Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evil Chris
Were the people at Snopes part of the American space program? Do they work at NASA?
What are their sources to prove or disprove stories and theories? Or do you just believe everything you read on snopes.com? They're the authority?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ronaldo
Show me one that's inaccurate.
I don't expect you'll be able to though, so you'll just continue to post denigrating comments to make your point look somewhat valid. It won't work, but good luck with it.
|
I didn't think you could find one.
However, to play your little game, have you ever USED snopes? Generally, not always, but generally, they do provide you with both reasoning and references, meaning, unlike messageboard experts, they've actually done some research on the subject. Can you believe that? For example...
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp
"The folks at Moontruth did come clean about the "out takes" being nothing more than an elaborate practical joke. You can view their explanation of how they made the clips at "The Full Story" section of their web site. "
That's not to mention the references to NASA specifically addressing the TV show everyone refers to as the authority on the subject. Why is it always the ACTUAL authority (NASA in this case) always has a motive and yet the accusers never have one? Like publicity. I dunno.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with conspiracies as I see them is people like you hear one thing, don't research it any farther, and assume it's so.
There's a scene in the movie "The Negotiator" that describes me and my approach to these types of things....
"In the Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey movie The Negotiator, the ambiguity of the ending is used as a plot point. Spacey's character, Chris Sabian, asks Samuel L. Jackson's character, Danny Roman, why (in a conversation the two were having about Sabian's interests) Danny chose a movie in which the hero dies at the end. The two proceed to have an argument about what happens to Shane: Sabian arguing that Shane dies, citing Shane slumping, while Roman argues that that is only an assumption." from
http://www.answers.com/topic/shane-film-1
SLJ's character assumes that Shane is dead. Spacey's does not. Spacey then goes on to explain that he gathers AS MUCH information as he can on a given subject from BOTH sides of the argument, deciphers it, then decides what to believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I follow this same philosophy and here are the rational conclusions I have come to based on the information I've read on these subjects...
-JFK-There was most definitely a second gunman. The government themself admit that scenario is the most probable.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscareport.htm
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. "
-9-11-No, the government didn't plan nor orchestrate the attacks upon themself. Did they know more than they've admitted? I believe most definitely. But that alone doesn't make them the perpetrators. (Too much reference material to link to, but use google and you'll surely find some arguments on BOTH sides of the issue. C'mon Chris, I know you can do it).
-Moon Landing-Man did set foot on the moon.
Here's a good starting page to research the moon landing (referenced by snopes btw, that I just happened to have bookmarked already)
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/20...oonlanding.asp but I'm sure the scientists siding with NASA are either on the payroll or have their own agenda.
Oh, the show everyone watched about the moon landing being fake? It DID raise a couple of points that made me think. Of course, "I" went off and did some further research to establish my position, as opposed to someone just up and saying, "The photos look fake", without looking into it any further.
Those are the only ones that I can think of that have interested me enough to do some actual research on, but I am quite the authority on the Titanic too if you have any questions you'd like answered about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of final thoughts. Conspiracy theorists take ANY inconsistency and immediately turn it into a conspiracy. God forbid someone in authority can't answer a question because that only fuels speculation and emboldens the nutjobs. However, I for one would MUCH prefer that the authority NOT be able to roll out an answer to every little thing. If they can, then I would be far more suspecting that they'd prepared for any and all inconsistencies that may arise.
For example, WHO sounds MORE guilty?
Police Officer-Can you tell me where you were Tuesday night Oct 2.
Suspect one-Uh, that was three months ago. I assume I worked during the day and if it wasn't a holiday I either went home to look after the kids, or I may have gone out for a beer with the boys after work. Sometimes we do that on Tuesday. I can't recall that day specifically though.
Suspect two-I left work at 5pm. I arrived home at 5:30. I read the paper until 6:00. After dinner the bitch brought me a couple of beers and I watched the news until 7 and American Idol until 8:00. I asked the wife for a blowjob. She refused. I jacked it till 8:15 to a Maxim magazine with Pamela Anderson in it. I was tired so I went to bed for the night and woke up at 6:15.
I guarantee the cop is gonna look more closely at the guy with all the answers.