually every day. They’re looking for some great secret message, something that gives them access to the hidden world that they know is out there. But what they often get is lame, stupid, boring—a commercial pitch to “buy my book.” Most of them are so thrilled to be part of the club that, unlike Ralphie, they don’t realize that they’re being had.

Now I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch. I think Oswald acted alone, a balloon crashed at Roswell, Nostradamus was a crank, men walked on the Moon, Bill Clinton was not a drug dealer, and Arab terrorists flew a planeload of innocent people into the Pentagon. But still I decided to attend Richard Hoagland’s press conference “NASA Coverups Continue” on October 29 where he announced his amazing new evidence of a NASA conspiracy to cover up the existence of giant extraterrestrial structures on the Moon.

If Hoagland’s name sounds vaguely familiar that’s probably because during the 1980s he wrote several books and lectured about the so-called “Face on Mars.” Wisely, he switched topics shortly before better cameras arrived in Mars orbit. He has been banking off of the fact that during the Apollo program he was one of several “science advisors” to Walter Cronkite, where he was known as “Moonbeam” by the staff. He even has an ID card to prove it, with the typical thick head of hair one would expect for a journalist in the early 1970s. For people like Hoagland, having credentials is important, even if their credentials are not that impressive.

The reason I went is simple: The Weekly World News folded. I used to have a subscription (honest) and I loved reading about the adventures of Batboy, the alien P’Lod, and Bigfoot (Actual headline:“Bigfoot Rescues Baby From Burning Camper—‘He stinks, but he’s my hero,’ says mom.”).

I thought the press conference might be amusing. It wasn’t. It was long and tedious and filled with the kind of tortured logic that turns out to be rather common for conspiracy theorists who take disparate pieces of data and insist that they’re connected and that they make more sense than, well, more logical explanations. It shared many traits with other conspiracy theories, whose proponents claim that the holes they have identified in existing explanations prove that vast, mysterious, malevolent forces are at work, but who fail to realize that their own elaborate theories are as structurally sound as Swiss cheese.

Worst of all, it was lame. Really lame. I went hoping for pictures of Bigfoot, and instead what I got was 95 minutes of dull exposition and grainy photographs. Plus, they didn’t provide snacks.

I needed snacks.

The event was held in the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Of course, the reason that people like Hoagland pick the Press Club of the nation’s capital is because it sounds more prestigious than, say, the Algonquin Room of the Des Moines Hilton. But it proves (as if proof was necessary) that anybody can rent a room there as long as they have a credit card. It’s not free speech, it’s commerce.

Hoagland has been talking for quite awhile about giant extraterrestrial structures on the Moon that nobody else is able to see. In early 2006 he spoke about it on “a special edition” of The Space Show, but that was radio, so his visual aids were not very useful. But this story goes much farther back than that: he held a press conference similar to this one at the same spot in March 1996, where, the Washington Post reported, about fifty worldwide media organizations showed up. He has fallen mightily since then, because nobody is paying any attention anymore. As far as I could tell, there was no actual “press” at the press conference. There were about 23 people in the room, including three speakers, myself, and two or three cameramen. There were three cameras there, from (I think) two different film companies—okay, maybe they technically qualify as “press.” One of the cameramen was there on behalf of a Russian media client. The other was apparently there on behalf of a documentary media client that may have been hired by Hoagland’s company. From a brief snippet of conversation that I overheard between them, they apparently thought that the assignment was bullxxxx.

My suspicion was that most of the people there were Hoagland supporters and did not think it was bullxxxx. I base this on the fact that when Hoagland was introduced about a dozen people clapped politely, something that reporters never do. Somebody later told me that Hoagland has a small group of disciples who apparently all live together in some kind of peaceful communal arrangement. Sort of like the Heaven’s Gate cult but older, and hopefully without the jumpsuits, the castration, or the suicide pact. I will say this: their hygiene and grooming are pretty good. Most of the attendees were in their late forties or early fifties, nicely dressed, in business attire. If you saw them on the streets of Washington you would have thought they had just walked out of a lobbyists’ convention, and been unable to tell that they are stark raving mad.

