ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: Everett on October 17, 2013, 08:04:47 PM
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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?
-
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.
-
It would probably by easier for Allancw to list the events that he believers weren't lies. ;)
-
It is interesting where history is shown to be correct or shown that the information is incorrect. Richard III got a bit of a character assassination after the Stanleys stabbed him in the back. Yet there are many clues and evidence as to the propaganda being made up. There was a good reason to slate him as well, if you were a new ruler and wanted the old swept out. So history does not seem to change without anyone noticing especially in the long run.
It would be interesting to see what "facts" are being alluded to here.
-
Have you read The Daughter of Time? Lots of interesting stuff about the spin of history in that, not to mention a pretty clear argument that Henry VII, not Richard III, ordered the deaths of those two little boys. I'm not an expert (my main focus of knowledge when it comes to English history is Henry VII's next couple of generations of descendants), but it makes sense to me.
The thing I always want to explain to conspiracy theorists is that I do believe in conspiracy as a tool of government. However, I don't believe in the kind they argue for. I don't believe in the kind of grand, overarching conspiracy that would take thousands of people to keep secret--if it's possible for it to have been kept secret at all. The example I want to use, however, is something they've never heard of. It's 350 years old and Scottish, you see. (I believe several important letters in the life of Mary Stuart, including the Casket Letters and the one admitting her place in the plot to kill Elizabeth, were forged, or at least had forged additions.) But if I am correct and that was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy among a very small number of people indeed. It was to do one small thing which just happened to have large consequences. And once Mary Stuart was dead or deposed, depending on your plot, it didn't even matter to those people if their conspiracy was revealed, because it had accomplished what it needed to. And even then, people were speculating as the whole thing unfolded, so the only thing still a complete secret is who did it. And why should we necessarily know the person's name anyway?
-
I skimmed it. My takeaway thoughts:
Jesus. H. Christ. That was only part one?
-
The thing I always want to explain to conspiracy theorists is that I do believe in conspiracy as a tool of government. However, I don't believe in the kind they argue for. I don't believe in the kind of grand, overarching conspiracy that would take thousands of people to keep secret--if it's possible for it to have been kept secret at all. The example I want to use, however, is something they've never heard of. It's 350 years old and Scottish, you see. (I believe several important letters in the life of Mary Stuart, including the Casket Letters and the one admitting her place in the plot to kill Elizabeth, were forged, or at least had forged additions.) But if I am correct and that was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy among a very small number of people indeed. It was to do one small thing which just happened to have large consequences. And once Mary Stuart was dead or deposed, depending on your plot, it didn't even matter to those people if their conspiracy was revealed, because it had accomplished what it needed to. And even then, people were speculating as the whole thing unfolded, so the only thing still a complete secret is who did it. And why should we necessarily know the person's name anyway?
My grandad used to have a saying that is quite relevant to this
"Three people can only keep a secret if two of them are dead"
-
Attributed to Ben Franklin, though, so there's your Illuminati connection. Obviously, it's garbage!
-
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
-
Of course, part of the problem there is that one or two of the people involved were total loons. But a bigger issue as far as I can tell is that people like to talk. There are lots of reasons for it, but the reason I don't believe in vast, overarching conspiracies that involve thousands of people is that I've seen how hard it seems to be to keep small, quiet conspiracies that involve perhaps a dozen people.
-
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
Or another PotUS in an act that literally involved two people.
-
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
Or another PotUS in an act that literally involved two people.
Arkansas or Massachusetts?
-
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
Or another PotUS in an act that literally involved two people.
Arkansas or Massachusetts?
I was talking about 'Arkansas' in this case.
-
Have you read The Daughter of Time? Lots of interesting stuff about the spin of history in that, not to mention a pretty clear argument that Henry VII, not Richard III, ordered the deaths of those two little boys. I'm not an expert (my main focus of knowledge when it comes to English history is Henry VII's next couple of generations of descendants), but it makes sense to me.
The thing I always want to explain to conspiracy theorists is that I do believe in conspiracy as a tool of government. However, I don't believe in the kind they argue for. I don't believe in the kind of grand, overarching conspiracy that would take thousands of people to keep secret--if it's possible for it to have been kept secret at all. The example I want to use, however, is something they've never heard of. It's 350 years old and Scottish, you see. (I believe several important letters in the life of Mary Stuart, including the Casket Letters and the one admitting her place in the plot to kill Elizabeth, were forged, or at least had forged additions.) But if I am correct and that was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy among a very small number of people indeed. It was to do one small thing which just happened to have large consequences. And once Mary Stuart was dead or deposed, depending on your plot, it didn't even matter to those people if their conspiracy was revealed, because it had accomplished what it needed to. And even then, people were speculating as the whole thing unfolded, so the only thing still a complete secret is who did it. And why should we necessarily know the person's name anyway?
Not yet, it has just been added to my list...
I have read a few on the princes and Henry and Richard etc (all very amateur and as they take my interest, the Black Prince for example). Interesting story and the bit that got me here was the way they tried to ease him out in later years. Shakespeare did a number on him as well. Yet we do know that this character attack happened. The clues are all there.
-
It is interesting where history is shown to be correct or shown that the information is incorrect. Richard III got a bit of a character assassination after the Stanleys stabbed him in the back. Yet there are many clues and evidence as to the propaganda being made up. There was a good reason to slate him as well, if you were a new ruler and wanted the old swept out. So history does not seem to change without anyone noticing especially in the long run...
Do you mind if I start a new conspiracy thread on the topic of King Richard III?