Author Topic: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'  (Read 16238 times)

Offline Everett

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 47
Somebody provided a link to this page of yours, where you declared that much of the history of the US since ww2 was a lie.
http://www.banditobooks.com/jfk_essay/

Well, I'm ready to have a discussion about it. Just what do you think is wrong with the conventional account?

Note: I'm not going to discuss the JFK theory in this thread. I'm interested in the other stuff.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 07:46:10 AM by LunarOrbit »

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2013, 09:58:13 AM »
I'm sure the evidence will be "we must be lied to about Real Life, because Real Life keeps contradicting my theories, which cannot be wrong."

Offline allancw

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2013, 11:46:57 AM »
I didn't know someone started a new get-allancw thread.

How about YOU do the talking first? You started the thread. How about you tell me where I'm wrong in my essay. Isn't that how it should work?

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2013, 02:25:29 PM »
I didn't know someone started a new get-allancw thread.

How about YOU do the talking first? You started the thread. How about you tell me where I'm wrong in my essay. Isn't that how it should work?
Why don't you pick the strongest single part of your rambling essay and present it here for discussion.  Just be prepared to support what you write with sources and logic instead of calling your interlocutors names. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2013, 02:41:38 PM »
How about you tell me where I'm wrong in my essay. Isn't that how it should work?

I see we can add burden of proof to the list of things you fail to understand.

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2013, 03:07:10 PM »
How about you tell me where I'm wrong in my essay. Isn't that how it should work?

I see we can add burden of proof to the list of things you fail to understand.

Ahem.  See reply #3.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2013, 03:57:31 PM »
Since the original thread has been temporarily locked by the moderator, and since allancw brought up 9/11 which doesn't belong there, and since he presented an interesting claim about a photo of one of the planes on 9/11, I thought I'd answer it here.

The claim is that the plane doesn't show the expected motion blur given the plane's speed of one engine length in a video frame lasting 1/60 sec.

A counterclaim has been made that given the camera's viewing angle the speed would appear to be much less. But this can't be the reason because the engine is foreshortened by an equal amount; the plane would still appear to move one engine length in 1/60 second.

But there's a perfectly good explanation that has nothing to do with deception: the exposure time of the sensor is not equal to the inter-frame time. It varies with sensor gain, scene illumination and lens aperture (f-stop) setting.

This scene was shot in full daylight. Given the remarkable sensitivity of consumer digital video cameras in low light, the exposure time in this scene would have been far less than 1/60 sec, leading to much less motion blur on an individual video frame.

Another factor is camera motion. I have not examined it frame-by-frame, but the camera did move to the right to follow the moving aircraft and this would also have helped reduce any motion blur even if the exposure time had been relatively long.

Oh, by the way, the frame rate in US standard TV is 29.97 Hz, not 60 Hz. That's the field rate; in interlaced TV each frame is divided into two fields, one containing the odd scan lines and the other containing the even scan lines. I do not know whether consumer digital cameras producing files for display on a computer produce interleaved video or not.


Offline grmcdorman

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2013, 04:20:11 PM »
So basically another CT theorist not knowing - and not researching - the basics of the technology he's using as the foundation of his argument. Quelle surprise.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2013, 04:29:05 PM »
No, but like so many conspiracist claims you can often learn something in debunking them. At first I also thought that foreshortening was the cause, then realized it couldn't be. And that set me to thinking about the real reason.

I knew that it probably had to do with exposure time, but while high end digital still cameras use mechanical shutters I wasn't sure how it was done on video and low end consumer still cameras that lack mechanical shutters. So I began to read up on CCD and CMOS imagers and learned a few things I wouldn't have learned if not for allancw's bogus assertion.

So conspiracists are never completely useless. That's why I'm here.


Offline grmcdorman

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2013, 04:32:35 PM »
Indeed. While it seems that many, if not most, CTs are unable or unwilling to learn (and some may be just trolls), the rest of us learn some very interesting things from the responses (or, as in your case, researching why the claim is bogus). It is not a knee-jerk denial that they (and other non-science advocates) characterize as happening at all.

Offline Everett

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 47
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2013, 06:33:25 PM »
Quote
We have been lied to about every major historical event since World War II. I refer to mainstream history/the mainstream media (TV/newspapers/magazines/books/plus 'Hollywood' feature films) as the perpetrators of the lies; 'we' being loosely defined as the United States culture as a whole; zeitgeist as illusion kind of the thing. My choice of this ‘slice of time’ for analysis is not arbitrary. There is evidence (to come) that the aftermath of the World War II led to what in your version of the Very Big is called a ‘phase transition,’ i.e., a fundamental alteration in HTTW.

That's what I want to hear about. I don't want to talk about JFK or 9/11. I've heard that before. I'm interested in what other historical events we've been lied to about. You didn't give any specific events in your essay.

I'm not critiquing your essay - I want to know what else you think was faked. Berlin Airlift? Korean War? Bay of Pigs? U-2 shootdown? Berlin Wall? Great society programs? Watergate? Oil crisis? Collapse of the Soviet Union? Cold War in general?

Have we been lied to about any of these, or any other historical events, and if so, what actually happened?

If you think those happened pretty much as the history books say, and only JFK and 9/11 are secret conspiracies, then I've got nothing to talk about.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2013, 06:49:14 PM »
I guess you could technically say that we have been lied to, since some things about WW2 and subsequent history are still secret, therefore, they could be construed as "lies of omission"

« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 06:53:29 PM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Ranb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2013, 08:37:30 PM »
How about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan?  Were they real allancw? 

Anyone remember the lengths those nuts at Nuke Lies went through to deny the existence of nuclear weapons and nuclear power in general?

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2013, 09:14:15 PM »
I've encountered similar souls on youtube. They never were able to answer the question how  France, which gets about 70% of its electrical power via nuclear energy, would be able to pull off such a hoax. Still, this is a little off topic unless Allan here confirms he thinks nuclear power is a hoax.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 09:32:22 PM by raven »