In fact, listening to Hoagland talk, you also cannot immediately tell that he’s nuts either. He is actually rather distinguished-looking. He has a full head of white hair and a well-trimmed beard. He wears a nice suit. And he is reasonably erudite. He could easily pass for the chairman of the chamber of commerce of a large East Coast city. It is only after he talks for several minutes that you start to realize that he believes some pretty weird things.

Before he started, an attractive woman in her fifties (Hoagland apparently is followed by a number of attractive women in their fifties, so he’s clearly a middle-aged stud of some sort) announced that she was going to “de-grease” him. Yes, that’s what she actually said, before proceeding to apply his makeup. Hey, maybe he’s a robot! I thought, before settling down again. Alas, he doesn’t appear to be a robot. A robot would be more entertaining.

Hoagland was introduced by Cheryll Jones, a fetching former CNN reporter (also apparently in her fifties) who has been doing the UFO and paranormal speaking circuit for awhile now, like Hoagland using her “former newswoman” credentials to establish credibility (keeping in mind that this is CNN we’re talking about). Jones informed the audience that she has a degree in meteorology, although she did not explain why this was relevant, because nobody discussed the weather.

Hoagland opened his talk with the NASA meatball logo and some great rhetoric: “Behind the meatball is forty years of lies,” he said. Good dramatic soundbite, I’ll admit. But then he segued into a story about how Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber from the 1983 movie The Return of the Jedi was carried aboard the recent space shuttle mission. That mission, Hoagland noted, was launched despite various safety concerns, at precisely 11:38 AM on October 23. Hoagland then noted that Star Wars was created by George Lucas, whose first movie was [pause for dramatic music] THX 1138. THX 1138—11:38 AM Get it?!

Neither did I.

Maybe Cheryll Jones knew what he was talking about. Me, I'm sitting there baffled. They took a light saber on the space shuttle?! A real light saber?! Those things are dangerous! I mean, astronauts like to goof around a lot. What if one of them accidentally turned it on and let go? It would go spinning around, cutting off arms and heads, and maybe slicing a hole in the wall. It could ruin our entire space program! What was NASA thinking?!

Hoagland then continued on with his main point, which is to sell his book, Dark Mission. He talked briefly about the Apollo program and the “virtually unknown” story that President Kennedy had approached the Russians about cooperating on a lunar mission—this story has been virtually unknown since it was first reported in The New York Times back in 1963 and in several books since then (see also “Murdering Apollo: John F. Kennedy and the retreat from the lunar goal (part 2)”, The Space Review, November 6, 2006). He also talked about President Bush’s plans to return humans to the Moon and showed an image of the last man on the Moon, Gene Cernan, scowling. Cernan’s scowl was evidence of something. What? He did not explain. But I understood. I stood up and said “Now I get it! It all makes sense! The light saber! The scowling astronaut! The dwarf in my book club who steals my opinions!”

Okay, I didn’t say that. I sat there and listened, hoping that eventually Hoagland would roll out the big revelations and amuse me. Instead, he introduced Ken Johnston, a former employee of a contractor at the Johnson Space Center who saved a collection of duplicate Apollo film from destruction back in the 1970s (and is therefore a hero in Hoagland’s opinion).

Johnston spent most of his time trying to prove that he had actually once worked at Johnson Space Center by showing various letters and memos written by his bosses to him. These are monumentally uninteresting and include things like Neil Armstrong’s signature on a piece of paper that Johnston submitted with his own astronaut application (surprise, he wasn’t accepted into the astronaut corps… maybe answering the application form question “Why I want to be an astronaut” with “to see space aliens” was not the best strategy). Johnston also talked about how he was recently “pressured to resign” from a voluntary program where he used to talk to schoolkids about how neat space is. (Hoagland’s website claims that he was “fired,” but Johnston was a volunteer and therefore “fired” seems a bit strong.) Then he related the story about how NASA had a bunch of spare copies of Apollo film that they no longer needed and they threw most of them out, but Johnston saved a set for himself, which he later donated to a university. Hoagland said that this act preserved a rare set of “early generation” film, meaning that they were not copies of copies of copies of copies, but perhaps only a copy of a copy of a copy. Anyway, it’s supposedly more pristine than anything else available to the general public. Except that other equally good copies exist, so the importance of Johnston’s act of dumpster diving seems a little overblown.

