Oswald of course!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Printable View
Oswald of course!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Classic. I had to ask Didn't I :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by strangeirish
BGR.........when The Strange One strikes..........he strikes.........I have suffered too............I feel your pain. LMAO:D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by strangeirish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission
the most interesting thing about kennedy is that the u.s. congress in the late 70s found that a conspiracy was likely and that oswald fired 3 of 4 shots, and that a accessory fired a 4th shot and missed. taking into account marina oswald's verified connection to the KGB (her uncle was a v. high ranking operative) and anti-castro elements angry at JFK for the bungled bay of pigs invasion, it's easy to see where several interests might have converged. in oswald they found their foil.
people interested in pyramid building should check out coral castle in florida u.s.a., a remarkable contruct of huge stones cut and assembled by one man using primitive tools.
Now this is a very good thread.
Maybe the camera just wasn't one that Aldrin had to push a button down on for the flash or whatever. I wouldn't believe those ones at all. Reckon Oswald did fire all the shots but would definately buy into some of the conspiracies there.
+ It all seemed ridiculously easy for Jack Ruby.
The most likeliest of all the famous ones though imo is Diana.
The clincher for me here is that they left stuff behind them which you can still look at through a telescope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
As for the pyramids, there are hundreds of different measurements you can take of them and hundreds of units those measurements can be taken in. Compare all of these to a few hundred physical constants and chances are you'll get a few that match.
I had a look at that website and two of the unexplained photographs are easy enough to explain.
In this one: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Moonlanding1.htm
The claim is that for a far away light source (i.e. the sun) the two shadows of two men of similar height should be the same length but their not. The conclusion is that the light source is much closer i.e. in a studio.
If you look at the shadow on the left you'll notice that it's very stumpy. The shadow has unusually long legs and a stumpy body. This could not be caused by a studio light. It could however be caused by the slope of the ground being uneven. The land is sloping upwards starting at about the waist of the left hand shadow. This is why his upper body is shortened while none of the other shadow is. This sloping can further be seen from the change is shading of the land, the sloping section is brighter as it is facing more towards the sun.
In this picture there is a similar affect. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moonlanding7.htm
The claim is that for a far away light source all shadows should be paralell but they're not in the reflection in the helmet. Again this points to a near source of light. Again it is explained by a curve, this time on the rounded helmet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard
Apparently the only camera's on the moon were mounted on the brest plates of the astronaughts spacesuits and the trigger mechanism was in their gloves
therefore Aldrin would have to have been facing Armstrong to have taken the photo
Crocidiles can't walk backwards, but Alligators can:D .
I'm confused. Why would the Egyptians design a pyramid whose co-ordinates matched a measurement in a measure which was only invented a couple of hundred years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Now your starting to think out of the boxQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
it is pretty strange no?
No, I just think it's a case of people using statistics to prove whatever they want. Sure 75% of people know it can be done, Kent.
Also, the shadows in that picture are converging, not diverging as they would if caused by a close source of light. All in all, a poor attempt a conspiracy theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
It is ironic that earlier in that link the author says that a university chemistry student could spot flaws in NASA's plan when in fact two university engineering students can spot fairly obvious holes in this fellas 'proof'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
My first thoughts exactly, Schumi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
What's a kilometer? Or a second? What's a degree? Or a minute, or a second? Why the heck would the Egyptions predict that we'd make a co-ordinate system with the meridian running through Grenwich? None of that makes any sense if you assume it's a deliberate plan, unless the ancient Egyptians had time travel. If the ancient Egyptians had time travel, I'll eat my hat. I don't have a hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Okay, here's another one. First it was the diameter of the earth, now it's the days in the year. Which is it?Quote:
Taking the Hebrew cubit to be 25.025 inches, the length of each side of the base is 365.2422 cubits, the exact number of days in the solar year (including the extra day for every 4 years).
So what you're saying in these two paragraphs is that 3.14159 = 3.1416? Damn, but these Egyptians were crafty.Quote:
The slope of the sides of the pyramid is of such an angle that they meet at the apex at the predetermined height of 232.52 cubits. If twice the length of a side at the base, be divided by the height of the pyramid we arrive at the figures 3.14159, which when multiplied by the diameter of a circle, gives its circumference.
The perimeter of the base of the pyramid (365.242 x 4 = 14609.68) is exactly equal to the circumference of a circle whose diameter is twice the height of the pyramid (232.52 x 2 x 3.1416 = 14609.68). So here we have in these figures the solution to the problem of how to square a circle
Which is a restatement of both your earlier facts about the slope of the sides and the hight/base ratio, only once again coincidentially matches some random distance in a measurement system that didn't exist for a few thousand years until after the fact.Quote:
The angle of slope of the sides is 10 to 9. That is, for every 10 feet you ascend, you rise in altitude 9 feet. And if you multiply the altitude of the pyramid by 10 raised to the power of 9, you have 91,840,000, which in miles, is the exact distance of the sun from the earth!
Again, statement comes from same geometry as the length of the base, and again, it's in some random imperial measurement compaired to some other random constant.Quote:
The year of the stars is called the 'Sidereal' and the year of the seasons is called the 'Equinoctial'. They differ by about 50 seconds per year. In other words, the stars in their rising and setting are retarded by about 50 seconds each year. In order for the 'Sidereal' and the 'Equinoctial' years to come around and coincide again would take 25,827 years, which is called a 'cycle'. If we add together the diagonals of the pyramids base in inches, we arrive at 25,827, or as many inches as the cycle has years.
Impressive. I really like how they picked the exact location of Grenwich to be 30 arbitrary units of measurement off the arbitrary exact central line of longitude. Fingers in all the pies, these time-travelling Egyptian buggers. No wonder the Yanks are working for them.Quote:
The Great Pyramid stands at the exact centre of the world. It is midway between the west coast of Mexico and the east coast of China. Between the north cape of Norway and the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. It stands at the intersection of the 30th parallel, both latitude and longitude. The Great Pyramid was the highest buildings in the world for thousands of years until modern man began building skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center. If it were compared to a skyscraper, the Great Pyramid would be 42 storeys high. It contains enough stone to build a six foot high wall from New York to Los Angeles.
I give up. I can't compete with bucketloads of random facts without so much as a healthy reserve of cynicism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Jaysus, half of UCD is here to debunk this one!Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Sounds like you should on be on Questions & Answers!
JFK, the Moon landing and the Pyramids were all before my time...but does anyone think there was a conspiracy involved in Wacko Jacko's case?
I mean it's very grey and the chap's obviously going mad during the case.
Well, there is a theory out there as to why Mr Jackson is banned from Dunnes Stores during sales, with boys pants being half off and all.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I heard that one on Conan months ago.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by strangeirish
I have on for you John,Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Think of a number between 1 and 99, it must be even.
Now add 5,
divide by 2 and round down if the number is less that 25, round up otherwise,
now, multiply your answer by zero,
add 7.
Is your final answer 7?
How did I do it?
My God, it's a conspiracy!!!
I used to have great fun with that when I was a kid. No-one ever got it right!
he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
and as for "that" film by oliver stone, the only FACT about it is that its complete rubish...
i dislike intensely film makers who use big budget productions and studios to turn complete fiction stories into "facts" which will inevitably be absorbed as such by that plague of a society we call america- it really is quite baffleing as to how an education system could go so wrong...
btw, im not having a go at the posters on this thread, as long as you are being objective and accurate i dont have a problem. it just annoys me that it appears acceptable in american culture to blatantedly ignore factual evidence on the basis that it does not support your viewpoint, and then to profiteer on your lies. you only have to look at the da-vinci code and the countless books on jfk to know what im talkin about.
what bugs me is that many peoples reputations and lives are ruined by conspiracy theorists, very often for no reason at all.
That very same statement can be used to argue against you - i.e, everything wasn't as it seemed to begin with. By the way, it takes a mighty big brush to tar an entire nation of 280,000,000 people, but it would seem that you have that brush.Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey magic
Which Stone film are you talking about that was Rubbish? There's been a few. Seriously which one? JFK? Because I didn't make any reference to any movie in my assertion the credulity was stretched way beyong breaking point in asking anyone to accept the FBIs balistics reports -which someone else said the Stone movie ignored.
If you accept Warren or anything like Warren you have to accept those balistics and if you accept those you have to accept what's commonly known as "magic bullet" which involves a single bullet going left right up down slowing down and Accelerating.
For anyone utterly unfamiliar with this -you'd have to see a diagram to truly appreciate what a crock o'sh1t people were told to accept as truth.
Diagram Here (Site gives pro's and cons of the single bullet theory)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
read this book a few years ago and its certainly a feasable if unfortunate theory
http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/MortalError.htm
its this book that really got me started on the kennedy thing
If they had time travel, what would they be doing using the imperial system? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by John83
Confusing students - the ultimate goal of all time-travelling civilisations and Pineapple Stu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Another unsolved mystery-dandruff. What's the deal with it? Where does it come from? How do you get rid of it?