Allow me an aside for a moment: Johnston’s verbal explanation of what happened with the film is far less dramatic than a written version—or Hoagland’s interpretation—makes it out to be. By Johnston’s account, the “destroyed Apollo film” was surplus, and what he saved was a surplus copy. He was not claiming a coverup with the destruction of the original film, although Hoagland later mentioned how the high quality videotape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk was “mysteriously lost” by NASA. Some conspiracy theorists allege that this was done to cover up the fact that astronauts never walked on the Moon. Hoagland disagrees—they did walk on the Moon, he says; the coverup was of what they saw there.

Hoagland’s conspiracy theory goes something like this: in 1959 a report by the Brookings Institution warned that encountering extraterrestrial intelligence could lead to the “collapse of our civilization.” (Hoagland never explained why anybody in the government would have believed such a ridiculous statement, or, more importantly, how this would actually happen. Psychic shock leading to massive riots? People losing the will to live? Considering that a lot of people on this planet already believe a lot of crazy things and don’t riot over them, I fail to see how this would change anything.) John F. Kennedy then told NASA to send a man to the Moon, supposedly to beat the Russians. Then—proving that beating the Russians was not the real motive—Kennedy decided to “give Apollo to the Russians.” After initially rejecting this offer, Nikita Khrushchev accepted it in early November 1963, as recounted by his rocket engineer son, Sergei Khrushchev, in his memoirs. Two weeks later, Kennedy was assassinated (apparently with NASA involvement). The Beatles then took America by storm. NASA sent astronauts to the Moon, where agency leaders expected to find evidence of giant alien structures that rise several miles above the surface. In fact, the visors of the astronauts’ spacesuits were gold-coated to enable them to see better in the ultraviolet where they could see these structures, which are made out of glass. The astronauts then returned to Earth and their memories were altered or erased, just like that movie Men in Black, with the little blinky devices. Any photographic evidence of these structures was also eliminated. NASA has not launched any more missions to the Moon since then in order to not produce any more evidence, because obviously this would lead to the collapse of our civilization. It all makes perfect sense.

Sadly, I am not making this up.

(Okay, the Beatles thing I made up. They don’t have anything to do with this conspiracy. Except for Yoko, who’s clearly not from this planet.)

Hoagland has some traits of a good salesman and some traits of a lousy salesman. He is good at public speaking, by which I mean stringing words together in coherent, if nutty, sentences without awkward pauses or verbal crutches like saying “um” or “basically” or “you know?” every other pause. But his biggest problem is that he doesn’t realize that the best salesmen get up, make their pitch fast, shut up and get off the stage so they can start collecting their money from the marks. He stretches every little bit of his story out, throwing in things that he obviously think bolster his point but in reality simply dilute it.

So finally, after about an hour of boring exposition (this is what newspaper editors call “burying the lead”), Hoagland got to the point. Hoagland’s “evidence” consists of an Apollo 14 image that he took from Johnston’s collection which he scanned and then turned up the contrast dramatically to reveal “stunning, astonishing, amazing” data.

Let me pause for a moment here to note something about Hoagland. Like any salesman he uses adjectives to ratchet up the salesmanship—he hasn’t simply made a discovery, he’s made a “stupendous discovery that will shatter paradigms and rock the very foundations of our world.” That’s what any magic elixir salesman does—talk about the amazing, astonishing, unprecedented medicinal benefits of the castor oil that he is selling. But the problem with Hoagland is that he lays it on really thick—really really thick—and then totally fails to deliver anything. He doesn’t present evidence that looks like anything at all. No flying disks or blurry images of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster. Not even artist drawings of sexy alien females in form-fitting jumpsuits seeking to teach earthlings about love. He doesn’t even have anything remotely as interesting as the old Mars Face. As they say in the biz, this is all tease and no tickle.

So here he was, prepping his audience for the incredible evidence he had. He then put on the screen a ghostly blue image that shows the previously black space above the astronaut’s head, which now contains… blue fuzz. That’s it. There are some thin lines there that he claims are the latticework of a giant structure made out of glass rising miles into the sky and battered by micrometeorites over the millennia. But all I saw were fuzzy scratches. He showed another image, taken from another location, and claimed that there is a light patch in the same area of the sky. But this just looked… like a light patch. In fact, it’s so amazingly unspectacular that any normal person would suspect natural causes. Light leaking into the camera, scratches on the film, or tension stresses from pulling the film tight on a spool, or perhaps imperfect processing of the original negatives. Or maybe even a smudge on the camera lens. Equally likely seems some kind of problem with Hoagland’s scanner. Seriously, it doesn’t look like anything, let alone a giant building, miles high, built by extraterrestrials.

He showed more photographs, all with tiny smudges or squiggles in them. Each of these he claimed was the top of an alien glass tower jutting miles above the lunar surface. (Hoagland has concluded that because we cannot see them, they must be made of glass. A simpler explanation is that because we cannot see them, they’re not there at all.) As an amateur photographer, to me these all looked like lint or dust in front of, or on, the lens or the film, magnified a hundred times. (I’ve had similar problems photographing my dog.) In a weightless environment everything floats, including all the crap inside a spaceship. That seems a likely explanation for these tiny amorphous blobs in highly magnified photographs. There’s an old saying that when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras—and certainly not unicorns or centaurs. Hoagland sees dust specks and thinks ancient giant extraterrestrial ruins.

But, let’s be clear on this: these photographs have been in the public domain for several decades now and nobody other than Hoagland has seen anything in them. Why is he the only guy who can see giant extraterrestrial structures? Is he the only sane person and everybody else is nuts? Or maybe there’s a more logical explanation?

After finishing his talk, Hoagland took questions, and they went like this:

Reporter 1: I have a question.

Hoagland: Yes?

Reporter 1: This is a joke, right? I mean, really… come on…

really

? Is that all you’ve got?

Hoagland: I assure you that I am totally serious…

Reporter 1: No,

really

? Come on!

Reporter 2: This is pretty boring stuff. Have you perhaps considered inventing something more interesting that will sell more books? Maybe something with flying saucers and hot alien babes?

Hoagland (becoming irate): Are you calling me a xxxx?

Reporter 2: No. Not a xxxx. I mean, if you were

lying

, you’d have come up with a better story, right? Something more entertaining. This is just not very clever. Not very imaginative. The

X-Files

was

waaaay

better…

Reporter 3 (from

The National Enquirer

): If this is true, and NASA is behind a Massive Government Conspiracy™ to hide this and prevent the collapse of civilization, shouldn’t they be given medals or something? Isn’t

the collapse of civilization

a bad thing?

Hoagland: Civilization includes Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and O.J. Simpson, so maybe it’s not worth saving.

Reporter 3: I fail to see your point.

Reporter 4: If you’ve uncovered this Massive Government Conspiracy™ don’t you fear for your life? Are you being followed? Is that guy sitting in the back of the room in the National Reconnaissance Office windbreaker here to liquidate you?

Hoagland: Well, I certainly hope not.

Me: Hey, I’m not here to liquidate anybody. I was hoping to meet Batboy. You’re not even as interesting as Lyndon Larouche.

Reporter 5: Zzzzzzz…

Reporter 6: The Soviet Union put spacecraft in lunar orbit. The Swedes did it last year. There is a Japanese spacecraft orbiting the Moon right now and a Chinese one arrives there next week. And the Indians are planning on launching one next year. Plus, people look at the Moon with telescopes

all the time

. How come nobody else has spotted these giant extraterrestrial structures?

Hoagland: …

Reporter 7: Can you comment on the President’s most recent statement concerning Iraq?

Hoagland: Er… that press conference is in the room next door…

Reporter 1: Just a follow-up. …Really? I mean,

REALLY

?!!

Okay, I’m making that all up in order to make this seem more interesting than it actually was. There were no reporters that I could see, and I walked out before Hoagland ever got to answering questions. I went into the beautiful Washington weather (thanks Cheryll Jones!) and took a walk. I hadn’t ingested any caffeine that morning and the whole story was just so boring that I started to lose interest. Well, to be honest, I started to lose interest ten minutes into the press conference (once he failed to answer how George Lucas was in control of the space shuttle launch schedule; I was hoping that Chewbacca would factor into this somehow, but no such luck), but I stuck it out for about 95 minutes on the off-chance that he would say something good. He never mentioned the Free Masons, although they’re in his book. They control NASA or something. The Nazis, too. No, I’m not making that up either. Apparently before every space mission NASA officials hold some secret Free Mason/Nazi meeting where they drink the blood of The Last Remaining Unicorn, toast Henry Kissinger and the Trilateral Commission, sing the theme song to Spongebob Squarepants, and then plan the mission so that the launch time corresponds with some celestial event—like a stupid 1971 George Lucas student film filled with bald people.