Head and Shoulders anti-dandruff shampoo:D :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Reminds me of a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
This blonde one is talking to her friend. The friend said he has a bad dandruff problem but she sorted it out. The blonde says "how?". The friend said "I gave him Head and Shoulders". The blonde says "How do you give shoulders?":D
i was referring to jfk. i presume some people have seen the documentary(apologies but im not able to remember its title) which looked at the kennedy assanitation, specifically in relation to the magic bullet theory, the oliver stone film, and lee harvey oswalds communists links... it completely rubbished the first two, but left some questions unanswered about oswald... i cant remember the details but they factually proved that there was no magic bullet, and was highly crittical regarding stones dramaticisation of the events in his film jfk. nothing i have read on the matter, and ive actually read a few books on jfk, has ever came close to convincing me otherwise, primarily because of what i mentioned last nite- their failure to back up the allegatoions being made with factual evidenct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
dancinpants, while i accept what your saying, i just think that sometimes the simplest and most logical explanation is the best, and that some people have go to great lengths to bend the truth, in this case and others, very often for a book deal. as regards my pet hate of the american psyche, i think youl find my grudge is what appears acceptable in american culture and not with every living american:)
Just on ghosty things etc, my grannys house had an exorcism performed on itQuote:
Originally Posted by hamish
years ago as a few months after my eldest uncle was born, she swore that she
could see hands coming out from the walls and ceiling etc trying to grab him at night :eek:
Got the local priest in and he cast out the demons etc. Dont know if it was a
young priest and an old priest or what the story was!
though i pasted the warren commission link above, i was actually referring to this late 70s congressional investigation which found some evidence of conspiracy in two major american assasinations (nothing to do with stone's movie, never seen it - more don delillo's 'libra' which got me piqued re: kennedy):Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey magic
"The Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations presents the HSCA's findings in the murders of both President John F. Kennedy and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. The HSCA found a "probable conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, but was unable to determine its nature or participants (other than that Oswald was still deemed to have fired all the successful shots). In the King case, the HSCA similarly found that James Earl Ray assassinated Reverend King, but that there might have been a small-scale conspiracy involved.
For many assassination researchers, the HSCA's findings suggested a 'limited hangout' of a deeper and more disturbing reality. The release of the HSCA's internal files in the 1990s has certainly provided fodder for this view, including evidence of HSCA cover-ups in the area of the medical evidence and of Oswald's intelligence connections and his mysterious trip to Mexico City."
american intelligence forecasting company stratfor has said the elephant in the room regarding oswald was his wife marina, and her uncle's KGB background, while delillo's (great) book, though fiction, posits disgruntled ex-cia operatives (over the bungled bay of pigs invasion) as the players in an 'attempted assasination' to be blamed on the cubans.. which would swing american public opinion firmly in favor of a proper invasion of the island.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
You should have got yer man from most haunted to come to your Grans house,he would have had a chat with the ghost and sorted him out.:D :p
I thought the answer was kind of obvious
http://tim.rawle.org/simpsons/songs....rame=1&song=19
aliens built the pyramids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
the tv show stargate is based on true events
FACT!
as homer says you can use facts to prove anything even remotely true :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
i love a conspirecy theory while i think most are rubbish they could very easily be true , its just people trust people in power to tell them the truth which rarely happens .at least people are willing to question things .
one of the newest ones on the news last night was that a plane didnt hit the Pentagon on 9/11 , aparently there is no photos of a plane hitting there are some stills the US gov had to release yesterday under the freedom of info act , and it clearly shows the place blowing up with no plane anywhere insight
it's not exactly the newest "theory" - it's been doing the rounds on the web for years. and THIS is from the fringes of lunacy i'm afraid - i know which security camera footage you're referring to and i agree it doesn't look anything at all like a plane on the right side of the frame before the explosion.. but this discounts literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the plane striking the building, knocked down telephone poles that the plane's wings clipped on the way in, and the clincher: where are all those passengers if there was no flight 77?? i don't buy the missle thing at all. however, there are at least two puzzling things about the pentagon strike:Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
- how did the most securely defended structure on the entire planet suffer such a primitive, straightforward, direct hit? i've read reports that the pentagon is armed with surface to air missles that would automatically track and shoot down anything encroaching its restricted airspace. the same report says that a manual override of this safeguard would've been necessary to allow anything to approach the building. in my mind, if true, that's a far more sinister and chilling scenario..
- where is the security camera footage from the marriot hotel and nearby petrol stations which purportedly show the plane striking the building and why hasn't that footage been released?
..?
Pentagon attacks
Anyones mind changed by this?
I'd imagine not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsBohsBohs
How's Bruce Willis keeping these days?.;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken foree
The Fed's seized them all that day.