I assure you, I’m not making this up.

The THX 1138 thing? I thought that was weird until somebody explained that people like Hoagland think that the Free Masons—or some other shadowy group—decrees that every major political action have some numerical meaning. It’s like that Jim Carrey movie from last summer, The Number 23. Remember that? Okay, nobody remembers that movie. But it’s like that—these people start looking for numbers in everything. The only problem is that the conspiracy theorists flunked math, so they have to use convoluted routes to avoid doing anything more complicated than multiplication.

Hoagland sees things that aren’t really there. But he believes they are, and that’s what’s important, right? Well, no.

Now although I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I am rather fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists, which I think informs the study of history (stay with me on this). Conspiracy theorists have this basic psychological need to explain the world, particularly major events, in terms of grand interconnected—and very complicated—theories. They find it hard to believe that often momentous things happen for banal reasons—in their view a lone nut with a rifle could never have killed a president as powerful/wonderful as John F. Kennedy. So because simple explanations are unacceptable, they search for an explanation for the event that matches the enormity of what happens: important man must be killed for important reasons by important people. Closely tied to this is the fact that a conspiracist, by investigating an event, believes that they have gained access to “secret knowledge” and ultimately they become part of the event themselves. They are important, because they alone Know The Truth. Just like all the members of the Lil’ Orphan Annie Club.

There are, of course, other psychoses at play as well. There actually was a conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It was a conspiracy involving a bunch of Arab radicals. But for many people, this conspiracy does not fit the worldview that they have, so they have sought to invent other conspiracies—the CIA, the Jews, the Mossad, the Bush administration—to explain what happened that terrible day in a way that makes them feel good.

My point is that conspiracy theories are not really intended to explain the world, but to service the conspiracist’s own psychological yearnings.

But how does this theory inform the study of history? For starters, it teaches a lesson about methodology. A historian, like a lawyer, needs to establish a clear chain of evidence to prove a case. And unlike a teacher, they have to close the circle themselves—in other words, they cannot allow the listener/reader/student to take the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions, they have to present them all the evidence in a convincing narrative, acknowledge holes and weaknesses in their interpretation, and only then let them draw conclusions. Hoagland thinks he does that, but he doesn’t. He’s taken tiny little datapoints and claimed that they add up to a big picture. He claims he’s found motive (the collapse of civilization baloney), opportunity (the Apollo program), and evidence (smudges on a few pictures), and connected the dots into a giant story of earth-shattering proportions. He ignores contradictory evidence or even better explanations for what he’s seen (light leaking into the camera; dust on the lens). Of course, that’s because he is nuts. But at least he provides a teachable moment.

My problem, however, is that he’s boring. Where’s the fun in all of this?

Years ago I played a really cool video game called Deus Ex. That game had it all, international terrorists, space aliens, secret underground bunkers, and a vast conspiracy consisting of MJ12, the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and several other famous secret societies all twisted together in some totally incomprehensible plot that culminated at Area 51 (the game was later parodied quite effectively on South Park). I couldn’t understand it, but the game was addictively great. Plus, you could shoot things. Compared to Hoagland, it was a lot of fun… even if it was insane.

I’m gonna go play Deus Ex now. The Knights Templar are going down…

Dwayne Day is a member of the Illuminati and hates Nazis. He hopes to someday meet his hero Batboy. He can be reached at uplink@cox.net.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1022/1

Duane has been placed on moderation.

After being warned here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17749&view=findpost&p=236414

He continued to make personal attacks:

This explains why.

Manipulative and Conning

They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt

A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

So your hateful, predatory behavior online is just an act?

then you're more clueless than I imagined.

Post by Duane made invisible due to attack on member (personal circumstances unrelated to topic, calling member unacceptable name).

Both members given formal warnings that absolutely no unacceptable behaviour will be tolerated, and that the slightest infraction will result in moderation.

Not sure if I can add anything, but that sounds about right. The USSR had at that time numerous nuclear devices, but was only just introducing ICBMs. This was the R-7, which was also used to launch Sputnik and the Vostok spacecraft. It was tested during 1957 and although fairly successful, only started to go into operational use (ICBM) for the USSR during 1960. So if they were saying that they only had four ICBMs at some time during 1960, it sounds about right.

Edited to add: I can dig up various references for that, if desired.

Conspiracy Theories in Aerospace History: A Lesson in Critical Thinking for the Internet Age

Thinking Critically About the Apollo Moon Landings

Friday, October 28, 2011

Almost from the point of the first Apollo missions, a small group of Americans denied that they had taken place at all. They argued that the missions had been faked in Hollywood by the federal government for purposes ranging from embezzlement of the public treasury to complex conspiracy theories involving international intrigue and murderous criminality. Why, they wondered, was the flag flying in the photos from the Moon when there is no wind? They tapped into a rich vein of distrust of government. At the time of the first landings, opinion polls showed that overall less than five percent, among some communities larger percentages, "doubted the Moon voyage had taken place." Fuelled by conspiracy theorists of all stripes, this number has grown over time. In a 2004 poll, while overall numbers remained about the same, among Americans between 18 and 24 years old "27 percent expressed doubts that NASA went to the Moon," according to pollster Mary Lynne Dittmar. Doubt is different from denial, but it was a trend that seemed to be growing over time among those who did not witness the events.

How, and most importantly, why has this questioning of the Moon landings taken place? What does it say about our culture? How might we discern the truth; what critical thinking skills help to understand and assess evidence concerning the Moon landings? Curator Roger Launius discusses the rise of this phenomenon in modern America. Find out why it looks like the flag is blowing in the wind.

A list of resources and optional pre-conference activities will be available two weeks before the conference.

Join the National Air and Space Museum on Friday, October 28, 2011 for a free interactive online conference developed especially for teachers and secondary students.

http://www.smithsoni...spiracy/apollo/

Oh dear!

I thought that a 'first strike' capability would be obvious. Sure, when you were talking about using a nuke then a 'no first strike' policy made good sense, but if we are talking about stopping a rogue nation / group that poses an active threat and preventing them having the ability to launch a strike, then yes, I want that option.

Hi Michael!

Welcome to the Forum.

I don't understand; when I do a Google search (everything, not just news), they are top of the Google list. What's the issue?

Steve.. You do know that conspiracy debunkers outnumber conspiracy believers on this forum, don't you?

"Truthers" has been turned into a dirty word by many of the members here.

I'm sure your poll will confirm that fact, if it hasn't already.

I disagree entirely. The large majority of posters on the Forum believe in a conspiracy: the assassination of John F Kennedy. Many believe in various other conspiracy theories. What you mean is that not all members of the Forum believe in the same conspiracies that you do.

The poll results, so far, simply show that the majority of the people who have responded to the poll disagree with the preposition.

Steven (and others),

Creating a poll is easy. First, start a new thread.

Fill in the thread title details as normal. It's also worth making the initial post a description of what the poll is for, why you think it is important, etc. Then click on Manage Topic Poll.

Next, set the conditions for the poll:

Poll Title: This is the title of the poll rather than the proposition, but it can be both.

Public Poll: This means that members can see the vote tallys. If unchecked, only the poll creator can see the results. Once the first vote has been cast, you can't change it from private to public, or vice versa.

Question: Ask your first question here (e.g. Do you agree that.....). Think carefully about your question and make sure it covers what you want to ask. Underneath, next to the 1, put the first option (e.g. Yes). When ready, click on the button marked "Add Another Choice" (not question!). A next box will appear and you can put in your next poll choice (e.g. No). Repeat until you have all the choices you want to allow people. Think carefully about the choices; people hate only being allowed to say Yes or No when there may be a grey area such as Undecided, or even "I reject the premise of your question!".

If you want to allow people to choose more than one response to the question, make sure the checkbox immediately to the right of the question is ticked.

Once finished, you can click the button marked "Add Another Question" and repeat the steps above, or if finished, post the topic as normal.

You can also delete questions, or close the poll form if desired.

Any questions, please ask!

Steven,

You know you can set up your own polls on the board?

If you need a hand doing so, I can post instructions.